Henrik Herranen

Lives in Finland Tampere, Finland
Works as a Digital Signal Processing Software Engineer, MSc
Joined on Oct 6, 2005
About me:

Plan: To baldly shoot what everyone has shot before.

Comments

Total: 304, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

quiquae: Make that a camera, a tripod AND a fast prime. I once had window view of aurora borealis on a trans-Pacific flight, but could not get decent results with an handheld EOS 6D and 24-105F4L (the only lens I had with me). Note that having the tripod does not necessarily mean you can do multi-second exposures: when the aircraft is moving at Mach 0.8, the aurora shifts position pretty quickly.

Arkienkeli: the movement of auroras vary greatly. The slowest I've seen look almost stationary, but the fastest I've ever experienced wooshed across the sky every two or three seconds. That's EXTREMELY fast (must be solar wind "waves" hitting the Earth's magnetic field wave after wave). Anything faster than the "almost stationary" kind will almost invariably get mushy when photographed - how much, depends on the shutter speed and the actual speed.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 17:15 UTC
In reply to:

Francis Sawyer: Yes, because Nikon has the basic intelligence to put an intervalometer in its cameras.

Canon, \/\/TF? There is NO excuse for omitting an intervalometer from ANY camera today. It's an essentially free feature to implement.

DP Review spent years hounding Canon for not having a warning light if you happened to open the CF hatch while a file was being written. But it gives them (and everyone else) a free pass on leaving out the intervalometer? Ridiculous.

Francis: You are misrepresenting what DPreview complained about.

What Phil Askey didn't like was that if you opened the CF door while the then-current Canons still were saving images, they'd only save the current image, then turn quickly off to avoid messing up the file system if the stupid user would continue to remove the CF card while files were still being written. What he wanted was that all images would be saved, regardless of data loss risks. Finally Canon gave in.

(Example: Canon EOS 20D review, Conclusions - Cons: "Opening the CF compartment door shuts camera down, loses any buffered images")

The whole thing was a complete non-issue: I've always had CF cards that are able to store around 1000 images, so why would I want to constantly open the CF door? Why would anyone?

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 21:30 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: Awesome. Shame the pilot wouldn't switch off those annoying lights on the wing ;-)

Self-correction mode activated: 2015, not 2005.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 07:30 UTC
In reply to:

quiquae: Make that a camera, a tripod AND a fast prime. I once had window view of aurora borealis on a trans-Pacific flight, but could not get decent results with an handheld EOS 6D and 24-105F4L (the only lens I had with me). Note that having the tripod does not necessarily mean you can do multi-second exposures: when the aircraft is moving at Mach 0.8, the aurora shifts position pretty quickly.

(Self-correction mode activated: 2015, not 2005.)

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 07:28 UTC
In reply to:

quiquae: Make that a camera, a tripod AND a fast prime. I once had window view of aurora borealis on a trans-Pacific flight, but could not get decent results with an handheld EOS 6D and 24-105F4L (the only lens I had with me). Note that having the tripod does not necessarily mean you can do multi-second exposures: when the aircraft is moving at Mach 0.8, the aurora shifts position pretty quickly.

quiquae: I was in a similar situation in 2005, and fortunately I had my Sigma 50/1.4 accompanying my old 5D2. The bright part came only later when we had landed, so the pictures are not stellar, but they are still a happy memory.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 21:00 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: Awesome. Shame the pilot wouldn't switch off those annoying lights on the wing ;-)

When I flew from the UK to Finland in October 2005, there were some Northern Lights, and when I asked for it, the crew actually dimmed the lights inside the cabin! That way my old but trusty Canon 5D2 and Sigma 50/1.4 could do some shooting, with my now-wife dimming the window reflections with her black shirt. Unfortunately the Northern lights were dim enough that the photos don't remind this video at all. Still, Asian travellers were oohing and aahing, seeing the Northern Lights and the aftermath of the sunset at the same time.

The best part came after we landed - the only time I've been able to take Aurora photos hand-held (now using the Samyang 14/2.8). So it took a several hours to drive the 160 km trip home because we had to take the smallest and darkest roads and stop every now and then. Totally worth it, and a fitting end to our holiday trip! :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 20:57 UTC
In reply to:

Lars V: Might not be ideal for a digital sensor. Not a retrofocus design.

Lars: If this lens is not a retrofocus design, why is it called "retro focus", and why is the first line of specifications:
* ULTRA MINI retro focus 17mm f4.5 (ultra-wide 100 degree coverage)

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 05:18 UTC

This is now very close to being the camera that replaces my Canon PowerShot S110. It's still barely pocketable (with my "everyday jacket" definition of "pocketable"), and the one thing holding me at bay when the original G9X was released, RAW shooting speed, has been addressed. Yesh!

(And to all the whiners of either style "Camera X is better and not much larger", or style "if only they had added a viewfinder / tiltable screen / faster lens / more zoom / whatever else size-increasing feature": Buy your larger camera and be happy with it. This is the smallest.)

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 15:42 UTC as 28th comment
On article New 20mm F2 4.5x macro lens released by Mitakon (120 comments in total)

Damien Demolder: the article still says "can focus as close as 20cm", even though the manufacturer's web page http://www.zyoptics.net/ claims:
Minimum working distance: 20mm

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 09:00 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Chris M Williams: In the comparison widget, at 35mm, corner sharpness goes _down_ when you stop down from f/2.8 to f/4, then _further_ _down_ when stopping down to f/5.6, then significantly up at f/8. It makes no sense, neither doesn't it seem to correlate with the Image Comparison Tool in Real World Tests. Are you absolutely sure DxOMark's test methodology is sound?

Yes, we discussed it before, and though I didn't say it at the time, I'll say this now bluntly, as an engineer:
Numerical data that doesn't correlate with the real world is not useful.
If you can see an improvement when stopping down from f/4 to f/5.6, but the numbers say exactly the opposite, then the numbers are obviously not useful.

Don't get me wrong. I am not here to troll. I really like the test format, as well as the widgets themselves. I also understand these tests don't write themselves but take lots of time and effort. And I also understand that it must not be fun to be criticized like this. But... the results should correlate with the real world. If I were you, I'd worry why they don't, where the issue is, and how to correct it. It would make the reviews that much better. Now, as they are, the graphs don't appear very reliable, and this undermines the whole review.

I'll step down now from my soapbox.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 06:22 UTC

Chris M Williams: In the comparison widget, at 35mm, corner sharpness goes _down_ when you stop down from f/2.8 to f/4, then _further_ _down_ when stopping down to f/5.6, then significantly up at f/8. It makes no sense, neither doesn't it seem to correlate with the Image Comparison Tool in Real World Tests. Are you absolutely sure DxOMark's test methodology is sound?

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 05:28 UTC as 16th comment | 5 replies
On article New 20mm F2 4.5x macro lens released by Mitakon (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

Old Cameras: Close focus 20cm? More like 20mm. Or 2mm.

Information directly from the source, Zhong Yi Optics' web page http://www.zyoptics.net/ :
Minimum working distance: 20mm

Makes sense.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 05:06 UTC
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art Lens Review (238 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Chris M Williams, even at the danger of repeating myself:
Can you confirm that sharpness figures are actually correct? To me that sharpness drops to half both in the center and at the corners when you stop _down_ from f/5.6 to f/8 at 12mm makes no sense. If this is actually true, you have tested a broken lens.

No answer in two days? Chris M Williams, is it OK to just assume that the DxOMark results are nothing more than random numbers without any relevence with reality?

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 23:31 UTC
In reply to:

alexzn: Dpreview should be weary of publishing posts based on press releases. As correctly mentioned here there is no energy density data in the article. It's a nice with but not as revolutionary as it sounds.

Evarlast66: I quite agree with you. The claims are over the top, and the technology almost certainly doesn't exist. For the last three decades, good rechargeable battery news never really have been quite true. How I don't wish for some better neergy packing technology than petrol/gas/benzine to exist! Oh well, apart from uranium and plutonium which haven't been too popular in hand-held devices as of late.

All in all, the only thing I was trying to say is that charging a current-capacity battery with new space alien technology wouldn't necessarily be impossible. But, again, I agree with you with the reality of the matter.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 23:29 UTC
In reply to:

alexzn: Dpreview should be weary of publishing posts based on press releases. As correctly mentioned here there is no energy density data in the article. It's a nice with but not as revolutionary as it sounds.

Everlast66 & Summi: charging such a battery would not need to pose a problem to home cabling / fuses. Below is the math:

A full 7 Volt 1300 mAh battery contains about 9 Wh of power. A charger that would work at 1 kW (and thus draw 4.3 amps from 230 V mains) and do the necessary voltage conversions with an efficient DC-DC converter (as they all do), would fill that battery in a little over 30 seconds. Drawing 1 kW for 30 seconds, even if there were several devices from time to time, would be absolutely no problem with the power grid or the house internal power lines.

To scale the 1 kW I used in my charging example:
- A vacuum cleaner draws 2 kW from mains when at full power
- A hairdryer draws 1-1.5 kW
- Each heater element in an electrical stove draws 1-2 kW
- A small electrical sauna (available in almost every Finnish household) draws 6-10 kW
- An electrical heater can easily draw 2 kW
- A (tea) water heater draws 1-2 kW

2 kW would also work, but after that things get more hairy.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2016 at 06:36 UTC
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art Lens Review (238 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Chris M Williams, even at the danger of repeating myself:
Can you confirm that sharpness figures are actually correct? To me that sharpness drops to half both in the center and at the corners when you stop _down_ from f/5.6 to f/8 at 12mm makes no sense. If this is actually true, you have tested a broken lens.

Chris, I am talking about the Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art lens.

But there was a mistake in my question: the resolution drop on the chart doesn't happen at 12mm between f/5.6 and f/8, but between f/8 and f/11, where both central and border resolution drop to around half. So, one stop from f/8 to f/11 makes resolution crumble, but then going down a further two stops from f/11 to f/22 makes no difference. That's not how diffraction works - and the reason why I ask if you are absolutely sure the data is correct.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 13:23 UTC
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art Lens Review (238 comments in total)

Chris M Williams, even at the danger of repeating myself:
Can you confirm that sharpness figures are actually correct? To me that sharpness drops to half both in the center and at the corners when you stop _down_ from f/5.6 to f/8 at 12mm makes no sense. If this is actually true, you have tested a broken lens.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 21:36 UTC as 33rd comment | 5 replies
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art Lens Review (238 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Are you absolutely sure all the sharpness data is correct?

The reason I am asking is because sharpness drops to about half at 12 mm between f/8 and f/11 (e.g. center sharpness from about 3100 to 1700), and doesn't change much at all between f/11 and f/22 (center to about 1500). I have never seen such behaviour and have a hard time believing for that to be so.

noirdesir: You may be correct, but this still doesn't explain the hige drop welll before serious diffraction territory.

Chris M Williams: Are you sure 12mm f/5.6 vs f/8 results are correct? Because they make absolutely no sense. Resolution can _not_ drop to one half by stopping _down_ one stop. Apart from DxOMark-land, at least.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 21:33 UTC
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art Lens Review (238 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nikonandmore: MOST lens reviews are largely inaccurate & a waste. Here is why:

One of the biggest flaws of ALL lenses is NOT its native sharpness, fall-off, CR, etc, BUT INSTEAD the variations between samples! Point:

Earlier this year I went to look for a second hand ultra-wide zoom for my a7RII, the only 2 options being Sigma's own 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG HSM II & the much hyped Canon EF 11-24mm F4L (both Canon mount to use with a Metabones adapter). Noting that SURELY this adapter is not originally meant to be used with these lenses & can largely affect its native performance, I tried 2 samples of the Canon that were great, 1 sample of the Canon that was HORRID, 5 samples of the Sigma that were "OK", and 1 sample of the Sigma that was STELLAR! Critically sharp all across the frame & going against just about ALL reviews out there that say the lens is "average".

Never buy a new lens! Never! Find second-hand ones that you can ACTUALLY TEST & you may find the stellar one for a killer price!

"Noting that SURELY this adapter is not originally meant to be used with these lenses & can largely affect its native performance" [...]

There's your problem. Using an adapter will create its own misalignments which will greatly change the game with wide angle lenses. No point in harping about lenses when your use case is flawed to begin with. You don't look for a perfect lens, but for a lens that happens to have the exact same but opposite misalignments as your adapter.

Some food for thought:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 06:57 UTC
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art Lens Review (238 comments in total)

Are you absolutely sure all the sharpness data is correct?

The reason I am asking is because sharpness drops to about half at 12 mm between f/8 and f/11 (e.g. center sharpness from about 3100 to 1700), and doesn't change much at all between f/11 and f/22 (center to about 1500). I have never seen such behaviour and have a hard time believing for that to be so.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 06:52 UTC as 47th comment | 5 replies
Total: 304, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »