Victor Engel

Lives in Austin, TX
Joined on Dec 21, 2002

Comments

Total: 78, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Dopaminer: There`s always something absurd in these tests. 5DSR with the 85 1.8?
Put some recent L glass on there, obviously.

And the Fuji`s 50mp raw is 112mb? Double the Canon`s ?

And update to use the new profile.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 03:00 UTC
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: Amazon is working for the NSA. Don't do it.

Seriously though, how hard is it to keep your stuff in an external hard drive and lock it up somewhere?

If your house gets destroyed by a tornado or fire or your hard drives are burgled, you lose everything unless you have a secondary off-site backup.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 17:51 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Soderlund: Don't we humans have predator vision with our eyes facing forward? Just look at horses and deer, they got their eyes on the sides.

If the prey you ask is a killdeer, we are predators if on foot and not predators if on horseback. Killdeers respond to threats to their nests differently for predators and non predators. For predators, they run/fly away some short distance and feign a broken wing. For non predators, they stand their ground in front of the nest and posture to look as large as possible, holding top sides of their wings to the mountie.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 17:54 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: It says in the text above that the first straw camera had an aperture of approx. F127.

First, 127 is a quite non approx. number. Just some nit picking :) Approx F100 had been more reasonable to say.

Second, this camera do not really have an F-stop number. It is a constant 1:1 macro camera, independent of distance. And the image gets darker the further away the subject is. So, an equivalent F-stop number would increase with distance. Not all that meaningful.

Maybe, if we shall be kind to the reporter or/and the people behind the camera, it could be equal to approx F100 for normal portrait distances.

"It is actually wrong ...." Horsefeathers! What the photographer does, with a digital camera, is to set the ISO dial (unless it's not a dial but that's beside the point) to whatever is indicated on the camera, which, as far as I know, is always on the linear scale. And the manuals typically refer to the dial as an ISO dial/button/whatever. So it is correct to say you set the camera to 400 ISO. That's the camera setting.

I'm not sure why we're even discussing this, though, on a thread about a camera that uses film. This branch of the thread is about significant digits. My point is simply that it would be more convenient to use a logarithmic scape with such high sensitivities.

As a side point, I think it's interesting that ISO even became a unit, since it really just stands for International Organization for Standards (which is an organization, not a unit).

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 00:52 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: It says in the text above that the first straw camera had an aperture of approx. F127.

First, 127 is a quite non approx. number. Just some nit picking :) Approx F100 had been more reasonable to say.

Second, this camera do not really have an F-stop number. It is a constant 1:1 macro camera, independent of distance. And the image gets darker the further away the subject is. So, an equivalent F-stop number would increase with distance. Not all that meaningful.

Maybe, if we shall be kind to the reporter or/and the people behind the camera, it could be equal to approx F100 for normal portrait distances.

Who said anything about setting the camera to 400 DIN? In my reply, I quoted ISO 25K, which would be 45° DIN. Furthermore, DIN would seem to be implied if we just said to set ISO to 45°. Also, the ISO standard, ISO 12232:1998, does not specify sensitivities greater than 10,000. As of 2013 there have not been any higher values assigned. I don't know if that is true through now. If so, it's probably not even correct to say ISO 25,600. That is undefined. :)

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 20:22 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: It says in the text above that the first straw camera had an aperture of approx. F127.

First, 127 is a quite non approx. number. Just some nit picking :) Approx F100 had been more reasonable to say.

Second, this camera do not really have an F-stop number. It is a constant 1:1 macro camera, independent of distance. And the image gets darker the further away the subject is. So, an equivalent F-stop number would increase with distance. Not all that meaningful.

Maybe, if we shall be kind to the reporter or/and the people behind the camera, it could be equal to approx F100 for normal portrait distances.

"we shouldn't worry about saying ISO 25k instead of 25600"

We're getting so many digits these days, we really ought to switch to DIN, which uses a logarithmic scale instead.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 16:13 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: It says in the text above that the first straw camera had an aperture of approx. F127.

First, 127 is a quite non approx. number. Just some nit picking :) Approx F100 had been more reasonable to say.

Second, this camera do not really have an F-stop number. It is a constant 1:1 macro camera, independent of distance. And the image gets darker the further away the subject is. So, an equivalent F-stop number would increase with distance. Not all that meaningful.

Maybe, if we shall be kind to the reporter or/and the people behind the camera, it could be equal to approx F100 for normal portrait distances.

127 in binary consists of all 1's.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 17:24 UTC
On article Samyang launches XEEN 20mm T1.9 video-cine lens (22 comments in total)
In reply to:

OlyPent: Those hulking pro video lens housings! IN any case, it would be nice if consumer camera makers would dispensed with F-stops and start using T-stops.

F-stops and T-stops have different uses. If you're interested in depth of field, it is F-stops you need to know.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 22:36 UTC
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

Victor Engel: Pretty serious CA here. I realize it's a tough shot for CA. My Canon 85mm f/1.8 would do the same thing. It's very distracting in this photo.
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1444131463/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-sample-gallery/0250561340

It's longtitudinal CA. You can tell because it is one color in front of the focal plane and another color on the other side of the focal plane. To be more accurate, actually, the distance to the focal plane depends on the wavelength of the light. Someone with the lens could verify this by taking three pictures, one each with a red filter, violet filter, and green filter, and inspect where the best focus is. This is not the same as purple fringing. Purple fringing may be present as well, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 01:06 UTC
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

Victor Engel: Pretty serious CA here. I realize it's a tough shot for CA. My Canon 85mm f/1.8 would do the same thing. It's very distracting in this photo.
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1444131463/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-sample-gallery/0250561340

That's exactly the situation where longitudinal CA shows up the most, so it's a perfect test for longitudinal CA. It is quite apparent in a number of the other shots, too, including this one which is lit with diffused light. https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1444131463/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-sample-gallery/3764272467

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 00:18 UTC
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (249 comments in total)

Pretty serious CA here. I realize it's a tough shot for CA. My Canon 85mm f/1.8 would do the same thing. It's very distracting in this photo.
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1444131463/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-sample-gallery/0250561340

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 21:37 UTC as 12th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

zodiacfml: I could see moderate but true success if they just marketed this as a Quadcopter that is portable and attaches to a smartphone case so that you can fly it whenever you want to. The product is basically that. It will never take good photos or videos.

Yes. The problem is no gimbal. This will have the same issues as the Onagofly has. I own one. It is comparable in size to the one pictured here, but it doesn't fold up. It does take video and stills, but without a gimbal, there is motion resulting from corrections to compensate for air turbulence plus corrections due to noise in the various navigation sensors.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 02:44 UTC
In reply to:

Tim Gander: I suspect the last ever photo of an inauguration has just been taken.

What an utterly ridiculous statement!

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 17:58 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

Victor Engel: "Image corrected for lateral CA, distortion and vignetting in Lightroom, at default sharpening." Why? For a lens review, shouldn't these items be uncorrected?

If you will re-read my original post, you will see that what I am objecting to is the use of Lightroom correction filters. Certainly it doesn't take a bunch of expensive equipment to not use those filters!

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 23:40 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

Victor Engel: "Image corrected for lateral CA, distortion and vignetting in Lightroom, at default sharpening." Why? For a lens review, shouldn't these items be uncorrected?

What is your beef? I'm not allowed to express my opinion?

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 03:16 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

Victor Engel: "Image corrected for lateral CA, distortion and vignetting in Lightroom, at default sharpening." Why? For a lens review, shouldn't these items be uncorrected?

Because that would have little to do with this review, which was what my comment was about.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 02:38 UTC

What Canon is described as doing seems to be what we've been advocating in the forums for years.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 14:57 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article New 20mm F2 4.5x macro lens released by Mitakon (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Just so you understand. As it is a 30 mm F2.0 lens, then at 4x it will have a max light gathering of an F8.0 lens. If you stop down to F8 (for good measure) it will have the light gathering of an F64 lens.

You will need lots of light!

What do you mean by "evenness of glass refractive index"? I think a lens would perform very poorly if the refractive index wasn't consistent across the glass. You must have meant something else.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 16:14 UTC
On article New 20mm F2 4.5x macro lens released by Mitakon (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Just so you understand. As it is a 30 mm F2.0 lens, then at 4x it will have a max light gathering of an F8.0 lens. If you stop down to F8 (for good measure) it will have the light gathering of an F64 lens.

You will need lots of light!

Compare to Canon's MPE 65 with an aperture range of f/2.8 to f/16 and magnification range 1x - 5x.

Anyone who has done any sort of photography using magnifications in this range is familiar with the light falloff. No big deal. You're probably going to use flash anyway. Now calculate guide numbers at 30 cm. :)

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 00:05 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

Victor Engel: "Image corrected for lateral CA, distortion and vignetting in Lightroom, at default sharpening." Why? For a lens review, shouldn't these items be uncorrected?

Then don't call it a lens test. That is all.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2016 at 02:18 UTC
Total: 78, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »