All Forum Comments
I see the in camera developer as helpful on the occasions when I can't get to a proper RAW converter, but in general not something I use.
Comment by Mongoose posted on In-camera RAW file editing at 16/03/2010 - 12:14
mikew wrote:
I never said older primes aren't good value for money just that if I want a no compromise go to lens then it will be a modern prime.
I've got to agree, I love my Zeiss Flek for the quality it offers for next to no money, but if I had the cash I'd buy a DA Ltd 35 macro in an instant. The same goes for my Tamron Adaptall 2 Macro, fantastic lens, but given half a chance it'd be replaced by a DFA 100.I never said older primes aren't good value for money just that if I want a no compromise go to lens then it will be a modern prime.
those would both be "ease of use" replacements rather than anything else, which is why the older lenses stay in my kit bag.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Need schooling in *, Limited, and normal lenses at 16/03/2010 - 09:19
drink enough single malt and anything can end up off topic
Comment by Mongoose posted on Lens Value? at 15/03/2010 - 15:08
basically you've is a contraction of "you have", being the past tense of "you are"
eg "you've bought a new car" is the past tense of "you are buying a new car"
it doesn't work as a contraction of "you have" as a statement of ownership such as "you have a new car".
now that I think about it, I'm fairly sure some dialects of English do use it in that sense. It feels like something an Irish person might say? anyway, it's not "correct" in the "Queens English" sense.
eg "you've bought a new car" is the past tense of "you are buying a new car"
it doesn't work as a contraction of "you have" as a statement of ownership such as "you have a new car".
now that I think about it, I'm fairly sure some dialects of English do use it in that sense. It feels like something an Irish person might say? anyway, it's not "correct" in the "Queens English" sense.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Something I don't understand about Cokin filters at 15/03/2010 - 14:40
impotentspider wrote:
Thanks guys, its about what I expected.
Dave, sorry I have to decline your offer, I dont like ice in my Scotch
I'll give you two bottles of scotch and no ice cubes Thanks guys, its about what I expected.
Dave, sorry I have to decline your offer, I dont like ice in my Scotch
Comment by Mongoose posted on Lens Value? at 15/03/2010 - 12:11
Dangermouse wrote:
Yep, I've always been confused why they did that. It isn't hard to figure out though as the non-standard original auto focus is only found on the ME F and the 35-70mm f2.8 (which look nothing like the SF series bodies and Pentax-F lenses, which were the first to use the KAF mount).
I wouldn't mind an ME F and matching lens, but don't rate my chances of finding both as they usually go for ridiculous money. Might snag an ME F one day though, and the focus confirmation stuff is supposed to work with any lens...
I've got an ME-F, picked mine up a few years ago at which time they generally went for less than the ME Super because they were less well known. I can confirm that the AF confirm works nicely with any lens. It does munch batteries pretty fast for an M series camera though!Yep, I've always been confused why they did that. It isn't hard to figure out though as the non-standard original auto focus is only found on the ME F and the 35-70mm f2.8 (which look nothing like the SF series bodies and Pentax-F lenses, which were the first to use the KAF mount).
I wouldn't mind an ME F and matching lens, but don't rate my chances of finding both as they usually go for ridiculous money. Might snag an ME F one day though, and the focus confirmation stuff is supposed to work with any lens...
Comment by Mongoose posted on Inexpensive nifty fifty with autofocus? at 15/03/2010 - 11:29
I don't think anyone takes RiceHigh particularly seriously. Ken Rockwell is listened to by more people, but even he is widely taken with a substantial pinch of salt.
Comment by Mongoose posted on news on the 645D about crop? at 15/03/2010 - 11:18
hefty1 wrote:
I don't think there are any other sealed DMF cameras making this a bit of a travel/landscape photographer's dream I'd have thought.
not to mention the Leica S series lenses are ~$5000 each, or ~$6500 if you want the leaf shutter version (assuming they ever get around to making those).Unlocker wrote:
Without knowing anything about the digital medium format market, how many of them are weather sealed? Would this make it unique?
The Leica S2 is also sealed; but then it's still not in the shops, has a slightly poorer spec sheet than the 645D and is set to cost $23,000 without a lens.Without knowing anything about the digital medium format market, how many of them are weather sealed? Would this make it unique?
I don't think there are any other sealed DMF cameras making this a bit of a travel/landscape photographer's dream I'd have thought.
Comment by Mongoose posted on news on the 645D about crop? at 12/03/2010 - 14:56
yes and no,
the fact that they have constant f-number doesn't help the optical quality, BUT
the constant aperture lenses have always tended to be the higher end models and that remains true, so constant zooms tend to be higher quality for that reason.
It is hard to make a zoom lens much faster than f/2.8, but the best and most expensive lenses tend to be the fastest so constant f/2.8 has become a badge of quality in a zoom.
the fact that they have constant f-number doesn't help the optical quality, BUT
the constant aperture lenses have always tended to be the higher end models and that remains true, so constant zooms tend to be higher quality for that reason.
It is hard to make a zoom lens much faster than f/2.8, but the best and most expensive lenses tend to be the fastest so constant f/2.8 has become a badge of quality in a zoom.
Comment by Mongoose posted on How do constant aperture zooms work? at 12/03/2010 - 14:46
The NP400 is functionally identical to the DLi50 in terms of physical size, shape and electrical connections. Any difference in true capacity is not apparent in general use.