Posts for: larryepage
May 15, 2024 10:47:41 #
Thomas902 wrote:
Comes with i Original Packaging /i and virtually... (show quote)
Thomas--if this lens is still available, I would be interested in purchasing it from you. I am happy to pay your asking price, and you can hang on to the Arca Swiss foot if you wish.
May 14, 2024 12:41:34 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
I also disagree with him about focusing aids in mirrorless. I find focus peaking to be at least as good as split prism or micro prism and focus magnification to be far superior.
Focus peaking and image magnification, which my cameras have, are not as transparent or simple to use as focus screen aids. They both require extra steps. The change in the design of focus rings on lenses is real and creates a real impact.
I am researching User ID's statement that my first claim is not true. He may be correct. But in doing the research, I've run across a whole list of other reasons not to include enhanced focus screens that I hadn't thought of. They are related to the significantly smaller average maximum aperture of today's lenses and claimed differences (which I've not yet physically verified) in the design and implementation of DSLR main mirrors.
The bottom line is that split prism and microprism focus aids (and perhaps others) are not optimum in today's reflex cameras.
May 14, 2024 09:05:10 #
BebuLamar wrote:
This thread is a month old but some people never could focus an SLR manually without focusing aid.
I find that today's AF lenses have a very short focus throw, especially when compared to my old manual focus lenses. That makes autofocus a lot faster, but when the 10 foot mark (or even the 3 foot mark, on at least one of my lenses) is mashed up almost touching the infinity mark, that does not lend itself to particularly critical focusing, especially on a focus screen that doesnt have a split prism.
I fully understand why DSLRs don't have focus aids...they would prevent function of the AF system. Mirrorless cameras do provide some aids to manual focus, as do some DSLRs in Live View. I haven't found any that are as simple, natural, and easy to use as what was available many years ago on film cameras.
May 13, 2024 22:25:23 #
User ID wrote:
85/1.4 AF might be a bit extra hefty on the OPs D3400 ... but sometimes you really just gotta man up !
Acoarst the OP might just join the lemmings and go with a superzoom, which would be at least as large as an 85/1.4.
Acoarst the OP might just join the lemmings and go with a superzoom, which would be at least as large as an 85/1.4.
It doesn't have a focus motor, so probably isn't the best choice for him.
May 13, 2024 21:40:54 #
User ID wrote:
Uh huh. I like that. I acquired a light weight 80/2.8 to augment my 16-50 for APSC.
The other nonfat options Im aware of are the Nikon Ai 85/2.0 (cheap) and Voigtlander SLII 90/3.5 (expensive).
The Voigtlander is an Apo macro lens and it has full electronic coupling altho its not AF.
The other nonfat options Im aware of are the Nikon Ai 85/2.0 (cheap) and Voigtlander SLII 90/3.5 (expensive).
The Voigtlander is an Apo macro lens and it has full electronic coupling altho its not AF.
I have the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D. It's appropriately larger, but not huge. I use it occasionally on both DX and FX cameras and find it to be fun. But I shoot different subjects than you do, so the size isn't a problem.
May 13, 2024 20:34:01 #
User ID wrote:
Its funny, not laughing funny just UHH funny, that... (show quote)
I read back through the replies after this discussion popped back to the top. We still don't know really anything about what Urnst wants to accomplish, but depending on what that is, one completely different option that could have some merit would be a fast 85mm...like an f/2 or so. That lens would have functionality very close to the 135mm that you mentioned (on a full frame camera), even though it would be fatter and faster than what you might have in mind...
May 13, 2024 17:19:42 #
RedBaron4730 wrote:
Gentlemen, br I have had a Nikon D500 for a number... (show quote)
The D500 does not have an 'automated' focus stacking function. You will have to capture your slices manually.
May 13, 2024 09:46:22 #
maxlieberman wrote:
The rumors are both. Z6iii and a Z90 33mp crop sensor.
I've been getting promotional material from Nikon ever soncr I registeted my D200 in 2007. They have been having sales periodically for the entire 17 years since. Some of them mark special occasions. Some seem obviously to clear out exvess inventory (new or returns). Some are for other reasons. Some are likely for no reason other than to remind customers that they are still around.
There may be new iterations of the Z 6 and Z 7 coming. But deep discounts could just as easily say that Nikon considers that those models have fulfilled their purpose, and Nikon wants to flush their inventory before announcing them as discontinued.
Bottom line is that everyone guesses, but nobody outside of Nikon actually knows. And it is folly to try to apply Western thinking to Japanese marketing, sales, and manufacturing strategy. Those folks live to gi out while they are still on top.
My suggestion is to decide what you want. If you find it at a price you are willing to pay, buy it.
May 12, 2024 21:11:27 #
andesbill wrote:
Today’s top of the line sensors hit 100mp. The Fu... (show quote)
That presumes "linear thinking," that progress will continue on the same path and in the same direction as it has for the past few years. That thinking ignores the law of diminishing returns, which says that continued improvement will not produce continued payback.
In reality, one of two things will happen. The first is that photographic equipment will reach some reasonable stage of maturity, the culture built around recurring hysteria will go away, and photographers will actually return to a focus on actually visualizing and taking pictures. (A possible alternative is that manufacturers will realize that they have painted themselves into a corner and just shut it all down.)
Most likely, development will proceed in a whole new direction. Perhaps it already is. The big question is whether the photograpy community will follow or not.
Either way, photographers are going to have to become smarter. They are going to have to give up their irrational attachment to outdated and erroneous information.
If this topic is really of interest, I suggest some reading and study of Moore's Law. That is the law that for years described the progression of semiconductor technology and capability until one day it didn't. The same will eventually apply to sensors. It already applies to memory.
May 11, 2024 11:31:45 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Someone posted a question to another person asking... (show quote)
I'm not convinced that Nikon or any other manufacturer cares much who sells what camera where, as long as it gets sold. But distributors of all kinds of products do care...deeply. Research the history of "Dublin Dr. Pepper," a small bottler in Texas who made a booming business out of continuing to formulate their priduct with cane sugar long afoer all the others switched to cheaper and more convenient corn sweetener. Everything was hunky dory until they got greedy and started marketing and selling their product in several outlets in Fort Worth...more than 60 miles outside their contracted service area. Their contract was voided based on violation of its terms, and now there is no Dublin Dr. Pepper for anyone.
I suspect that tightening the reins on menu language choices was put forward and demanded by one or more big distributors. NikonUSA would be at the top of my "suspect list."
But look also at the bright side...not supporting multiple languages also opens up a significant space in firmware memory that can be used instead to support new and novel functionality. Of course, it would be interesting to see how that would be managed in places like Canada, where the law requires both English and French support.
Anyway...this may be really interrsting before it's over.
May 10, 2024 19:58:25 #
markwilliam1 wrote:
I’m thinking just Old folks. I’m 70 and could care... (show quote)
I try to avoid massive cropping whenever possible. But if you really do "have to," it's really too late to accomplish anything of value by pixel peeping.
If I am trying something new or different, or checking out a new lens, of course I'll look at full 1:1 rendition. That also holds true if I'm shooting close to my personal limits or my equipment's limits.
Finally...I will do whatever post processing is required and beneficial. But I have absolutely no motivation to try to make an image exposed at an ISO of 6400 or 8000 look like it was shot at my cameras' base ISO. Minimal adjustment is my goal.
May 9, 2024 15:20:07 #
srt101fan wrote:
Could you please elaborate and explain how this painting fits into this topic?
I mentioned the painting and its history very early in this discussion.
May 9, 2024 12:25:03 #
neillaubenthal wrote:
Obviously you’re editing your photos with somethin... (show quote)
The Z9 and Z8 are pretty great cameras. (I may get a Z8 someday if my ship actually does come in.) But there is a ton of misconception about how much "better" their sensors are than "the old, obsolete D500 and D850 sensors."
It turns out that the Z8 and Z9 sensors are identical to the D850 sensor at ISOs above 400. At ISOs of 400 and below, they are actually not quite up to the capability of the D850, but are identical to the D500. Some measurements by some measurers vary a little bit, but overall, that's what it boils down to.
I've learned over the years not to care what other photographers use (although it's alright to be interested). But I get pretty worn out by all the made-up misconceptions that get blown around as fact.
May 9, 2024 12:08:54 #
Technology provides us with choices for a reason...different tasks may require different approaches or techniques. Sometimes there is no requirement at all...just the opportunity to choose a preferred approach. I freely use both JPEG and raw files, sometimes for the same image. And with 14 bits of depth in my raw files, I have never come close to running out of space in my raw envelope for capturing every inch of dynamic range that the sensor detected. That has always been and will remain an empty argument.
The question of compression is different. Compressing any file, no matter what it is, whether in a camera or computer or an electric blender, requires processor cycles. Anything that requires processor cycles requires at least two important things...time and energy. So compression may or may not slow a camera down when shooting bursts. And that slowdown may or may not be noticeable or important. But it will also require some additional drain on the battery power. That may turn out not to be so insignificant.
I have equipped all of my cameras with large memory cards. I do not do compression of either raw or JPEG files. I have never tested the impact of either on battery life. And I am not suggesting that anyone either compress or not. I am suggesting that each person should be aware of the realities and be informed enough to make his own choices, based on the benefits and impacts of those choices.
The question of compression is different. Compressing any file, no matter what it is, whether in a camera or computer or an electric blender, requires processor cycles. Anything that requires processor cycles requires at least two important things...time and energy. So compression may or may not slow a camera down when shooting bursts. And that slowdown may or may not be noticeable or important. But it will also require some additional drain on the battery power. That may turn out not to be so insignificant.
I have equipped all of my cameras with large memory cards. I do not do compression of either raw or JPEG files. I have never tested the impact of either on battery life. And I am not suggesting that anyone either compress or not. I am suggesting that each person should be aware of the realities and be informed enough to make his own choices, based on the benefits and impacts of those choices.
May 8, 2024 23:49:06 #
larryepage wrote:
You don't tell us what camera you have, but I wil... (show quote)