babart

Lives in United States ME, United States
Works as a Pharmacist
Has a website at www.brucebartrug.com
Joined on Jun 23, 2008

Comments

Total: 377, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: Time for a personal air defence system. I mean should be better definitions, legislation, licensing, policing and fines regarding the use of drones for the sake of safety, privacy and pollution. You use a drone, you pay for all the costs for such controls. IMO drones should not be used anywhere in residential zones at all without special permits.

Flying drones over residential areas is an invasion of privacy, and the owner of the drone should need permission to operate in such an area. I realize that some real estate photographers use drones, especially for high end property, and that might pose a difficulty for them. Perhaps an allowance could be made for that type of brief incusion.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 22:48 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: That was an interesting article, and makes me rethink why I'm using zoom lenses at all. My 6D came with the 24-105L that has a max aperture of F4. That lens typically runs from between $450 used to about $600+ new. Conversely, the cheaper 50mm 1.8 is slightly over $100 and allows much more light to hit the sensor, as would the relatively cheap 85mm 1.8 and the 28mm 1.8.

It seems that having a wide prime, a mid-prime and a long prime would be a much better idea than a zoom that compromises everything for the sake of saving footsteps and time (lens changes).

I'm about finished with zooms, I believe. Just not worth it for what I do (landscapes and people).

There are many of us, however, who prefer to carry three primes. For various reasons, although in my case it stems from carrying three primes back in the film days. The focal lengths have stayed about the same.....28, 50, 100macro in film, 28, 50, 85 with Sony a7, 18(28), 27(42), 60(90)macro in Fuji APS-C. I find these lenses smaller and lighter, and certainly more than adequate for many purposes. That said, I also have zooms. I think you are right to indicate that to exclude zooms (or primes) in one's kit is a mistake.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 20:12 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: That was an interesting article, and makes me rethink why I'm using zoom lenses at all. My 6D came with the 24-105L that has a max aperture of F4. That lens typically runs from between $450 used to about $600+ new. Conversely, the cheaper 50mm 1.8 is slightly over $100 and allows much more light to hit the sensor, as would the relatively cheap 85mm 1.8 and the 28mm 1.8.

It seems that having a wide prime, a mid-prime and a long prime would be a much better idea than a zoom that compromises everything for the sake of saving footsteps and time (lens changes).

I'm about finished with zooms, I believe. Just not worth it for what I do (landscapes and people).

Both zooms and primes have their place. Zooms are very convenient, and many have achieved the IQ of primes. But zooms are big and heavy, so some prefer smaller and lighter primes. Most of us use both types of lenses for different circumstances, so excluding one or the other isn't a great idea. With a Fuji, I can carry an 18-55 (28-80) and a 14 (21) in a pocket....they both use the same hood and cap, and both are the same size and weight. Or I can carry an 18 (28) and 27(42), both of which weigh a few ounces and are pancake lenses that pack easily in a pants pocket. Just depends.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 19:03 UTC
In reply to:

aris14: It will be something between 105 - 135 mm, f 2.8 and expensive, that is why they promote it through Insta, just like every fashion item producer would chose to do... Its performance will excel in an area covering the 3% of circumstances by a margin of 5% which margin another 20% of potential buyers would comprehend as something unique and sell it as such to people they crave to be persuaded from something to spice up their lives... No..?

Precisely. Why does anyone need another portrait lens. Are there not a dozen or more that already work very well? And why auto focus, unless it's to be used in street work or journalism (an area well-covered by several zooms from several manufacturers.) There are even older manual focus Zeiss lenses in the 85 to 135 range that would work very well in a portrait studio, and will also, despite their age, clearly define every wrinkle, freckle, and acne scar on the subject. Defects then removed by portrait software. Go figure.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 14:28 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Film was a lot simpler. The "sensor" was always the same, except for size.

I never found that true and I used both. For enlargements, especially, the larger formats gave much higher resolution in prints. Especially if one used Agfa 25 in the larger sizes.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 01:54 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Film was a lot simpler. The "sensor" was always the same, except for size.

What do you mean? I know film was a pain, but there was little if any difference in the "sensor," which meant there was always an advantage in larger formats.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 00:18 UTC

Film was a lot simpler. The "sensor" was always the same, except for size.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 23:12 UTC as 223rd comment | 5 replies
On article Oberwerth launches Donau line of leather lens pouches (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

Retzius: I have a large Oberwerth pouch that I wrap myself in when life gets difficult.

How much did it cost? :)

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:41 UTC
On article Oberwerth launches Donau line of leather lens pouches (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Similar pouches are available from OpTec for $10. Similarly functioning, that is, but without the glossy leather. Just saying.

:)

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:40 UTC
On article Oberwerth launches Donau line of leather lens pouches (53 comments in total)

Similar pouches are available from OpTec for $10. Similarly functioning, that is, but without the glossy leather. Just saying.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 22:18 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (887 comments in total)

In my opinion, I would prefer the optical viewfinders of film era cameras, with the added ability to overlay digital information. Many photographers today have never used older optical viewfinders on film-era SLRs, but there is no comparison to DSLRs. With film SLRs one could actually focus critically, anywhere on the frame. This was especially useful when shooting wildlife or portraits, as one could focus on the eyes of the subject wherever they were in the field of view.

Today, however, especially with aging vision, there is nothing like an EVF that allows focus magnification to do critical focusing. This is especially important when shooting architecture with manual lenses. Being able to easily set and check depth of field is quite a plus with the focus magnifiers.

Combination viewfinders are most welcome, but currently these are seldom useful in all circumstances. They're getting better though, and I will embrace this type finder soon I suspect, I suspect.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 13:20 UTC as 333rd comment
In reply to:

darngooddesign: Are these the APSC or FF focal lengths?

@darngooddesign: Any lens with 35mm printed on it will give you the field of view of a 52mm lens when mounted in front of an APS-C sensor. It wouldn't matter if that lens were full frame or not, as the lens focal length of 35mm never changes. A full-frame 35mm will be designed to throw a large enough circle to cover a full-frame sensor, but it can still be mounted on an APS-C camera. A lens of 35mm designed for an APS-C camera will not throw a circle that will cover a full-frame sensor (usually.) An example, of course, is the 35/1.4 made by Fuji. And yes, you are correct that a 23mm lens will give the field of view of 35mm on an APS-C camera.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 03:28 UTC
In reply to:

darngooddesign: Are these the APSC or FF focal lengths?

Understood. I shoot both both Sony and Fuji, too. I wasn't trying to be rude. I was confused by the way you stated your question. Yes, a 23mm lens would give the crop of a 35mm lens on your X-Pro2, if that's what you meant to ask. But regardless of the basic field of view of the lens (APS-C vs full-frame), a 35mm lens would give you a 52mm crop on the X-Pro2, as someone mentioned above. Sorry if I misinterpreted you question, and I wasn't trying to be holier than thou. BTW I prefer the Fuji for everything except architecture, where I need the full frame for 24mm shift lens. Fuji lenses rock.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

darngooddesign: Are these the APSC or FF focal lengths?

Leica lenses are always full-frame, and the Sony full-frame cameras use the E-mount.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Will be interesting to see performance figures, as there are Sony E to Fuji X adapters. While both Sony and Fuji produce excellent glass, for some who use both mirrorless brands it might allow purchasing one lens for both full-frame and APS-C formats. That said, however, at f/2.4, the IQ would have to be extraordinary.

Interesting. I'll keep watching for reviews. It has modern lens coating, I assume? And actually, now that I think about it, my Zeiss C/Ys are mostly f/2.8 and I don't mind a bit.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 18:45 UTC

Will be interesting to see performance figures, as there are Sony E to Fuji X adapters. While both Sony and Fuji produce excellent glass, for some who use both mirrorless brands it might allow purchasing one lens for both full-frame and APS-C formats. That said, however, at f/2.4, the IQ would have to be extraordinary.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 12:50 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
On article CP+ 2017: Ricoh teases upcoming D FA* 50mm F1.4 (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karroly: Why is the D FA* 50mm F1.4 much bigger than the SMC FA 50mm F1.4 ?
Built-in AF motor ?
Additional glass elements/groups to improve IQ ?
OIS ?

@Alex Sarbu: the older manual versions of 50/1.4 are also not single element lenses. Neither is the Voightlander 42.5/0.95.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 23:26 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Ricoh teases upcoming D FA* 50mm F1.4 (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karroly: Why is the D FA* 50mm F1.4 much bigger than the SMC FA 50mm F1.4 ?
Built-in AF motor ?
Additional glass elements/groups to improve IQ ?
OIS ?

I'm not sure I believe that. A 50mm lens at f/1 would require a 50mm wide objective lens. That's less than 2 inches. You could be right, as it's true in telephoto optics....binoculars and such, that a wider objective lens can increase resolution. These are, however, 200mm lenses or higher. The 42.5 f/0.94 has a maximum diameter of 64mm. Sure, it has no auto focus, but still.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 20:53 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Ricoh teases upcoming D FA* 50mm F1.4 (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosinaphile: nifty 50s ainy so nifty any more .... their like mf short teles beastin large ... what does that weigh a kilo or 2??????

it really makes me happy i shoot with m43 and fuji

I'd love to put it up against my PK M 50/1.4, which gives just a tad less IQ than the Zeiss 50/1.7 I also use. That's ridiculous. What's in there, room for a drink and lunch?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 20:04 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Ricoh teases upcoming D FA* 50mm F1.4 (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karroly: Why is the D FA* 50mm F1.4 much bigger than the SMC FA 50mm F1.4 ?
Built-in AF motor ?
Additional glass elements/groups to improve IQ ?
OIS ?

I have the same question. There is no need for OIS inside the lens, so does it take that much room for autofocus electronics and motors? It's about three times the size (and weight?) of my old M 50/1.4.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 20:01 UTC
Total: 377, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »