tkbslc

Lives in United States Salt Lake City, UT, United States
Joined on May 30, 2008

Comments

Total: 3847, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

David Parsons: I nearly got into digital back then, but couldn't get on with the lack of a viewfinder on the cheaper / earlier models (VGA) - also couldn't understand why Sony didn't incorporate an LS120 drive, which would have been plenty of storage at that time

Panasonic did make one, actually:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/sd5000-review/

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 15:30 UTC
In reply to:

joejack951: I had the FD-95 which did offer HD (2MP) resolution for still photos, but I recall it taking upwards of 30 seconds to record a shot (400kb) to a floppy disk. And all you got was 4 shots on a disk.

I'm not sure if things got better or worse when I broke down and bought the floppy disk to Memory Stick adapter. The thing took two coin cell batteries which it managed to chew through really quickly. And with tons of storage available (32Mb) I wanted to shoot high resolution all the time, but the recording speed was still at floppy disk rates because of how the adapter worked. Not so nostalgic memories.

When the floppy idea was launched, 800x600 was an OK resolution for a digital camera. So you could fit about as many shots as a roll of film on a floppy. It quickly reached its limits once the MP age hit.

Sony replaced the floppy with mini CD-R based units after that, but those had similar slow writing issues as well as the "write-once" limitations. Flash got cheap enough and USB fast enough that it soon became irrelevant.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 15:26 UTC

I worked at a computer shop in 1997-1998 and the Floppy-based Mavicas sold like crazy. Although at that time, most people bought the more compact and cheaper versions that just had a prime lens (I think it was a 35mm eq. f2 lens)

There were a lot of drawbacks with floppies, but you have to remember that memory cards were crazy expensive. Even an 8 MB (yes Megabytes) card was $50 or more. So packing a few $1 floppies in the bag seemed like a nice alternative. Not to mention, you could just pop the disk in your computer without hooking up cables. And in the late 90s, transferring images wasn't as easy as just Autoplay on plugging in USB. Some of the cameras and card readers used Serial ports and a TWAIN driver like a scanner. So the simplicity of using a drive everyone was familiar with was very appealing to many.

Anyway, fun to bring back those memories.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 15:21 UTC as 76th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

User0743145584: Wonder if this is completely manual like its fisheye lenses?

It is.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 14:12 UTC
On article Huawei's Honor Note 8 comes with 6.6" Quad-HD screen (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

caerphoto: It'd be handy to specify the actual pixels. All these XGA, QuadHD, SuperVGA abbreviations get confusing after 20 years of it.

So why don't they call 4k UFHD?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 04:34 UTC
On article Huawei's Honor Note 8 comes with 6.6" Quad-HD screen (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

caerphoto: It'd be handy to specify the actual pixels. All these XGA, QuadHD, SuperVGA abbreviations get confusing after 20 years of it.

Sure, but 4K is also "Quad" HD. It's just Quad 1080p vs Quad 720p.

Not to mention there is qHD which is "quarter HD" and it's a quarter of 1080p (960x540).

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 03:25 UTC
On article Huawei's Honor Note 8 comes with 6.6" Quad-HD screen (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

BigBen08: Seems odd they use the name Note. Samsung has a line of Note phones.

And Xiaomi just came out with a super slim aluminum notebook called the "air". I wonder where they get these ideas?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 03:21 UTC
In reply to:

Emadn13: one of the worst focals,come on samyang give us your magic the 85mm

Those would end up as pretty atypical focal lengths on APS-C and 2x crop.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 22:41 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: I briefly owned the 50mm f1.2 from this series and the optics were superb. It was very sharp right from f1.2. However, I found it difficult to focus accurately, even with focus peaking and the like. In the end I traded a little bit of aperture for autofocus, which is extremely accurate on mirrorless.

I feel like most people would be better served with the new Sigma 30mm f1.4 that just came out. An imperceptible amount of additional DOF control isn't worth a lot of ruined shots. At least it wasn't to me.

It's easier on a mirrorless, true. But my main complaint was that these kinds of focal lengths are typically for active scenes. Street, candids, kids, etc. And focus peaking on my Olympus and Panasonic are NOT accurate at f1.2. Pretty good at f2. So I had to use the magnifier box. This allows great precision, but blocks off most of the viewfinder so you can't compose and find the "decisive moment" as it is put.

For my fisheye or a wide angle or a macro, manual focus is great. I can take my time to compose and using the focusing aids doesn't result in missed shots very often.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 22:39 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Wow... my eyes lit up when I saw "New Samyang 35mm mirrorless lens"...

Imagine my disappointment when I saw that it wasn't for Sony FE. There are already a truckload of 35mms for mirrorless and 35mm isn't even a very useful FL for MFT. Blah.

Still holding out hope for a mirrorless full frame 35 F/2 with autofocus. If it can be done for <300g and $500 I will buy it tomorrow.

Well there are several mirrorless formats with APS-C sensors where 35mm is a normal prime. I'm sure that's the primary target for this focal length.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 19:03 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: If this is any good and the price is right I think it would make an excellent lens for the Fuji XT2.

It's not likely to be much cheaper than the AF 35mm f1.4.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 19:02 UTC

I briefly owned the 50mm f1.2 from this series and the optics were superb. It was very sharp right from f1.2. However, I found it difficult to focus accurately, even with focus peaking and the like. In the end I traded a little bit of aperture for autofocus, which is extremely accurate on mirrorless.

I feel like most people would be better served with the new Sigma 30mm f1.4 that just came out. An imperceptible amount of additional DOF control isn't worth a lot of ruined shots. At least it wasn't to me.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 19:01 UTC as 15th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

SimenO1: Too bad it doesn't support any DSLRs

They make dozens of SLR lenses.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 18:58 UTC

I thought the selfie stick already solved this one

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 15:56 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Any folks here remember the time when FAST glass was for capturing moments in really LOW light and not be obsessed with OOF Bokeh?

What? Don't tell me they're all retired! Noooo!

.

Not a tired argument if you shoot a lot of different things. An f4 lens can't shoot f1.4, but the reverse is true. Options are nice.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 07:50 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: This obsession to shoot people at f0.00001to isolate them from the back is so 90's.

Yeah, but a $200 prime will give you differentiation from a smartphone.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 03:59 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Any folks here remember the time when FAST glass was for capturing moments in really LOW light and not be obsessed with OOF Bokeh?

What? Don't tell me they're all retired! Noooo!

.

You may not be aware of this, but fast lenses can shoot slow apertures too!

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 03:58 UTC
In reply to:

Lars V: Allison: Curious - if f/1.4 makes it the fastest AF telephoto prime on the market, is Canon's 85/1.2 then not a telephoto?

........If only it was the 86L.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 03:56 UTC
In reply to:

AngularJS: Superb lens! Those 105 mm head shots now make much more sense compared to the distorted ones from the 50mm Zony 50 f/1.4.

But they would look better at f5.6, I think.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 03:54 UTC

Four out of five of these shots would be better if you'd stopped down 1-2 stops.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 03:53 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
Total: 3847, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »