ProfHankD

ProfHankD

Lives in United States Lexington, United States
Works as a Professor
Has a website at http://aggregate.org/hankd/
Joined on Mar 27, 2008
About me:

Plan: to change the way people think about and use cameras by taking advantage of cameras as computing systems; engineering and creatively using camera systems to provide new abilities and improved quality.

Comments

Total: 1530, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Not really a bad idea to try, and using discontinued Samsungs is a great bootstrap. However, I think it's funny that they have an ordinary lenscap on it that doesn't even seem to be tethered to the case.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 19:04 UTC as 68th comment | 1 reply

Very creative idea well implemented. It does become a gimmick pretty quickly, though. The clocks don't seem to be really implemented; if they were to use our TIK TDCI (Time Domain Continuous Imaging) software, which is free open source, they could literally accelerate/decelerate time rather than doing layer/frame substitutions... not sure that would make a huge difference....

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 04:02 UTC as 37th comment

This is idiotic. I've gotten better cameras as a free "rear lenscap" when buying a $20 lens on eBay.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 13:41 UTC as 46th comment
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (196 comments in total)

Good to see Sharp still in the game, but I think I'd go for the RED over this if I had the need and budget for either. I also don't see how PL mount "can take Zeiss and Leica lenses among others" -- PL has a 52mm flange distance, so it shouldn't be able to get anywhere near infinity focus with the much more common shorter mounts, just PL mount lenses. RED gets around that by offering other mount flanges. Then again, you should probably expect to be buying $150K of lenses if your body is $77K.... ;-)

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 03:39 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

ProfHankD: As usual, a nice article with a solid message. It's worth noting, however, that conductive, reactive, ion-contaminated water can get inside cameras many ways -- not just a dip or splash. If a camera has been handled (what cameras haven't been?), there will naturally be salts on it transferred from your skin. There also are often salts in the air, especially near an ocean, but also in many types of dry dust. Thus, when water vapor condenses on/in your camera due to temperature/humidity changes, that water can carry enough ions to behave a lot like salt water.

So, condensation can be nearly as bad as a quick dunk. Be careful about trapping cameras in high humidity or trapping high humidity in/behind your lens. For example, placing a camera in a waterproof housing/bag at the seashore can trap high humidity in your housing, and exposure to cool (e.g., underwater) temps could easily hit the dew point and condense that humidity, leaving your camera in a little pool of contaminated water.

The desiccant is a help, but doesn't absorb all that much humidity. It can also be a good idea to place something at the bottom of the enclosure to absorb water and keep it away from the camera -- keep the camera bottom off the bottom of the housing.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 12:02 UTC

As usual, a nice article with a solid message. It's worth noting, however, that conductive, reactive, ion-contaminated water can get inside cameras many ways -- not just a dip or splash. If a camera has been handled (what cameras haven't been?), there will naturally be salts on it transferred from your skin. There also are often salts in the air, especially near an ocean, but also in many types of dry dust. Thus, when water vapor condenses on/in your camera due to temperature/humidity changes, that water can carry enough ions to behave a lot like salt water.

So, condensation can be nearly as bad as a quick dunk. Be careful about trapping cameras in high humidity or trapping high humidity in/behind your lens. For example, placing a camera in a waterproof housing/bag at the seashore can trap high humidity in your housing, and exposure to cool (e.g., underwater) temps could easily hit the dew point and condense that humidity, leaving your camera in a little pool of contaminated water.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 02:25 UTC as 54th comment | 3 replies

137 x 97 x 92 mm ... a Sony A7RIII is 126.9 x 95.6 x 73.7 mm. This is like having a 110 film camera bigger than a Nikon F. At least it is only 1g heavier than the A7RIII!

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 12:04 UTC as 165th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Ok, I get the idea. I suppose it's also possible to have a digital back as an option. However, there are just too many excellent manual bodies available used for literally the cost of a lenscap.

On the detailed design, built-in Lithium Ion battery with USB-C charging seems a very bad idea if it is glued-in. The wimpy ISO range doesn't make much sense either. They also don't talk about focus aids (e.g., focus screens)... which are a very big deal if this is manual focus. Overall, this just seems a little off the mark....

Chris59: Glued-in Li Ion batteries are a big mistake (ask Samsung), even in the 1970s I shot film outside the ISO range listed here (within ISO 6-1600 was most common for me then), and the idea of making a camera explicitly for manual focus and having no mention of focus aids tells me these guys aren't thinking things through very well.

I'm also not kidding about having gotten more than a few bodies as free "lenscaps" for lenses I bought on eBay.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 05:45 UTC

Ok, I get the idea. I suppose it's also possible to have a digital back as an option. However, there are just too many excellent manual bodies available used for literally the cost of a lenscap.

On the detailed design, built-in Lithium Ion battery with USB-C charging seems a very bad idea if it is glued-in. The wimpy ISO range doesn't make much sense either. They also don't talk about focus aids (e.g., focus screens)... which are a very big deal if this is manual focus. Overall, this just seems a little off the mark....

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 02:02 UTC as 73rd comment | 4 replies
On article Canon EF-M 22mm F2 STM sample gallery (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

CyeJoeBob: The Canon EOS M system doesn't have a lot of lenses, but the few they have are great. Especially the 22mm f2 and the 11-22mm. If they would give us a compact 35mm and 50mm, I would really consider to buy a Canon EOS M.

But unfortunatly a have the feeling, that if Canon is coming with a FF mirrorless camera, the lens support for the APS-C system will die, like it happened to the Sony APS-C E-Mount system.

Huh? Sony had more APS-C lens coverage from day one (18-55mm + 16mm with 12mm and fisheye converters + an 18-200mm announced at the same time) than Canon did years after they finally got around to making the first M, and Sony and lots of others are still making lots of APS-C E-mount lenses... plus the FE ones still work perfectly on E -- and why not cover FF with longer focal lengths where it's easy and future-proofs the lens?

Canon's 22mm f/2 is basically a compact 35mm-equiv. lens -- your basic single-focal-length point-and-shoot choice. The fact that it still plays a dominant role for the M series tells you Canon still sees these as point-and-shoots... and that's a problem, not a feature.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2017 at 18:12 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Hasselblad seem to be developing this into a serious, well-rounded system. If I was still in business I'd buy into it, with the established and proven two-pronged approach of a) "it's a business expense, we'll write it off against the tax bill" and b) "the car’s solid, got at least another 5 years in it”.

As it is a pathetically high-pitched and whiney “But I want it…” isn’t going to cut it. I love my wife, really I do. But Hasselblad – damn!

I think it's hard to justify the expense, but that's not the point. Hasselblad's traditional niche in the market is to be that high-end medium-format stuff many people wish they could afford and relatively few people will actually buy. It's good to see them working to own that niche, rather than making trivial "luxury" repackaging mods to somebody else's cameras and selling them at inflated prices.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2017 at 03:18 UTC
In reply to:

Mark Turney: Seems quite dysfunctional and extremely expensive for what you get. If you’re a pro underwater photographer, get a dedicated hard case to protect your very expensive gear. And if this is for beach trips and family outings, just use your water resistant phone or a P&S with $35 plastic waterproof cover.

I have several cheap waterproof soft camera housings; the cheapest was about $6 and the most expensive was about $80. None of them leak, but they have serious issues.

Underwater, it's generally colder (below the dew point), so the moisture in the air trapped inside the bag often condenses -- you have to seal the camera inside with low humidity to keep it dry, not near the water where humidity is high. Using such a housing neither dry nor wet, but in-between (e.g., in heavy rain or spray), means the lens port has little droplets running down it, which pretty much destroys IQ. I've found that the IQ from the rugged waterproof compacts is actually better in rain/spray because the lens is small, easier to wipe/protect, and many are coated so that they shed water; alternatively, using a deep lens hood with a disposable plastic bag wrapped around the rest of the body and lens can safely deliver better IQ.

In sum, I don't really see a market for $100+ soft housings.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2017 at 02:57 UTC

And, of course, no Linux support. All my systems run Linux (including my cell phone, which uses Android)... so this is no help?

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 04:48 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On article First iPhone X hands-on field test with sample photos (386 comments in total)

Well, "impressions were extremely positive" is all I need... to keep the price of my Apple stock high. ;-)

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 18:26 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on with new Tamron 100-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di VC USD (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: A few months ago, I bought a clean used Phoenix 100-400mm f/4.5-6.7 zoom for $60 including shipping. It's 6.5" long at 100mm, vs. 7.8" for this Tamron, and fairly light, but I wouldn't say it "balances well." No VC, but I use it on a body with IBIS (A mount lens on A7RII via LA-EA4).

In sum, I want to see better IQ for $800. I look forward to the tests.... :-)

CCD FTW: Yeah, the Minolta 100-400mm APO does seem to be above the other cheapies in IQ and is only around $300 used. Honestly, that's what I expected to get when I stumbled upon the $60 alternative and couldn't resist trying it. I don't use lenses over 200mm very often, but the solar eclipse had me pulling out every long lens I own... which is how I realized I really should have a 100-400mm.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 04:19 UTC
On article Hands-on with new Tamron 100-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di VC USD (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: A few months ago, I bought a clean used Phoenix 100-400mm f/4.5-6.7 zoom for $60 including shipping. It's 6.5" long at 100mm, vs. 7.8" for this Tamron, and fairly light, but I wouldn't say it "balances well." No VC, but I use it on a body with IBIS (A mount lens on A7RII via LA-EA4).

In sum, I want to see better IQ for $800. I look forward to the tests.... :-)

Smitty1: I hope you're right, but I'm not so sure you are. The Phoenix lens certainly looks cheesy (silver paint does that ;-) ) and suffers "zoom creep" that would be better described as "frictionless zoom," but the IQ is actually not all that bad: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60117907

My estimate is that it's over 10MP effective wide open at 400mm on FF (and much better stopped down)... which actually isn't too shabby. Basically, it's at least in the same ballpark as DxO rates things like the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 (model A022) and the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. Yeah, those lenses are resolving just a little better than 1/3 what the Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS does, but that Sony costs $2,500 and both the Tamron and Canon lenses have lots of happy users....

In sum, don't judge an optic by its brand or packaging. ;-)

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 03:48 UTC
On article Hands-on with new Tamron 100-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di VC USD (79 comments in total)

A few months ago, I bought a clean used Phoenix 100-400mm f/4.5-6.7 zoom for $60 including shipping. It's 6.5" long at 100mm, vs. 7.8" for this Tamron, and fairly light, but I wouldn't say it "balances well." No VC, but I use it on a body with IBIS (A mount lens on A7RII via LA-EA4).

In sum, I want to see better IQ for $800. I look forward to the tests.... :-)

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 23:34 UTC as 10th comment | 5 replies
On article What you need to know about Sony's a7R III (622 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: No PlayMemories apps? What the heck is Sony thinking? This was their opportunity to get ahead of everybody by allowing 3rd-party camera apps using their well-developed interface... and instead they're disabling the feature. I wonder if this is Sony's reaction to the interface having been hacked so that 3rd-party apps are now possible... if so, this might be the single dumbest move Sony has made since entering the camera business.

zeratulmrye: No, they don't need an Android environment; they could simply implement everything as modules. Things like the one-app-at-a-time restriction really aren't necessary, although that's safer given the real-time constraints in control of a camera. Basically, the app environment imposes a few restrictions, but it mostly ensures that no app can do anything bad and enhances portability of apps from one camera model to another (same API)... generally worthwhile stuff.

J Random Camera Owner: Sony already has a JSON-based open control protocol. It's just the camera app interface that's closed and maybe disappearing....

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 20:55 UTC
On article What you need to know about Sony's a7R III (622 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: No PlayMemories apps? What the heck is Sony thinking? This was their opportunity to get ahead of everybody by allowing 3rd-party camera apps using their well-developed interface... and instead they're disabling the feature. I wonder if this is Sony's reaction to the interface having been hacked so that 3rd-party apps are now possible... if so, this might be the single dumbest move Sony has made since entering the camera business.

Just to be clear, Sony's camera apps were not a mechanism for letting trusted code run inside the camera, but a protected Android app infrastructure under Sony's version of Linux. The various performance issues with apps all come from running through a protected software interface... so basically Sony made some performance sacrifices to have the software infrastructure to SAFELY support 3rd-party apps all along, but never gave 3rd parties the method for signing and loading apps. About 2 years ago, OpenMemories figured out how to get apps into the protected environment on the camera -- which isn't really a security threat, because of the protected environment the apps run in. Just think how much better off Sony would be if they embraced 3rd-party camera apps rather than trying to prevent use of their already-built facility....

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 10:33 UTC
On article What you need to know about Sony's a7R III (622 comments in total)

No PlayMemories apps? What the heck is Sony thinking? This was their opportunity to get ahead of everybody by allowing 3rd-party camera apps using their well-developed interface... and instead they're disabling the feature. I wonder if this is Sony's reaction to the interface having been hacked so that 3rd-party apps are now possible... if so, this might be the single dumbest move Sony has made since entering the camera business.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 04:04 UTC as 77th comment | 16 replies
Total: 1530, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »