Steve Balcombe

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Jun 16, 2004

Comments

Total: 181, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Superb series - much, much better than I was expecting!

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 10:24 UTC as 39th comment
In reply to:

SwissSwiss: My Samsung Note 4 gets quiet warm sometimes when charging or on long phone calls. Is that something to worry about? Battery looks fine.

Very warm is fine.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 12:21 UTC
In reply to:

Timur Born: Minimum focus distance of only 1.10m, which is always welcome. Albeit I wonder at what end this is measured? My understanding is that usually this comes at the price of focus breathing, so I'm curious how they solved this in practice.

Maximum magnification suggests that it could magnify the same as the Canon on the long end, but do we know at what end the Nikon achieves its maximum magnification? The shorter minimum focus distance might also suggest that you have to step forward to achieve that magnification compared to the Canon.

Just realised I mis-typed in my first reply - I wrote "For SLR lenses, minimum focusing distance is normally the same throughout the focusing range." - that should of course have been "throughout the zoom range".

@Dr_Jon - 0.12x at 1.4m? - wow, I hadn't realised the old one was that bad, no wonder such a fuss is being made! It looks like Nikon has caught up in several ways with this lens, great news for Nikon shooters.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 10:20 UTC
In reply to:

obsolescence: Nikon should have designed a removable tripod collar so that only the camera moves and shift-stitching avoids parallax. But I guess that wouldn't work too well with their humongous pro bodies -- if only they had a mirrorless.

How about a filter holder and adjustable hood/flag for this lens. Don't they listen to us?

The middle part of the lens, where the name plate is, almost looks designed for a simple tripod collar. Maybe that will come later as a £/$500 accessory?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 09:10 UTC
In reply to:

Timur Born: Minimum focus distance of only 1.10m, which is always welcome. Albeit I wonder at what end this is measured? My understanding is that usually this comes at the price of focus breathing, so I'm curious how they solved this in practice.

Maximum magnification suggests that it could magnify the same as the Canon on the long end, but do we know at what end the Nikon achieves its maximum magnification? The shorter minimum focus distance might also suggest that you have to step forward to achieve that magnification compared to the Canon.

I notice there are some other posts about focus breathing so for anybody interested, here are the numbers. Given the published MFD of 1.1 m and magnification is 0.21x. It's not difficult to calculate the actual focal length from those figures:

1/a + 1/b = 1/f (the "thin lens formula")
- where a is the distance from the subject to the thin lens, b is the distance from there to the sensor, and f is the focal length.

b/a gives the magnification of the lens (just from 'similar triangles').

The published "focusing distance" is the total distance from the sensor to the subject - which is simply a + b.

So for this lens:

b/a = 0.21 (magnification)
a = 1/0.21 x b = 4.762 x b

a + b = 1100 (MFD, working in mm)
(4.762 x b) + b = 1100
b = 1100/5.762 = 191 mm
a = 1100 - 191 = 909 mm

1/f = 1/909 + 1/191
1/f = 0.00633
f = 158 mm

Which is not too bad for a close-focusing, internally focusing XX-200 mm zoom.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 08:59 UTC
In reply to:

Timur Born: Minimum focus distance of only 1.10m, which is always welcome. Albeit I wonder at what end this is measured? My understanding is that usually this comes at the price of focus breathing, so I'm curious how they solved this in practice.

Maximum magnification suggests that it could magnify the same as the Canon on the long end, but do we know at what end the Nikon achieves its maximum magnification? The shorter minimum focus distance might also suggest that you have to step forward to achieve that magnification compared to the Canon.

For SLR lenses, minimum focusing distance is normally the same throughout the focusing range. If not I'd expect it to be stated in the specs. In the absence of a specific macro setting, maximum magnification will always be at the long end. As you have spotted, the MFD is slightly closer than the Canon but the magnification is the same, which indicates slighter more focus breathing.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 08:36 UTC

Anyone who buys this would have to be batty.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 11:58 UTC as 75th comment

My six-month-old Series 4 is out of date then. Oh well, hopefully it will carry on working despite that...

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 11:50 UTC as 8th comment

16, wow. Fantastic work.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2016 at 21:11 UTC as 15th comment

A friend has an F-Stop bag, and it really is good, but when I started looking at them for myself I was effectively warned off by somebody close to the company. What a shame, they had a great product but it looks like they are heading down the pan. And of course once enough people see them that way it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 09:14 UTC as 36th comment
On article Accusations fly over Fukushima photos (88 comments in total)

Doesn't affect my view at all. The value of the pictures never was about the legality of being there, it was about the human interest value of the abandoned area, and the quality of the photography (lack of, in this case).

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 11:33 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: Has anybody ever conducted a proper test of small portable diffusers and reflectors? I would love to see a scientific measure of how much light they throw onto the subject and how effectively they diffuse it.

@Genes Pentax - looks like a good product. To be fair not really a direct alternative to the FlashBender, but probably better than the brollies I currently use when I don't need/want camera-mounted flash.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 14:13 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: Has anybody ever conducted a proper test of small portable diffusers and reflectors? I would love to see a scientific measure of how much light they throw onto the subject and how effectively they diffuse it.

@EthanP99 - thanks for those, both useful in their way! It was quite amusing that the Gary Fong one shows the Gary Fong product coming out top while Northrup says in a comment:
"[Gary Fong] sent us a copy for this test, but it did so poorly that we left it out because we felt bad about including it and just saying bad things. It's basically just a diffuser; it offers very little control over the light. Yet, it's more than ten times as expensive as a simple diffuser, extremely clumsy, and so heavy that it twists the flash head around"

And of course neither addresses the question of how much light reaches the subject. I fully realise it wouldn't be easy to conduct a rigorous test, and what is best for one scenario might not be best for another, but that's a big part of the skill of testing - designing the test to give useful results.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 11:46 UTC

Has anybody ever conducted a proper test of small portable diffusers and reflectors? I would love to see a scientific measure of how much light they throw onto the subject and how effectively they diffuse it.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 00:39 UTC as 12th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Donnie G: High IQ, lightweight, compact size, easy to use without the need for any additional accessaries, cheap to own, and most importantly, fun for photographers of all skill levels to use, carry, and experiment with. People who have never considered buying an EOS M body will buy one now just to be able to use this lens with it. This is how you sell interchangeable lens cameras. Watch the sales figures and learn from the master. :))

Yep, this is the sort of lens which will tempt people to buy their first EOS M - very smart.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2016 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

Suntan: If this did make it to a commercial production, I wonder if people will reject the "fake" looking video, similar to some people's rejection of high frame rate, on the grounds of "knowing" what a proper film should look like.

Put simply, if a director starts dinking with extreme aperture differences across the screen, people could be quite turned off.

It all depends on the skills (and budget) of those creating the film doesn't it? You could make exactly the same comment about all CGI, but done well it can be totally believable - just watch the latest Star Wars film for a great example. Some scenes are obviously CGI, often simply because we know they couldn't be created any other way, but there are some which I only know are CGI because I've seen the 'making of' extras.

The same is going to apply to light field, and it will be possible to use it badly, no question.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2016 at 14:10 UTC
In reply to:

solarider: Just in case things go downhill and I need a backup to what I have on flickr... I'd appreciate very much knowing if there is an easy way to copy everything I have on flickr to say google+/former picasa or another free service? Thanks in advance.

Your backup should be either local, or on a general purpose cloud storage service that you can rely on. Any photo gallery service might potentially change in some way you don't like, or disappear altogether. Everything I have ever uploaded to Flickr is still on a local drive in my office, and is also backed up from there. It's not much in storage terms, and it's as easy to keep as to delete.

And btw don't rely on Google to support legacy services - they have just 'deprecated' MyTracks and provided nothing to replace it.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 14:52 UTC

Yahoo's ownership doesn't seem to have been good for Flickr but I do like the way the Flickr community works, with the emphasis remaining on the photographs.

The Flickr web sites and apps are an inconsistent mess, so hopefully fixing them would be a priority for a new owner.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 11:10 UTC as 44th comment
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: While this is slightly surprising at first glance, I think what it actually shows is that you can't optimise for everything at once.

@sandy b - no doubt there will soon be lots of D5 vs 1D X II shoot-outs to answer that question for us :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 15:10 UTC

While this is slightly surprising at first glance, I think what it actually shows is that you can't optimise for everything at once.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 11:09 UTC as 92nd comment | 3 replies
Total: 181, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »