meanwhile

meanwhile

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Nov 14, 2009

Comments

Total: 678, showing: 201 – 220
« First‹ Previous910111213Next ›Last »
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

Saea ba ithi: I am interested to see the vision for this forum.

Some of the other forums I have seen here have a great deal of implied context and so many conversational anecdotes that they have a clique quality to them.

With these new cameras, there are more technical options to be considered for reproducible results.

For example, the Sony A7RII I recently acquired is already on its third software update. Synchronizing the updates with adapters will be a new management consideration. With the 3rd update's changes, it advertizes correcting some previous optical aberrations amongst other items.

Resurrecting legacy lens inventory I hope won't be the only discourse. Might you be addressing best lens for specific use cases/purposes that will survive adaptation vis-a-vis waiting for a native mount lens options?

Or perhaps some illumination on how light presented to the sensor from some lenses designed for legacy film or sensors will need "technique", or avoidance.

There is an easy way to help create a vision for the forum - participate. :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 03:04 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Why does this seem like a Sony-centric forum? Because of the easy adaptability, Canon users have been adapting many brands of lenses long before Sony released their first ILC.

The other big thing that really does make a difference is the EVF. With an OVF you have no indication if you are exposing properly with manual glass, EVF shows it instantly.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 03:02 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Why does this seem like a Sony-centric forum? Because of the easy adaptability, Canon users have been adapting many brands of lenses long before Sony released their first ILC.

"Why does this seem like a Sony-centric forum? Because of the easy adaptability, Canon users have been adapting many brands of lenses long before Sony released their first ILC."

Then there'll be plenty of Canon users on there as well, and it won't be Sony-centric.

It's also a lot about the flange distance. E-mount is 18mm. EOS is 44mm. That means there are quite a few significant systems (Leica M, LTM, Konica AR, Contax G, Olympus Pen-F) where the flange distance is smaller than EOS, but larger than E-mount. Even FD/FL need an optical adapter to get infinity focus on EOS. Plus add in the problems of hitting the mirror with some lenses, and there are reasons why mirrorless seems to dominate those adapting.

Do Contax C/Y, Mamiya, Olympus OM, Nikon F, Leica R (the main ones just over 44mm but close enough to still have issues) work well on EOS?

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 02:51 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Why does this seem like a Sony-centric forum? Because of the easy adaptability, Canon users have been adapting many brands of lenses long before Sony released their first ILC.

"Focus peaking is not needed if you have an adapter with an AF confirm chip."

As long as you are happy being limited to focus and recompose.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 02:47 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mfritter: 1. How well do various cameras support adapted lenses in terms is EXIF data. At a minimum, the camera should allow one to enter the focal length. This should tie into to reasonable auto ISO functionality - e.g., minimum desired shutter speed. One should be able to code the lens in some way so it can be quickly identified when mounted. It would be super if the identification could correspond to lens profiles in one's software of choice.

3. The issue of smearing with wide lenses on Sony Alphas. Lots of discussion regarding M-mount wides, but more discussion of other options would be welcome. I assume this is not an issue on crop-sensor cameras. So a discussion of 21-mm-effective focal lengths on mirrorless cameras would be very interesting, as well as techniques for meliorating the problem on the Alphas.

The smearing talk seems to be focused on the A7R. Do the A7S and A7 exhibit different performance? Might not less pixel density be more forgiving?

"3. The issue of smearing with wide lenses on Sony Alphas. Lots of discussion regarding M-mount wides, but more discussion of other options would be welcome. I assume this is not an issue on crop-sensor cameras. So a discussion of 21-mm-effective focal lengths on mirrorless cameras would be very interesting, as well as techniques for meliorating the problem on the Alphas."

Other options generally don't have the smearing issues that the rangfinder lenses do. SLR lenses don't have the large exit angles of the light that don't play well with the sensor stack.

Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 for example works beautifully, as does 20mm CZJ Flektagon f4. It's really only the rangefinder wides that have an issue.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 02:44 UTC
On article Behind the Camera: A conversation with Peter Hurley (64 comments in total)

Great stuff. Thanks for posting, it has me thinking and I can't ask for more than that.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2016 at 03:24 UTC as 5th comment
On article Behind the Camera: A conversation with Peter Hurley (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

papa natas: Well, I'll get hell back here from the teeming millions on account of what I think, and by the way, I NEVER write OMHO.. I'm not humble.
1- It's stupid to ass-u-me that we ALL have converted to 4K. That goes to whomever had the brilliant idea to post this video in 4K.
2- This Hurley guy, of which I never seen his work, may have or be rough talent. Then, I cannot help but to reminisce the Old talent: those guys such as Hamilton, Adams, Leidmann, Clarke, Newton, and the list goes on, who were issued from the Plastic Arts & Visual Media environment; then came to discover photography with MANUAL cameras.
They had to LEARN the trade the good old way: to master composition, f stop and shutter speed with a narrow window of 36 shots. Nowadays it will be a capital sin not to get a dozen of decent images out of 500 shots. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, mind you.
For these guys Bokeh wasn't an artistic expression.

"I never heard of" != it didn't happen.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2016 at 03:10 UTC
On article Behind the Camera: A conversation with Peter Hurley (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

papa natas: Well, I'll get hell back here from the teeming millions on account of what I think, and by the way, I NEVER write OMHO.. I'm not humble.
1- It's stupid to ass-u-me that we ALL have converted to 4K. That goes to whomever had the brilliant idea to post this video in 4K.
2- This Hurley guy, of which I never seen his work, may have or be rough talent. Then, I cannot help but to reminisce the Old talent: those guys such as Hamilton, Adams, Leidmann, Clarke, Newton, and the list goes on, who were issued from the Plastic Arts & Visual Media environment; then came to discover photography with MANUAL cameras.
They had to LEARN the trade the good old way: to master composition, f stop and shutter speed with a narrow window of 36 shots. Nowadays it will be a capital sin not to get a dozen of decent images out of 500 shots. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, mind you.
For these guys Bokeh wasn't an artistic expression.

Gary Bernstein's work is good, but he looks to be trying to capture something different than Peter. Most of his celebrity work for example seems to be "in character", rather than the person behind the character. It's work of it's time, and I really don't enjoy the eighties aesthetic.

The shot of Gene Kelly, wonderful. The shot of Kenny Rogers, woeful. Lot's of cliche in there too. That's not a shot of Robert Wagner, it's a shot of Jonathan Hart.

Actually, no. The further I get in, the worse it gets. I don't like Berstein's work. Leaves me flat.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2016 at 02:57 UTC
On article Behind the Camera: A conversation with Peter Hurley (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

papa natas: Well, I'll get hell back here from the teeming millions on account of what I think, and by the way, I NEVER write OMHO.. I'm not humble.
1- It's stupid to ass-u-me that we ALL have converted to 4K. That goes to whomever had the brilliant idea to post this video in 4K.
2- This Hurley guy, of which I never seen his work, may have or be rough talent. Then, I cannot help but to reminisce the Old talent: those guys such as Hamilton, Adams, Leidmann, Clarke, Newton, and the list goes on, who were issued from the Plastic Arts & Visual Media environment; then came to discover photography with MANUAL cameras.
They had to LEARN the trade the good old way: to master composition, f stop and shutter speed with a narrow window of 36 shots. Nowadays it will be a capital sin not to get a dozen of decent images out of 500 shots. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, mind you.
For these guys Bokeh wasn't an artistic expression.

"Well, I'll get hell back here"

Yeah, you likely will. You are writing garbage. That's what happens when you write garbage.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2016 at 02:51 UTC
On article Behind the Camera: A conversation with Peter Hurley (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

papa natas: Well, I'll get hell back here from the teeming millions on account of what I think, and by the way, I NEVER write OMHO.. I'm not humble.
1- It's stupid to ass-u-me that we ALL have converted to 4K. That goes to whomever had the brilliant idea to post this video in 4K.
2- This Hurley guy, of which I never seen his work, may have or be rough talent. Then, I cannot help but to reminisce the Old talent: those guys such as Hamilton, Adams, Leidmann, Clarke, Newton, and the list goes on, who were issued from the Plastic Arts & Visual Media environment; then came to discover photography with MANUAL cameras.
They had to LEARN the trade the good old way: to master composition, f stop and shutter speed with a narrow window of 36 shots. Nowadays it will be a capital sin not to get a dozen of decent images out of 500 shots. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, mind you.
For these guys Bokeh wasn't an artistic expression.

a) You didn't watch the video. b) He shot, and developed plenty of film, which you would know if a) wasn't true.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2016 at 02:48 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

olyduck1: Leica M glass on Sony A 7R II - I have some M mount Leica lenses circa early 1960's. Setting aside issues of connectivity and functionality, I was wondering about any opinions of how well these old lenses do OPTICALLY when used via adapters on the newer digital cameras.

I'm trying to decide whether to just use my Leica M-3 and scan the film as needed vs. investing in a digital camera that could really take advantage of the Leica M glass.

Thanks, David

I use the Hawk's Factory adaptor with the built-in helicoid for closer focusing with a Sony A7m2. Most lenses I have tried (and seen tests for) above 35mm works beautifully. 35mm and wider it's a bit more challenging for the rangefinder glass. Some will exhibit colour shift, vignetting, and corner smearing, some will not. Some will exhibit one or more but not others.

I've chosen to use the Leica M-mount as my universal mount. Almost all other mounts have adapters to M (currently using LTM/M39, Konica AR, Olympus OM, M42, and Leica M), and it can be used easily on other mirrorless systems too, so it should make the lens and adaptors investment a one-time thing.

It also means that each lens+adaptor is a little smaller, and they all benefit from the close focus of the Hawk's adaptor if needed.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2016 at 01:43 UTC
On article Apple iPhone 6s Plus camera review (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Ma: Apple likes their pictures with a little bit of warmth filter and a boost in the shadows. Kinda like a mild instagram for all their pictures out of their camera. Not really accurate so it'll always underperform according to accuracy. You talk to people out in the wild, they'll always say "I don't know what it is but iPhone always takes so much better pictures" because they judge based on emotion, not technical accuracy. The Galaxy S6 and Note5 (S6 with RAW/DNG output) is more of a best available camera on a smartphone to bridge the gap between cameras and smartphones, while Apple is just trying to produce a better jpeg files for mobile use. Different schools of thought. There are advantages to both.

Agree, but Apple dropped the ball here. The image quality should be better.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2015 at 05:23 UTC
On article Merry Christmas II you: RX1R II sample gallery updated (138 comments in total)

Thank you for including the work of three photographers in the samples. Makes a big difference.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 23:59 UTC as 27th comment
On a photo in the Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II Sample Gallery sample gallery (2 comments in total)

Thank you for leaving some blacks black!

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 23:55 UTC as 2nd comment
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (745 comments in total)
In reply to:

fakuryu: "And while the RGB+IR metering sensor should have brought AF subject tracking benefits to the line, it's not really noticeable for the type of candid portraiture such photographers are wont to shoot."

Or is it "it's not really noticeable for the type of candid portraiture such photographers WANT to shoot."?

It's wont.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2015 at 22:30 UTC
On article Video: a look at the Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

ozturert: Excellent lens, excellent sensor, sluggish user experience (menus, review etc..).
Why Sony, why... This is a $3000+ camera. Whhhhhhhyyyyyyyyy....

I think it's likely slightly more nuanced than that. :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2015 at 07:44 UTC
In reply to:

PeaceKeeper: $800?!?!

Those can't cost more than $50 to produce...

I'd say Casio's marketing department is doing something right. Doesn't say anything for the rest of the company, however.

The actual figures on Apple hardware is closer to 40-50% gross profit. Once you get down to the nett, it's less. If you think any other electronics company is not in the same ballpark, you are kidding yourself.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2015 at 06:58 UTC
In reply to:

PeaceKeeper: $800?!?!

Those can't cost more than $50 to produce...

I'd say Casio's marketing department is doing something right. Doesn't say anything for the rest of the company, however.

"Apple has 80% profit margin" - Source?

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2015 at 06:39 UTC
In reply to:

PeaceKeeper: $800?!?!

Those can't cost more than $50 to produce...

I'd say Casio's marketing department is doing something right. Doesn't say anything for the rest of the company, however.

Sorry, but Apple's figures show something different.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2015 at 02:50 UTC
Total: 678, showing: 201 – 220
« First‹ Previous910111213Next ›Last »