Joined on Sep 25, 2012


Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On photo Wilderness Sunset in the Wilderness challenge (19 comments in total)

phucthang posted a picture in a challenge, and other people voted for it. The author's part in this was posting a photo to a challenge, and this is something which should be encouraged regardless of your opinion of the photo.

How about providing a) compliments or b) *CONSTRUCTIVE* criticism?

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 00:00 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: A macro announcement without any mention of the working distance? That's highly suspicious. My guess would be something between 0 and 2 centimeters at 2X magnification. I'd happy to be wrong, though.

EDIT: Went to the Venus Optics website which claims minimum working distance is 6 cm. Still not much, but better than expected. Fair enough, though I still think working distance is essential to any macro announcement.

@Krich13, that's all good and well, but the focal length of most macros is known to change significantly at close focal lengths, which is why it's important for the manufacturer to state such things.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2015 at 10:24 UTC
On article Samyang launches 135mm f/2.2 lens for stills and video (151 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lassoni: How do these 105 and 135 primes compare to a tamron 70-200 zoom? Is there point to using them beside the wider aperture and the lesser weight? 70-200 sure is versatile for different kinds of photography and offers probably better image quality than the nikon 105 and 135. These portrait teles are good for one thing only are they not?

Only good for one thing? Which thing is that?

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 16:53 UTC
In reply to:

Hinder: If it's that dark that you need this sensor, it's late and I'd rather be in bed. See you in the morning.

You'll see me in the morning. But I'll see you while you sleep. In colour, no less.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 04:52 UTC

I always noticed the red cast, but incorrectly assumed it was because of a tint in the actual filter. Will be getting one of these for sure!

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 02:04 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
On photo polar bears boxing in the -Animals in Combat- (Full Colours Only + Border) challenge (2 comments in total)

Simon says...

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2014 at 01:26 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

falconeyes: DPR could have done a much better job when reporting this.

Let me fill in the missing facts:

1. 0.005 lux is -9 EV (almost exactly). The scene is pitch black dark indeed.

2. However, to judge the sensor, an EV figure w/o aperture and exposure time is meaningless.

3. According to Sony, it is F1.4, 1/60s exposure. -9 EV then requires ISO 6,000,000 to expose correctly. I.e., the image shown is ISO 6m.

4. That's 3.9 stop beyond e.g., the A7s highest iso level of 410k. But the image quality shown by Sony for a tiny 400x300 pixel image is terrible. While the A7s is still ok at 410k.

Therefore, no conclusion that this chip would be more sensitive than other sensors can be drawn from matrerial provided. Just marketing non info.

And btw, at quantum efficiencies already as high as 65% and read noise as low as 0.4 e- (A7s) rest assured that no miracles are left in this field if you cannot break the laws of nature.

@HowaboutRAW. You claim that you can tell *exactly* where an electron is, because it's in a flash storage drive?

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2014 at 07:06 UTC
In reply to:

snapa: Who Cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why use a single question mark when many exclamation marks will do the trick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 00:24 UTC
In reply to:

ZoranHR: Eiffel tower was finished in 1889.
125 years after people are not able to produce a decent and previously tested lens mount.

But the Eiffel tower wasn't about mass production and profit margins.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 05:25 UTC
In reply to:

Dogman Joe: It is my understanding that "non-destructive edits" are the result of using RAW images rather than JPEGs, rather than being related to the brand of editing software. In other words, I believe that Lightroom already performs non-destructive editing on all RAW format images. Does anyone else have a different understanding?

"It is my understanding that "non-destructive edits" are the result of using RAW images rather than JPEGs".

Nope. Non-destructive edits is basically where you can undo your edits and revert back to the original. You can edit RAWs destructively. You can edit JPEGs non-destructively. It's just a philosophy of editing, and nothing to do with file format.

But yes, Lightroom is built around non-destructive editing, as others have mentioned.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 00:34 UTC
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II beta image samples (29 comments in total)

Why is the cover photo upside down?

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 00:43 UTC as 8th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

joelR42: I've thoguht for years that Sony was missing an opportunity by not using this tech in their mirror less cameras. Seems like Fuji beat them to the punch.

@mick232, but the perk of using an apodization with autofocus is something which has come around with the rise of contrast-detect autofocus, so sony still missed out on extending the capabilities of the STF in this regard. especially with the SLT cameras, where contrast detect autofocus is technically possible, they could have started to introduce AF versions of the STF.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2014 at 02:27 UTC
In reply to:

Sarapata: Hi, I think that focal lenght of 56mm is not long enough to take advantage of the apodization element in order to enhance bokeh of the lens in the best way;

I guess the Minolta engineers & designers knew why the chose FL 135mm for their (now Sony) STF lens - and that is even "only" F2.8 (=T4.5) in terms of aperture "size" and subsequent depth of field.

IMO, Fuji would be better off if they produce a 85mm (or expected 90 f2 lens) instead of 56mm for this kind of a bokeh oriented lens.


An easy way to get a feel for the out of focusness of the background for a similar framing of the subject is to look at the absolute aperture of the lens. The absolute aperture of a 135/2.8 is about 48mm, the absolute aperture of a 56/1.2 is about 47mm. The 56/1.2 looks fine as a candidate for an apodization element on the basis of this.

Please not that I am talking of how blurry the background will be, I am *NOT* talking about depth of field. The depth of field is to do with the tolerance of the size of the circle of confusion for regions close to subject; the background blur is to do with the size of the circle of confusion of points at infinity.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2014 at 02:23 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces weather-resistant XF 50-140mm F2.8 (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo nuts: Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS weighs 760 g. Price is US$1299.

Sony FE 70-200 f/4 OSS weighs 840 g. Price is US$1498.

Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 OIS (equiv. to 70-200 f/5.6) weighs 360 g!!! Price is US$1498.

Fujifilm XF 50-140 f/2.8 (equiv. to 76-213 mm f/4.2) weighs 995 g. No stabilisation. Price is US$1599.

Wow. Just wow.

Fujifilm and Sony lenses provide ZERO weight advantage for their mirrorless mounts.

@photo nuts: try the same comparison with some wide aperture wide angle lenses. also, add in the weight of the bodies.

yeah, mirrorless provides little weight advantage for wide aperture telephoto. nothing new there---laws of physics and all that.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 08:46 UTC
On article Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

DuxX: Wide aperture portrait lens without AF at 4.000+ $/€ price... pffff. Brainless! Really wish to see comparison between this lens and 85 1.4G and what buyers pay with 3.000+ $/€ extra!?

You could say the same about the difference between a $100 point and shoot and a $2000 DSLR. Some people will appreciate the performance at f/1.4, where I'm pretty sure this lens will outshine the 85/1.4G.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 08:54 UTC
On article Zeiss launches Loxia full frame lenses for Sony E-mount (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

odobo: Interesting that people keep saying the new lenses are the same old ZM lens with a new mount... If that is true, shouldnt the M to E adapter have 0 thickness?

People only mean that the glass is the same. Think of it like this: Zeiss has built in the adapter into the design of the Loxia.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2014 at 00:30 UTC

The music on the promo video is outstanding.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 06:45 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
On article Readers' Showcase: Macro photography (57 comments in total)

These are frickin' ridiculous. Well done to everyone who took these.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2014 at 09:49 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

Greg Lovern: Maybe the photographer should just drop the case before he becomes known as the photographer who needs monkeys to take his pictures for him...

The sad thing is that the monkey nailed the exposure on these---I probably would have messed it up.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:58 UTC
In reply to:

edu T: Just a little question I believe no one's posed yet... what good would it be for Mr. Stater to have his (or the monkey's) photo deleted?

Did I know the photo before? Yes.

Did I know David Slater before? No.

Do I know David Slater now that he has spoken up? Yes.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 05:37 UTC
Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »