iserp

Joined on Dec 10, 2018

Comments

Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

Glorious, xD

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2022 at 17:04 UTC as 151st comment
In reply to:

landscaper1: I'll update when DxO updates its interface to produce readable text on 4K monitors. Since there was no mention of that, it seems very unlikely this set of updates meet that need.

"Yup, but that creates other problems in other programs. Don't have the room for a desktop monitor either."

I am a bit curious, what kind of problems? The upscaling was set at 150% by default in my laptop, and although i have set it to 100% now that I usually have it hooked to an external monitor, I did not find problems with it. 150% is way smaller than the 250% that you should use, so I may have not encountered those problems because of that.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2021 at 11:55 UTC
On article DPReview TV: The best $4000 camera kits (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

panther fan: So for chris a Fuji + 3 pricey lenses, or a Canon FF + 2 cheap FF lenses, or a Nikon FF + 1 expensive lens

Why no go with the obvious "affordable lens mount": E-mount
A7R III at 2300$ + 1700$ worth of lenses gives you a ton of options in E-mount. Heck you could even try to squeeze a full A9 in there

Probably because it is highly subjective matter, and he stated that he wanted to go with a camera he loves (as the idea is that this camera should be his main camera for a long time).

Link | Posted on May 15, 2021 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: This Leica 24-70/2.8 is 2550 EUR into Germany, so one does pay ~1350 EUR extra, on Top of the Sigma ART 24-70/2.8 for the Leica branding.... ;) 3 Days ago, the Sigma L.-Mount Version was 1125 EUR, now back to 1198 EUR.

https://store.leica-camera.com/de/de/detail/index/sArticle/6013

And i'd like to add, their nightshot pictures are from my old hometown, Frankfurt. I know this scenery quite well. ;)

Good Light.

@SonyX, I didn't say the changes had to be for the better, :P

Seriously, I was just listing things from the top of my head that could possibly change between both lenses. If both are manufactured by Sigma, they are most likely identical, except for perhaps a more strict quality control for Leica branded ones, and a different choice of materials for the exterior. OTOH, if Leica assembles the lens there could be more differences.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2021 at 20:42 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: This Leica 24-70/2.8 is 2550 EUR into Germany, so one does pay ~1350 EUR extra, on Top of the Sigma ART 24-70/2.8 for the Leica branding.... ;) 3 Days ago, the Sigma L.-Mount Version was 1125 EUR, now back to 1198 EUR.

https://store.leica-camera.com/de/de/detail/index/sArticle/6013

And i'd like to add, their nightshot pictures are from my old hometown, Frankfurt. I know this scenery quite well. ;)

Good Light.

@jer81 Well, they have to use the same type of glass, or the optical formula wouldn't work.

My guess is that possible changes could be coatings, construction of the lens, quality of materials, weathersealing, AF motor and the logo on the lens.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2021 at 19:45 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM (222 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sc1920: Coma doesn't look good.
https://www.lenstip.com/606.1-Lens_review-Sony_FE_14_mm_f_1.8_GM_Introduction.html

@pollup where do you see that it is a lens chart, and not a led placed virtually at infinity? I can't find that information.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2021 at 13:19 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM (222 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sc1920: Coma doesn't look good.
https://www.lenstip.com/606.1-Lens_review-Sony_FE_14_mm_f_1.8_GM_Introduction.html

Where do you see that lenstip's diode is not at infinity? It would be weird to place it anywhere else.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2021 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

Francis85: Just moved away from Fujifilm.
Will be using the X-T4 for a while for its video capabilities (and as a backup), but it will also most probably be my last Fuji. They are just getting too expensive compared to Full Frame these days.

Francis85 - Do you really have spent such a boatload of money in an absurd amount of cameras barely spaced in time, and your problem is the cost? really?

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2021 at 09:01 UTC

White balance was going wild in the end! Aside from that, not that bad looking K-01 footage.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2021 at 19:44 UTC as 41st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ilza: > “When shooting still frames of Gav pouring water out using the same 1/60s exposure as the motion picture camera, Gav would exhibit some motion blur. Why doesn't this happen with the motion picture camera?”

This is a complete BS (as is what follows)!

Motion blur depends only on the shutter angle. It is going to be exactly the same with a film camera and a digital camera.

Rolling shutter is a slightly different matter: with this camera, the sensor covers about ⅛ of the shutter half-disk. So this camera would has a rolling shutter of 1/200 sec, horizontally moving (@24fps).

Although I already got my point across, i am in the mood for nitpicking: Motion blur depends on subject motion, camera (or sensor) motion and exposure time. However you twisted the meaning of what it was written as to neglect one of the variables and, in your explanation, you forgot to talk about subject motion.

EDIT: specially since the subject talked about was relatively static.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2021 at 17:00 UTC
In reply to:

ilza: > “When shooting still frames of Gav pouring water out using the same 1/60s exposure as the motion picture camera, Gav would exhibit some motion blur. Why doesn't this happen with the motion picture camera?”

This is a complete BS (as is what follows)!

Motion blur depends only on the shutter angle. It is going to be exactly the same with a film camera and a digital camera.

Rolling shutter is a slightly different matter: with this camera, the sensor covers about ⅛ of the shutter half-disk. So this camera would has a rolling shutter of 1/200 sec, horizontally moving (@24fps).

Well, if you did not listen the youtube, then that is the source of your confusion.

The text in the article, as well as the youtube clip where Gav pours water, are talking about blur caused by the "sensor" (in this case the film) moving respect to the image being recorded. That is followed by an explanation on how the film moves inside the camera by Gav in the youtube video. In the text, the explanation appears following the one you quoted.

Just to clarify it further, when it says "When shooting still frames of Gav pouring water out using the same 1/60s exposure as the motion picture camera, Gav would exhibit some motion blur" they are talking about a stills picture taken with a camera in motion falling at the same rate as the film is moving inside the video camera.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2021 at 14:24 UTC
In reply to:

ilza: > “When shooting still frames of Gav pouring water out using the same 1/60s exposure as the motion picture camera, Gav would exhibit some motion blur. Why doesn't this happen with the motion picture camera?”

This is a complete BS (as is what follows)!

Motion blur depends only on the shutter angle. It is going to be exactly the same with a film camera and a digital camera.

Rolling shutter is a slightly different matter: with this camera, the sensor covers about ⅛ of the shutter half-disk. So this camera would has a rolling shutter of 1/200 sec, horizontally moving (@24fps).

You misunderstood, he is referring to the blur that would happen if the film moved at a constant speed. Then he proceeds to explain that film doesnt move at a constant speed, but only moves (one frame) when light is blocked behind the shutter, and the film is stationary when recording the frame.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2021 at 13:35 UTC
In reply to:

ChiTown1200: For video the Log profile works great from the 1" leaving a lot of room for adjustments in post and insta360 even gives you LUT's.
The 360 mod is much harder to get desired results shooting video in Log profiles so I just shoot standard with that.
I run video files through the Insta360 Studio app on my Mac then they go into Final Cut, sometimes using the Studio app to frame and output 1920 files, sometimes using FCP to frame 360 files.

Stabilization on both is excellent and they've proven durable spending a lot of time mounted on a motorbike riding on rough trails.
Battery life is a none issue and similar to other action cams I've had, but I choose my shots and don't just record everything. Also easy to plug into an external battery pack for long shots and time-lapses.
Audio can be hit or miss when there’s wind involved but the ability to pair with AirPods helps in certain situations.

An example video, time lapses and POV made with the OneR’s.

https://vimeo.com/496498008

Nice video!

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2021 at 20:42 UTC
In reply to:

phouphou: Can someone pls explain why this is a wideangle lens, when 35mm film projector lenses are more like 85-200mm?

@the_chris no way. I don't see background compression at all. Look at the first portrait in the article and you will see the man's hips are very small compared to his shoulders, and they should be more or less the same size if the lens worked in the telephoto range.

IMAX projects to a 180º screen, I don't know if a single lens covers all the screen, but you can guess they are going to be wide lenses (with lots of barrel distortion). And going from 70mm to 35mm isnt that much big of a crop.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2021 at 20:23 UTC
In reply to:

iserp: I am surprised it works at all at normal wavelengths

Looking a bit more into it, it looks that this lens was made for X-ray fluoroscopy, that is to say, to record the visible light image that the x-rays make in a fluorescent screen, which could be quite dim. That makes more sense, and less spectacular than "x-ray lens".

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2020 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

iserp: I am surprised it works at all at normal wavelengths

Actually, I have trouble believing this was intended to work with X-Ray wavelengths. Most materials are practically transparent at those wavelengths and X-ray telescopes use reflective mirrors rather than lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2020 at 15:27 UTC

I am surprised it works at all at normal wavelengths

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2020 at 15:16 UTC as 14th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Tons o Glass 0 Class: Watch until (or skip to) the very end.

Hypnotic! I would like a longer clip of the steel wool burning.

I wonder if it did damage the lens...

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2020 at 17:05 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Sony 12-24mm F2.8 review (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lessiter: I hope lens manufacturers never listen to reviews. Why on earth are people seeing sun stars as a pro. It's a massive con than overpowers the image subject and makes the whole image a kitchy cheesefest.

It only makes sense for sun star photographers. ie photographers whose subject is sun stars. I really hope that niche is tiny and that none of them pay this amount of money for a lens.

It's fine for a lensbaby/lomography type thing though but those are special effect lenses.

You are going to have sunstars no matter what. It is the laws of physics (diffraction). So you can have either nice-looking ones or bad-looking ones. I agree that lots of people do not care and will avoid having sunstars in their photos (shooting more open/avoiding the sun in the photo), but it is good that they review it for those who care.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2020 at 14:16 UTC
In reply to:

iserp: Most travel, hiking and nature photography are done with good light, and usually do not require shallow depth of field. It is more important to have a sharp lens with low distortion, good contrast and resistance to flare. Weather resistance is always a good feature to have for hiking and travel.

I own a Nikon 1 kit, and it is great for these purposes. I am aware of its limitations (going to a concert means lots of blurry and grainy photos), but I also realize of its advantages. Very few times do friends of mine with larger cameras take them on a hike.

@PAntunes I agree that early morning and late afternoon are great moments to take photos. However, hiking for the early morning or late afternoon photo means doing part of your hike with little light and wake up early / return late and most people don't do that.

For me, early morning and late afternoon landscape shots are more about driving directly to the place I want to take the photo, and in that case I wouldn't mind carrying a bigger camera. Carrying a big camera for a long hike or a full day visiting a new city, not so much.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2020 at 20:05 UTC
Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »