rbach44

Joined on Nov 4, 2011

Comments

Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Leica and Huawei to create joint R&D center (91 comments in total)

You know what would be really cool? If this partnership actually worked out well for both parties. Perhaps Leica can produce something quality at a reasonable cost and ditch some of their nice but frivolous features (sapphire LCD covers?). Maybe it will be a merging of German engineering and Chinese mass manufacturing skills and we’ll all be happier that way.

But if modern history is any example, the only thing that will come of it are Chinese phones with a red dot and ASPH logos on it…

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 17:58 UTC as 22nd comment
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (657 comments in total)

Full frame user (switched from M43 once upon a time) not looking to troll but asking an honest question:

Looking at the 25mm 1.2 makes me think the same thing as when I saw the f.95 Noktons: Isn’t this just the wrong system for shallow DOF? Putting a big, heavy, and expensive lens on a system built around portability makes no sense to me…

Especially considering that the cost of this lens is the same as a used D600+50mm 1.8, which will provide similar DOF characteristics at little size/weight penalty when considering the whole combo. And that is not even considering the (at least in my opinion) poor ergonomics of a big lens on a small body, the IQ advantage of full frame, and the (presumably) poorer performance at f1.2 compared to a good ol’ f1.8.

Of course M43 has its other advantages, but doesn’t a larger format just make more sense for shallow DOF than shoehorning a very fast lens into a system that really just doesn’t excel in that area? Am I missing something here?

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 17:07 UTC as 77th comment | 15 replies

Full frame user (switched from M43 once upon a time) not looking to troll but asking an honest question:

Looking at the 25mm 1.2 makes me think the same thing as when I saw the f.95 Noktons: Isn’t this just the wrong system for shallow DOF? Putting a big, heavy, and expensive lens on a system built around portability makes no sense to me…

Especially considering that the cost of this lens is the same as a used D600+50mm 1.8, which will provide similar DOF characteristics at little size/weight penalty when considering the whole combo. And that is not even considering the (at least in my opinion) poor ergonomics of a big lens on a small body, the IQ advantage of full frame, and the (presumably) poorer performance at f1.2 compared to a good ol’ f1.8.

Of course M43 has its other advantages, but doesn’t a larger format just make more sense for shallow DOF than shoehorning a very fast lens into a system that really just doesn’t excel in that area? Am I missing something here?

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 16:37 UTC as 3rd comment | 7 replies

There is a problem I see in these pieces that I see often in this style, and that is the editing. To me it seems overdone an gives it a fake look, which is a shame because of all of the effort put in to do it all in camera. I don’t mean the subject matter either, I mean the soft-focusish filters, the HDRish feel, and all that wide angle perspective distortion all just doesn’t work for me. They seem like they could all use lot of burning and dodging too on those burning highlights too.

There are a lot of people saying it looks like CGI and I agree. I see it in the climate change series too: cool concept with a ton of work put in to NOT fake things, then a ton of editing that then makes it look fake. I feel there would be much more of an impact if they were edited to look like the beautiful pictures they are rather than some 3D composite from deviantart. I would love to see the raw files for these.

But what do I know, I’m just some photographer, no one is writing articles about me.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2016 at 20:59 UTC as 14th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

rbach44: As time goes on I seem to be proven correct on my theory: The sony A7X series has gone through some of the most outrageous scrutiny of any camera to date. Strap lug quality, adapter planarity, light leaks, and reflections off the IR filter on long exposures at wide aperture have already been covered by many in the forum crowd; and now the potential strength of the mount when improperly handling lenses 10x the weight of the camera is under a microscope. Seems many forgot that the A8 has IQ only dreamt of years back in a body not much bigger than an old compact. Relatively inexpensive too. Compromises of course will have to happen.

Cutting corners or not, an engineer who works on such products has far more knowledge of these things than 99% of the people posting responses on these forums. If you don’t trust a product’s engineering, why would you spend thousands of dollars on it? I know I’m happy as a clam with my A7, and this new mount seems like a bad idea to me…

(PS: Who buys an A7X to use with fast telephotos for SLRs anyway? Really seems to kill the small body/high IQ concept to me…)

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 04:04 UTC

As time goes on I seem to be proven correct on my theory: The sony A7X series has gone through some of the most outrageous scrutiny of any camera to date. Strap lug quality, adapter planarity, light leaks, and reflections off the IR filter on long exposures at wide aperture have already been covered by many in the forum crowd; and now the potential strength of the mount when improperly handling lenses 10x the weight of the camera is under a microscope. Seems many forgot that the A8 has IQ only dreamt of years back in a body not much bigger than an old compact. Relatively inexpensive too. Compromises of course will have to happen.

Cutting corners or not, an engineer who works on such products has far more knowledge of these things than 99% of the people posting responses on these forums. If you don’t trust a product’s engineering, why would you spend thousands of dollars on it? I know I’m happy as a clam with my A7, and this new mount seems like a bad idea to me…

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 04:04 UTC as 43rd comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon Df Review (1617 comments in total)
In reply to:

rbach44: I played with one of these in the store yesterday and I agree without his review: They picked and chose which features were "retro" quality and which parts were modern mid grade. The whole package just doesn't add up the way it should have.

Its a shame, because picking it up just doesn't feel anything close to an old F. It seems like the OM-D line to me in this regard, where they sacrificed ergonomics for classic styling without really digging into the core of what made these old cameras so great (and usable). I wish that this was an old style camera with a bit of the wisdom Nikon has gained from making what I consider the finest and most refined SLRs on the face of the planet. But it really ends up feeling like a compromised frankenstein. I was very excited for this camera, but I am actually pretty disappointed now that I saw it in person.

I thought he body on a whole felt like modern techno plastic with some metal dials on top.

I feel like for such a "boutique" camera that feel + ergonomics should have been everything. But feel like they fell short on both. I honestly feel like my beloved D700 feels + handles better than the Df (at east with my short time with it)

Oh and I have used the EM1, and I rather like it. But I think Olympus is guilty of the same thing sometimes: trading ergonomics for style (the centered viewfinder in particular…). But the whole package is more successful than the the Df in my opinion...

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 17:11 UTC
On article Nikon Df Review (1617 comments in total)

I played with one of these in the store yesterday and I agree without his review: They picked and chose which features were "retro" quality and which parts were modern mid grade. The whole package just doesn't add up the way it should have.

Its a shame, because picking it up just doesn't feel anything close to an old F. It seems like the OM-D line to me in this regard, where they sacrificed ergonomics for classic styling without really digging into the core of what made these old cameras so great (and usable). I wish that this was an old style camera with a bit of the wisdom Nikon has gained from making what I consider the finest and most refined SLRs on the face of the planet. But it really ends up feeling like a compromised frankenstein. I was very excited for this camera, but I am actually pretty disappointed now that I saw it in person.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 16:26 UTC as 261st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

napilopez: Strange that they would only do a cosmetic change; Panasonic normally remodels its lenses to a greater degree. I was expecting improved autofocus, but to see no mention of it in the press release likely means little if anything was changed on that front.

On the other hand, a subtle fix that the marketing team would probably want to avoid mentioning would be removing the banding issues that occured with this lens on the new Sony sensors at high ISOs; indeed the banding was the main issue prompting me to sell mine and get the 25mm. Unlike many, I actually prefer the pancake for focal length and sharpness(not to mention size).

What about a lens could have caused banding?

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2013 at 04:41 UTC
In reply to:

PK24X36NOW: Sigma again shows the "Big Boys" (i.e., Nikon & Canon) what can be achieved in lens design. You essentially have Sigma to thank for the fact that wide angle zoom lenses even exist, because it was Sigma that showed the stuffed shirts at the camera makers that such lenses could be made, and could be made to produce high image quality, in the first place.

Having said that, this lens also shows how "size and weight" advantages are non-existent when you compare lenses with equivalent DOF range. In fact, this lens is basically as big or bigger, and heavier than, Sigma 24-70 f2.8 FF lenses, which get considerably wider at the short end and considerably longer at the long end, with the same DOF. The new lens hardly has a terrific range in terms of start and end points, and too limited a range at less than 2:1. If they managed a 15-45 f1.8, that would have been a much more attractive lens.

The other thing is, wait till you hear the bleating when they announce the price - LOL.

Y'know I've always wondered about this.

Take the Fuji X10 vs. the Sony RX100 for example. On the long end, the Fuji has an aperture of 2.8, while the Sony has an aperture of 4.9. Assuming both of their lens had perfect light gathering abilities and the sensors had similar qualities, wouldn't that mean the Sony would have to have at least a ~1.5 stop advantage over the Fuji to have similar image quality at the long end? Wouldn't the Sony's ISO have to be 1.5 stops higher to compensate for the loss of light?

Same argument as we're having here, I'd love to see some sort of test on this…

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 23:40 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: makes no sense for me.
I use a 35 or 50 mm or even a 28 mm - one alone is enough - my feet are the zoom - no ned for another big, expensive compromise lens.
sounds crazy.

a 2,0/35-105 mm would be fantastic and a 4,0/50-300 mm is urgent needed...

Oh I love primes, don't get me wrong. I use them all the time. I just think the logic is a bit faulty when saying "A good wide lens is a normal and few steps back" (or vice versa) because the compression qualities are quite different.

I mean you would't want to do portraits with a 28mm stuck close enough to someone's face that it gives a similar angle of view as a 50mm…

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 23:23 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: makes no sense for me.
I use a 35 or 50 mm or even a 28 mm - one alone is enough - my feet are the zoom - no ned for another big, expensive compromise lens.
sounds crazy.

a 2,0/35-105 mm would be fantastic and a 4,0/50-300 mm is urgent needed...

Zooming with your feet only applies to angle of view, good luck getting some of that sweet, sweeping wide angle look or telephoto compression with a normal and your feet.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 20:35 UTC

Sigma is SERIOUSLY stepping up their game as of late. The new lenses seem nothing but beautiful. If they finally got heir quality control issues of the past sorted out, the big boys will have to seriously watch their backs….

BTW if there were a full frame version I'd be preordering it now...

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 20:33 UTC as 46th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

naththo: How about will Adobe improve colour accuracy in camera profile to match with the actual same as manufacturer camera sets on camera raw file? The Adobe one shows a bit more cyan in skies and bit warmer hue I supposed in yellow colours to bring more green look compare to coming straight off camera shows more realistic blue skies and better colours.

Have you tried using the Camera standard, Camera Neutral, etc. settings for your camera in the camera profile tab? They are built to mimic the manufacturer's profiles and are quite close.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

rbach44: I really wanted to try it out, but it is only available for OS 10.7.

Very very disappointing...

I use 10.7 at work and it is rather unpleasant. I'm perfectly happy with 10.6, and its just not that old! I don't understand the lack fo support.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:21 UTC
In reply to:

photogeek: Still no GPU acceleration. Epic fail.

GPU acceleration really isn't for photo tasks, more for video and 3d. And as someone who works with that stuff professionally, I can tell you that GPU acceleration is NOT an easy solution, and really ups the ante as far as hardware necessary to run things...

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:19 UTC
In reply to:

cuol: I still hate the lightroom color rendering. Why does every other converter look better to me using either Canon or Nikon files? The tools are great, but something about the look sucks.

I profile all of my cameras, and Lightroom's default profiles are very very close to what comes right off the sensor. I find that things may not look as good in Lightroom, but its what your images ACTUALLY look like. Then you can fix from there to your liking…

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

Benarm: Another major Lightroom release without native support for RAW editing via plugins like Photomatix, Silver Efex Pro, etc.

Ever use VSCO's kit? Its setup as a series of camera profiles and Lightroom setups. Definitely the most useable architecture for a plugin I've ever used.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:11 UTC
In reply to:

Closely Observed Images: After decades of constantly battling with windows based architecture I bit the bullet and bought a S/H Mac Pro 1.1 that is the most amazingly capable (and stable) computer I have ever owned. I handles LR4 and photoshop apps with ease and speed, but runs Snow Leopard (IOS 10.6.8).

I have used every version of LR since it's inception.

Why no support for LR5 running under Snow Leopard then? I'm an enthusiastic amateur photographer who makes a living driving taxi's and enjoys tinkering with images.

I'm gutted that whilst I would happily pay for an upgrade. Adobe have just lost my custom by making themselves even more exclusive.

Bye . . . . .

I whole heartedly agree. I don't kn ow why they would only come out with an upgrade for the latest OS out there...

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:09 UTC

I really wanted to try it out, but it is only available for OS 10.7.

Very very disappointing...

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 18:06 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »