Lee Saxon

Lives in United States New Orleans, LA, United States
Works as a Photography Product Designer
Joined on May 3, 2003

Comments

Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17
On article Fotodiox Pro launches five GFX lens adapters (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rod McD: Hmm.... Apart from using other medium format film lens adapters, I can only think of a few uses (macro & TS perhaps) for 35mm/FF lenses that actually make sense unless you're cropping to FF anyway. In which case why bother to spend $7K to get FF?

And yes some FF lenses project a larger image circle than required to cover FF, but one needs to be very careful not assume that the area beyond the intended usage offers excellence in IQ simply because it's there. It can deteriorate quite rapidly.....

Think of it more like a bonus option than a primary use. In other words, yes, you're going to need medium format lenses to get legitimate, flexible use out of this camera, but you might be able to throw a few of your legacy 35mm lenses on there as well.

As you acknowledge some may actually cover, but it's worth noting that even cropped to FF35 the GFX is 30.6mp, more than most current FF35 cameras.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 18:05 UTC
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

jango: I assumes it will gain even higher score with the canon 5ds r high 50 mpical

So there's a vignetting correction profile in the raw converter on Canon that they didn't know how to turn off. This on the heels of bogus claims about noise reduction in Red R3D files. I don't know how a company that makes a raw converter has a testing team that has *no clue* how raw conversion works.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 11:34 UTC
In reply to:

whyamihere: Only here to make my emphatic plea for a digital GF670. All I want it to be is a medium format X100, leaf shutter, converter lenses, and all.

Well not exactly. They could do it (in very low volumes, I'm sure). You just couldn't afford it.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 05:04 UTC

Cameras have had 920k-dot (640x480 pixel) displays since the D3. Making a point of calling that high resolution (especially now that Nikon and to a lesser extent Canon and Fuji have finally bumped up to a higher resolution LCD) makes this sound like it might be native advertising or at least that it was paraphrased from a press release by an intern with no camera knowledge.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 20:31 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Lee Saxon: Are they just aping the appearance of the Canon, like the new Voigtlander 58 does the Nikon Ai ? Or does it actually rip off the optical design? I'm not a *huge* fan even of the former, but if it's the latter DPReview should not be promoting it (even if the patent is technically expired).

That it's not the same optical formula answers my question. The cosmetics are not highly developed enough on this product for a merely visual duplication to be much of an infringement.

Jen, I draw the line at attempting to undercut rather than supplement. But as you aptly point out, it's not always a clear line. I say reverse engineering the EOS mount so you can build knock-offs of Canon lenses cheaper or release your own EOS camera would be over the line but doing it so you could build your own lenses for existing cameras is not. Metabones not-using-the-mounts-as-intended situation is dicier, I won't take a side on that.

Matthew, I disagree. In my opinion point of the patent system (after the initial years where it allows inventors to profit off their hard work) is "the publication of innovative designs for others to"... *build off of* and *further develop,* not simply duplicate. But again since that's not what happened here the point is moot.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 04:08 UTC
In reply to:

nfiertel: I am astonished at the prejudice displayed by some writers in this comments section. The United States does not even make camera lenses and in my long life never had a decent quality camera made within its borders, never mind lenses. How dare people make the incredible and disparaging comments without even seeing or using these products? China will surpass the United States in a few years in the publication of R and D , what will you have to say then? Likely your computer laptops and electronics are produced there and large high tech companies are opening facilities there for obvious reasons. At least there, people know the earth is 4.5 billion years old and don't believe that Adam and Eve lived with the dinosaurs. Let's face it, the US is becoming third world and the third world no longer inclides China.

This isn't about China or Chinese companies being unable to produce things, it's about their complete disrespect for intellectual property rights. That's a factual international trade problem, not a prejudice.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 22:43 UTC

Are they just aping the appearance of the Canon, like the new Voigtlander 58 does the Nikon Ai ? Or does it actually rip off the optical design? I'm not a *huge* fan even of the former, but if it's the latter DPReview should not be promoting it (even if the patent is technically expired).

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 22:37 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Lee Saxon: This is true of Nikon and Canon both. The last real innovation from either of them as far as I'm concerned was the introduction of the DSLR (no, even the switch to full frame doesn't count; that was always the intention and merely cost-prohibitive at the beginning). Sony out here doing work while the 5D IV is a 5D III with a little more megapixels which was a 5D II with a little more megapixels which was a 5D with a little more megapixels.

Depends on your criteria. When I say "innovation" I mean "new idea," not "especially meaningful iteration on the old idea."

The huge battery life jump when the D2 series switched from NiMH to LiOn. When the 1D II (?) broke that 10fps barrier. The 5D making FF35 affordable. Those are just unusually large iterations.

Replacing film with a light sensor under a color filter array. Replacing the prism and mirror with an EVF (or, similarly, live view). Yes, probably the addition of video (though even there: Nikon actually had that idea with the D90; Canon just iterated it to the point that unlike the D90 it was actually good). Those are new.

A DSLR system designed around the FF35 standard and using FF35 lenses getting a FF35 sensors as soon as it was economically viable is emphatically not a new idea. I guarantee you that everyone at Canon and Nikon in 1999 had every intention of doing that and probably even had a fairly reasonable idea when it would happen.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 19:01 UTC

This is true of Nikon and Canon both. The last real innovation from either of them as far as I'm concerned was the introduction of the DSLR (no, even the switch to full frame doesn't count; that was always the intention and merely cost-prohibitive at the beginning). Sony out here doing work while the 5D IV is a 5D III with a little more megapixels which was a 5D II with a little more megapixels which was a 5D with a little more megapixels.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 17:02 UTC as 60th comment | 2 replies

Make sure you're aware of what you're giving up, 500px is *not* a photographer-friendly site. Any image you post on 500px, you give up your exclusive rights to, same as Instagram and Facebook. Do not ever post high resolution images there.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 16:54 UTC as 1st comment
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?

...no? I always considered the general rule of thumb that ~35-85 was a normal.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 22:39 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-Pro2 versus X-T2: Seven key differences (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Saxon: Using the old 720x480 screen that has been around for two generations too long now was a *huge* mistake on the X-T2. Especially since the camera is designed for video users who are more likely to use a Z-Finder or other loupe on the LCD rather than the EVF.

Yeah, "designed for" was too strong a phrase, my point was if only one of these cameras was getting a higher-resolution panel I would've put it in the T2 rather than the Pro2 (though I would've put it [or better yet a 1024x768 like the D500 uses] in both). It may not be the exact same panel and better refresh rate like the EVF or more color accuracy or whatever would be nice if it's got it, but low resolution was its primary problem, so...

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 13:16 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-Pro2 versus X-T2: Seven key differences (366 comments in total)

Using the old 720x480 screen that has been around for two generations too long now was a *huge* mistake on the X-T2. Especially since the camera is designed for video users who are more likely to use a Z-Finder or other loupe on the LCD rather than the EVF.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 18:49 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

villagranvicent: If Phase One is full frame, then the new Hasselblad X1D is something like an APS size of medium format??

As Fingel mentions I don't even agree that 6x4.5 is the "full frame" of medium format. Though I'd argue 6x7 (actually 56x~68, IIRC, not 60x70) is heading toward being a specialty format (which 6x9 surely is) and that 6x6 is the sweet spot that ought to be considered the "full frame" or "base size" of medium format.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 18:46 UTC

Lord, are we now calling not-quite-6x4.5 "full frame medium format" because of the 33x44 sensor? So obnoxious and misleading. If we've got to call a medium format full frame I'd say it ought to be 6x6. Maybe 6x7, but that's starting to get into the "specialty camera" territory (which 6x9 and larger definitely is). If it turns out these lenses don't cover full 6x4.5 I'm going to roll my eyes pretty hard.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 18:43 UTC as 6th comment | 7 replies
On article Meet Milvus: Hands-on with Zeiss's Milvus lenses (246 comments in total)
In reply to:

davidjewels: Can someone please explain to me why is the Zeiss Otus 85mm f1.4 for the Canon priced at $4490 and the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f1.4 also for Canon priced at LESS THAN HALF that of the Otus when both weigh the same and have identical specs???
I'm within the 30 day return period at B&H Photo and can give back the Otus and pick up the Milvus and another Zeis Milvus lens or 3 Canon L series lenses for the same price. Can someone please tell me if the Milvus 85mm f1.4 is THAT much better than the Otus 85mm f1.4 for the Canon. Thanks so much everyone.

The idea with the new 50 & 85 Milvus is that they have the same resolution and microcontrast as the Otus but lack the APO correction, and BOY do they lack it. Here are photos of awful bokeh from Diglloyd along with some extremely..."optimistic" commentary: http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150913_1450-SLOCA.html

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2015 at 02:36 UTC
On article First Impressions: Using the Nikon D4 (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

scott_mcleod: Slightly OT but is it safe to assume that since you're using the new 85/1.8G for the still-life shots, a full test of this lens is coming (soon)? The published MTFs are just unreal for a $500 lens...

Thanks for the detailed D4 info - I look forward to the full review even though I'm not in the market for one!

You've got typos, then. The first two paragraphs under Image Quality Samples both mention that the still life were done with the 85 1.8.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2012 at 05:13 UTC
Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17