rbach44

Joined on Nov 4, 2011

Comments

Total: 519, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm XF 33mm F1.4 R LM WR review (73 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sardonic G: Under the annals of "because they can" it would be cool if Fuji's engineers created an adapter for the X series cameras that would allow that line to use Fuji's medium format lenses.

Why? you might ask. Why not, says I

Is it beyond me why photographers nowadays want to adapt everything to everything.

Especially in Fuji’s ecosystem, where there are ready made lenses for just about any application, the only thing you would get by adapting medium format lenses are terribly off balance ergonomics and a smaller max aperture.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2021 at 16:38 UTC

These lenses look expensive, twice the size of the old versions, and promise something along the lines of “outstanding resolution for future high resolution sensors even from maximum aperture.” Sounds suspiciously similar to the Sigma Art, those super size Canons, and all of the other high resolution/low aberration (yet dull and life lifeless) lenses out there.

I hope this doesn’t spell the end of those lovely, relatively small, and more “classically” designed lenses I love from Fuji. It would be pretty sad to lose the intangible imaging qualities that made lenses like the 35mm f1.4 so special in pursuit of the highest IQ possible.

Of course this all remains to be seen at this point, but color me a little skeptical here…

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2021 at 16:19 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply

This is truly baffling.

A technique that has been around for a while, implemented in a way that has been done many times before with all sorts of caveats that is actually NOT the thing that came before. Must be a revolution with massive implications for the entire future of digital media.

At least I noticed halfway through it is called a "lightograph" and not a "lithograph". Really lame name but at least its not copping a very old art form.

Gotta hand it to this guy though, he marketed the crap out of something very ordinary. I'm sure he'll make a fortune.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2021 at 13:54 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

Kazzaz: Not that I am important, but I am afraid they will lose me very soon to Canon and I guess I am not alone.
I've always used to like Nikon and their offerings and I still do like their color science very much. Just couple of years back they used to be on top of the game, however, now I feel they are always Okay, because :

1. They are not the best on the market to make you go and invest in their new system.
2. They do not offer something extra over the competition, in many cases they are offer less.
3. They do not offer the cheapest body or lenses either.
4. They are not open for 3rd party lenses.

They became just okay, which I believe is not enough for many to do the switch yet.

“Not that I am important, but I am afraid they will lose me very soon to Canon and I guess I am not alone."

Are there really that many photographers that are constantly thinking of switching systems? Seems like such a distracting and potentially expensive dilemma. Especially for a system that is at most 2.5 years old...

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2021 at 16:42 UTC

Very nice. I would be all over this if I were a Nikon Z shooter. Its nice to see a mirrorless manufacturer making an attempt at some compact, modestly specced lenses. It never made sense to me that we now have compact bodies excellent high ISOs and IBIS just to push lenses to be faster and faster (and consequently larger and larger).

I hope this is the start of a new trend!

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2021 at 16:26 UTC as 50th comment | 1 reply

Wait… That Selena 58mm F1.9 It has 3 rings:

• An aperture ring
• Another ring that has a very short travel and an infinity symbol, a 7 and a 1 (?)
• ANOTHER ring that has a long travel and 7,6,5,4... (???)

Any explanation for this?

Link | Posted on May 18, 2021 at 00:07 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
On article Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated? (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): There is a very small group of photographer who need a 1.2 lens.
There is an even smaller group of photographer who need full resolution in the corners at F/1.2.
There are many who are able, but not willing to spend more than 2k US$ for a 50mm prime lens.
Good news: Buy a 150 US$ 50mm/1.4 Nikkor from the 80ies and make the same, if not better images (no joke).

I’ve seen that before. Though I’m pretty skeptical of the author and his supposedly technical background on the subject, I appreciate the sentiment. There is always more than sharpness and lack of aberrations that goes into a lens.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2021 at 04:03 UTC
On article Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated? (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): There is a very small group of photographer who need a 1.2 lens.
There is an even smaller group of photographer who need full resolution in the corners at F/1.2.
There are many who are able, but not willing to spend more than 2k US$ for a 50mm prime lens.
Good news: Buy a 150 US$ 50mm/1.4 Nikkor from the 80ies and make the same, if not better images (no joke).

Agreed! Despite the stigma the older lenses produce some beautiful images. They also have the advantage of being small and cheap too...

Link | Posted on May 12, 2021 at 21:54 UTC
On article Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated? (923 comments in total)

Great choice for an article, Roger is a great addition ot this site.

Something I wonder about however:

My older Nikon manual lenses have loads of CA, spherical aberrations, etc. but also seem to give me inexplicably vibrant and life-like images. My experience with lenses such as the Sigma Art lenses is that they are sharp out to the corners and aberration free but makes everything look inexplicably dull, murky, and lacking something.

I won’t go as far as to say that the more elements you have the worse an in image will look, but there does seem to be some negatives in the hunt for optical “perfection” At least in this photographer’s experience, these things are pretty subjective.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2021 at 21:52 UTC as 36th comment | 6 replies

I don't support this rebranding of a cheaper Sigma lens as an expense Leica lens. However, it IS nice to see a lens body that is designed for the L mount. Most of the other Sigma lenses for mirrorless look like an SLR lens with a bunch of adapters taped to the back of the lens.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2021 at 22:10 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
On article Opinion: Do we really need all those buttons and dials? (897 comments in total)
In reply to:

norman shearer: I think a button, dial or lever should be there only if you can adjust whilst still looking through the EVF/OVF. If you have to remove your eye then the ergonomics are questionable. Anything else should be fine accessing via the function/user menu though it does help if you can lay it out to what functions you need the most rather than having to laboriously scroll back and forth because the manufacturer decided the order for you,

As one who sets my camera up at waist level BEFORE I take the shot, I disagree. Why anyone would want to adjust settings, tweak menus, review images etc in the viewfinder is beyond me. But to each their own...

Link | Posted on May 7, 2021 at 21:04 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need all those buttons and dials? (897 comments in total)
In reply to:

iatttmp: The point is not that there are too many buttons and dials, it's that people think that they're somehow required to use all of them. I set up my cameras to do the few things I need (which is way more than a stupid phone camera) and disable the rest of the programmable features. If manufacturers make their guess as to what people need by limiting the access points, they're limiting their camera sales to people who like their choices.

For example, I would not buy a major camera without a rear dial because I need at least two to use my main mode choice, aperture priority - one dial for aperture, one for exposure compensation. I hear there are people who don't use exposure compensation. Olympus cameras show blow-out and black-out areas live, so I can tune in extremely accurate exposure without hardly thinking about it, if the exposure comp dial is under my thumb.

Conclusion: don't advocate for anyone else's version of simplicity but your own because you're bound to disagree.

I do agree, however some camera are better designed that others in this regard. My Nikon has a ton of buttons I rarely use, but they don't feel like they get in the way of anything. They also somehow feel like they are right there whenever I need them.

Some other manufacturers, however, cram as many extraneous buttons in any spot your thumb may land. That is not good experience IMO...

Link | Posted on May 7, 2021 at 20:58 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need all those buttons and dials? (897 comments in total)
In reply to:

tonybelding: A large portion of those confusing options are related to autofocus modes and various aspects of JPEG rendering that didn't exist when I was learning on a 35mm SLR (not too different from the Olympus shown above, though mine was a Ricoh).

If you really want to simplify things today, you can shoot raw with a manual lens, and you’re 80% there. This is what I often do with my Sony A7 and A7RM2.

Shooting raw means you need to learn some things about post processing software, which can get much more complicated than anything in the camera—but you don’t have to think about it while shooting!

Agreed! It baffles me too see cameras that have dedicated buttons for things like tone curve or file sizes. Why would you want to be concerned with that on the camera side?

Just shoot raw and leave that stuff for the computer later. Concentrate on shooting when you are shooting!

Link | Posted on May 7, 2021 at 20:38 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need all those buttons and dials? (897 comments in total)

Great topic!

The problem to me is not the amount of buttons, it is how intelligently the camera is designed.

My Nikon has many buttons. I don’t really notice unless I need them, and when I need them they are there in logical spot. This is good. My X100F has a few buttons and a few dials. I can easily switch between manual and automatic without too much fuss. This is also good. These are intelligently designed cameras.

An old camera of mine, that shall remain nameless, had many buttons all over the camera that I could never figure out what to do with. I could customize them all, but why would I want that? I don’t design cameras, I just want to shoot. Does anyone really need a button on the side of their camera that can be mapped to download an add-on app on command? Who needs a button to adjust a tone curve while shooting? That was not a well designed camera. I sold it.

Designers need a reality check. What do users really need at their fingertips? Its less than they might think.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2021 at 19:58 UTC as 268th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Sine_Nomine: I think what bothers me is that she wasted people's time by doing this under false pretenses. Sure, realtors don't always make a sale when showing a property, but there was no chance here. Specifics in the article:

- "Surprisingly, none of the brokers asked for a credit check or proof of net worth. I think at that level, they don’t bother with financial information,”
This is not requested at any level. Why would they? Their job isn't to create barriers.

- "[The towers are] boring; and the architects who accept the jobs are boring, too.”
Sounds like a personal statement. So she met them?

- "not really meant for living in. They cast these huge shadows and block views—really change the skyline—just so they can stand empty.”
I'm expected to believe no one lives in them? She photographed staged units (models) so that's quite a presumptive leap. 432 Park Ave has a staff of 40 and huge list of features; private wine cellar, theater, etc. That's what they're paying for.

Its true. I used to live in NYC and it is common knowledge that the large towers are usually empty. International buyers buy these apartments either as investments or fancy vacations apartments, rarely to live full time. The skyline is packed with these things, rents in the city are astronomical, and there is a huge homelessness problem.

Really makes one think.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2021 at 16:15 UTC

Yeesh, lighten up! No one was hurt here, maybe just bit of time wasted. Much worse things happen in the world every single day.

At least the photographer was dedicated to their idea and used a bit of clever ingenuity to follow through with it. More than can be said of the armchair photographers of the world….

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2021 at 14:26 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

jpeghorror: When Hasselblad says Masters, I think they mean Dutch Masters. I checked out the photographers on their site and so much of the work reminded me of Vermeer. I wasn't sure how much of it was actually photo illustration.

Agreed. This "illustrative" style has gone too far in recent years. It looks like a high end version of those old paint filters people used to apply in Photoshop.

Its unfortunate because it looks like there are some great images underneath in a lot of them.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2021 at 19:45 UTC
On article Leica APO-Summicron-M 35mm F2 ASPH lens samples (57 comments in total)

This thing looks crazy, as one would expect. Also looks extremely demanding of precise focusing with all that resolution and an easily identifiable focal plane. On a 40MP rangefinder that will not be fun at all...

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2021 at 02:55 UTC as 13th comment
On article Leica APO-Summicron-M 35mm F2 ASPH lens samples (57 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nicolas_K: I am not at all part of the Leica ecosystem and can't judge/predict buyer behavior, but I'd be surprised if many people can justify to themselves the 7000$ or so price difference between this and the new Voigtländer 35mm APO LANTHAR. Being from a different company, it of course has a different optical design, but it shares most features and advertised capabilities. With that said, both need to be subject to thorough testing first.

No one will buy this lens based on a rational consideration of the options.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2021 at 02:53 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sigma fp L and its new viewfinder (150 comments in total)

This a great example of the paradox of miniaturization and modularity. It’s a camera that is made as small as possible for the given format... but is not something you would actually want to USE in that form. You can add accessories to bring add a bit of comfort, but this adds bulk and cost.

At the end if you actually want to use this camera handheld you need to add enough accessories that you probably should have started with a camera designed to fit your hands. If your tripod based the weight/size savings are probably moot compared to your tripod you’ll be carrying. Besides an exercise on cool tech, I feel like these camera are less useful than they seem...

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2021 at 19:13 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
Total: 519, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »