benjamin_kim2
-
Posts
112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by benjamin_kim2
-
-
All lenses designed specifically for Sony mirrorless cameras are designed to accommodate the thick (~ 2 mm) cover glass on the sensor. This is to mitigate the smearing effect when light rays impinge on the sensor at a high angle of incidence in the corners. Lenses are also designed to reduce the angle of incidence by keeping the rear element further from the focal plane than absolutely necessary. LensRentals finds it necessary to impose a 2 mm filter at the focal plane to accurately measure the MTF of FE lenses.
The zoom lenses illustrated above have a diameter much larger than that of the mount. There is a cylindrical section at the base of the lens to match the diameter of the mount. This also provides space for your fingers when gripping the camera. You will notice that the tapered portion of SLR lenses is longer than that of the FE mount lenses when measured from the focal plane. This suggests that the long extension is for practical reasons rather than inclusion of a built-in adapter for an existing optical design.
It is easy to mount SLR lenses on the Sony using an adapter. In direct comparison, FE lenses are much sharper in the corners than adapted Nikon lenses of comparable focal length and quality. This is also true for Leica lenses, which require an adapter only about 5 mm in length. This argues strongly against the idea that FE lenses are repackaged versions of earlier designs.
And where can I find that information? Any sources or proofs?
-
I believe that a lot of Sony FE-mount lenses are still optical designs for the A-mount with its larger flange-to-sensor distance and that the section you circled in red accounts for that difference between FE and A mount cameras; a built-in adapter so to speak.
Yeah, that's what I heard from Sony that I chatted with a few days ago. Slow and small lenses have no issues but big and fast lenses have that kind of built in adapter size. Im not blaming it but it seems only Sony FE lenses have that kind of extra height and space which I really curious about. I contacted Sony for this but couldn't hear a clear answer since he wasn't a technician.
Trying to split the answer.If we take a undemanding optical design, like a 135mm Elmar's lens head or the Pentax 100mm f4 bellows we have a few optical elements pretty distant from the sensor (or film) and what we'll pack between those 2 barely matters. - be it the huge mirror box of a Leica Visoflex + focusing tube or the bellows with a Pentax SLR. and yes fitting the same head on a sony demands a longer lens barrel than putting it on a Nikon.
The funnel like shaping of lens barrels you marked has a very simple not optical reason: Ergonomics. Sony decided to make tiny cameras and have to leave space for photographers' fingertips somewhere. - I think I read or heard complaints about that bit of space still not being really enough.
Its hard to tell anything about a lens from just looking at it's outer shape. Where is the rear element in relation to the mount or sensor plane? There were lenses with glass sticking out way behind the mount and others with several cm between mount and glass.
More interesting about a mount is the actual size of the hole in the camera. Canon picked a pretty big one. The Chinese Great Wall MF SLR is probably pretty challenged by using a 39mm enlarger / Leica thread.
Still weird that Sony FE lenses especially big and fast lenses have that extra space and height while other brands don't.
-
I saw comments that Sony FE lenses have longer height because of edge to edge sharpness due to short flange back. Compare to other brands, none of them have extra adapter size of height like that but Sony FE lenses. Check the red circle compares to other lenses. If sony intended to design like that, is it true that they wanted to get the edge to edge sharpness due to short flange back? If not, I want to know why. I contacted Sony but Im not able to get any pieces of information since he wasn't a technician.
-
Used only basic tools.
-
I've been shooting portraits for 3 years and Im facing the limitation with editing portrait images that I can not advance my editing skills. Im using Capture One Pro for Sony and Photoshop but mostly C1P is my main program so far. I just control basic tools and I have no idea how to create color tones like that facebook page images. I know what tools to use but I couldn't achieve professional color tones for portrait photographs. Basically, Im seeking of advanced editing skills. As a portrait photographer, I dont want let other people edit my images unless I work for other people. I dont know where to learn for better editing skills. I found Google and Youtube not helpful. Since some photographers have reputations just because of their color tone styles, I would like to ask about editing portrait pics.
-
What is the DOF for (True 645 and cropped 645)
400mm F2.8
80mm F2.8
300mm F5.6
165mm F4
in 35mm FF?
-
As said, this"official" information of "trash" is entirely bogus. Some reviewer might have Opined so, but that doesn't make it true. Some "fanboys" are always saying something like that about both major OSs.
That a 2010 computer doesn't work as well anymore is also subjective. Can you guess how many people years that 7 computer years translates to?
Go use a Windows machine and see how happy it makes you.
You can switch to Linux on your old Mac, BTW. If the Mac OS is described as ""User Friendly, then Linux is "Expert tolerant"
I looked hard, but apparently this is not an ancient, reanimated thread, as I thought when I first read it. Haven't seen much like it in years.
Apple Apologizes About Mac Pro's Lack of Upgradability, Ensures It's Still Committed to Pros
It's not fake. It's a fact. Nobody wants not upgradeable workstation with a worst cooling system.
-
Who announced this, where? I am not a Mac-fan, but this is really complete nonsens. The current Mac Pro in the shape of a trashcan (which is quite something different from it being trash) might not be the ideal choice for all users, and by now it starts to show its age, but it's not a bad workstation by any stretch of imagination.
Other than that, whether YOU like Windows or MacOS better is what matters; it's file compatibility that matters more than anything else. So choose the OS you like best, and go from there.
Apple Apologizes About Mac Pro's Lack of Upgradability, Ensures It's Still Committed to Pros
They apologized about it. It's a workstation computer but it has only one fan to cool 1 CPU and 2 GPU. This is really a ridiculous idea. Can you explain why couldn't they update Mac Pro for 5 years? It officially considered as a trash.
-
I have Mac Pro 2010 with Dual 3.46ghz quad core, M.2 SSD 256gb, 32gb RAM, gtx 1060, and etc. I also have MacBook Pro 2013.
I start to doubt about using Mac computer because it doesn't not perform well compare to PC. It's just TOO expansive and limited to be honest. Recently, they officially announced that Mac Pro 2013 is a trash and failed product and when I heard this news, I really doubt about Mac system so much. They didn't even care about Mac computers at all.
Right now, Im getting A7rii and I already worried about the computer that I have. I use LR and Photoshop but it does not perform well with Mac Pro 2010. Even with Capture one Pro, it's laggy and slow. Since Apple won't gonna release a new Mac Pro till late 2018 or early 2019 and I don't need a workstation just for LR and Photoshop, Im thinking to move from Mac to PC. I checked computer parts for my uses and it cost only $2000. Intel 7700k or Ryzen 1800, liquid cooling system, 32gb ram, 500gb m.2 SSD, bigger case, and more.
But still, I am not sure if I want to move to PC since photo industry is somewhat Mac friendly(my school have only Mac Pros) especially printing and calibration. I like MacOS but I don't see its future. What should I do? Just move to PC?
-
I got this rangefinder for the first time. I already have Pentax 67 but for it's really light and small so I picked this from my school. Well, I have some questions to ask before I start taking pics for travel and portrait.
1. It has an external finder but with just a finder from the camera, am I able to compose the portrait at the middle as Im seeing and focusing at the middle?
2. With an external finder, do I need to compose the frame little bit down?
3. Is it some what accurate to focus at f4 without shallow dof issue?
4. How's the vibrance at 1/15 compare to DSLR? Is it possible to take pics without shaked image?
5. Would it be better to focus and then compose with an external viewfinder to put the person in the middle?
-
Im currently using lightroom to archive all raw files base on year, date, and topic. But some people told me that it's not a good way to archive raw files with lightroom but bridges. I have no idea why bridge is more superior tho. Im also using capture one pro too due to medium format and sony raw files. Which programs should I keep using then?
-
<p>I'm talking about film developer from Sprint. Yeah the article didn't talk about it so that's why I am asking people if Sprint can work for that method or not.</p>
-
<p>https://petapixel.com/2017/01/25/develop-black-white-film-extreme-contrast-detail/</p>
<p>This article is quite interesting that I wish to try but it doesn't say anything about Sprint quick developer so I have no idea what should I start with. So I would like to start from 1:100 (500ml). Any thoughts?</p>
-
<p>Does it has 16 bit? Hasselblad official site claimed that it has 16 bit but I dont know why people kept telling me that is has 14 bit.</p>
-
<p>I wonder how long will it take to print 60X44 size of photo. Never used this kind of old printer instead of 4900. </p>
-
<p>Some people told me that Leica Summicron 50mm F2 is the most sharpest lens in the world compare to Zeiss Otus 50mm f1.4. But is it true or not?</p>
-
<p>I use Epson premium luster paper 260 and Epson 4900.</p>
<p>Im very familiar with these but I am not sure why specific images have inaccurate colors. It said it's out of gamut on complete red area. It suppose to be a pure red but it looks somewhat different. It's a fine art image created by photoshop btw. Any idea why or should I try other paper like premium glossy paper?</p>
-
<p>JDM/ Well Im looking for a film lab in NYC cause the place where I've been using seem to be suck at processing color negatives that I can't even edit or retouch properly. That made me disappoint about that lab. I tried FIND lab by paying more money and then scanned their film negatives. Guess what? Their processing is way better than the current film lab that I used. Well, I can't send films to FIND lab a lot since they charge money for processing, scanning, and shipping(this is quite ridiculous that I have to pay $10 for shipping film negatives.) </p>
-
<p>Well, I should try shooting pics with it once then</p>
-
<p>I use only mechanical film cameras but I wonder if it's ok to shoot with slide films or not. I have Nikon F2 which has a mechanical shutter instead of electronic shutter but it does not provide accurate shutter speed. Both B&W and Color films are fine but not sure about slide films.</p>
-
<p>I checked both and I got 2 for color vision test and no issue with a monitor.</p>
-
<p>Thank you for responding.</p>
<p>I have a calibrated BenQ SW2700PT monitor and I work in pure dark room in order to see colors accurately. I guess I have lack of knowledges and skills of using photoshop. But I can't view colors exactly on LR too. Perhaps Im using what Im not familiar with. Canon cameras seem to be very different with Nikon, Pentax, and Sony base on my experiences. It wasn't that hard to edit images with Pentax and LR mostly. </p>
<p>But still, my friends and other people think that I have lack of color visions since they know and get right colors with LR and Photoshop in simple way. So I tried scanning and retouching color films which is the most difficult task to do. Not able to get what The Find Lab did. </p>
<p>I assume that I have lack of software skill, lack of color vision, and lack of keen eyes. I usually check and see magazines, posters, and other works for developing skills. Well I dont know exactly why am I suffering lack of skills even I spent 3 years of using LR and Photoshop.</p>
-
<p>Well, I've doing photography works for 3 years in school but I felt that my color retouching skill is not good at all. It was obvious to other people but not me. I wish to get train for color retouching but I have no idea what to do. I know experiences will grant me more skills and I would like to hear some advices. I basically seek color retouching skill for portrait, still life, and landscape.</p>
-
<p>Im not buying any Sony A7 series or E-mount lenses yet but I will going to buy them in few years since Im tire of using DSLR which is quite heavy to carry around and made me some what lazy for shooting pics.</p>
<p>I really use 50mm lens a lot and I need to get one with standard zoom lens. I know that I can not afford two premium lenses from the beginning but at least I need to know about E-mount lenses. For standard zoom lens, 24-70mm F4 would be the only choice unless I pick cheap lens from prim lens.<br>
Base on my research, I found FE 50mm f1.8, Zeiss FE 55mm f1.9, Zeiss Loxia 50mm F2, Samyang 50mm f1.4, and GM 50mm F1.4. Since I spent a lot of time with the camera, I would prefer small and portable lens instead of big and heavy lenses like Samyang 50mm f1.4 and GM 50mm f1.4.</p>
<p>So, Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2, Zeiss 55mm f1.8, and FE 50mm f1.8 are my choices. Any thoughts about these lenses so far?</p>
Photography permit in NY area?
in Portraits & Fashion
Posted