Jump to content


Member Since 29 Jul 2015
Offline Last Active Dec 19 2017 04:51 PM

#248203 Apple Is Updating 1000 Times Month

Posted by nwcs on 02 December 2017 - 06:46 PM

I guess Im influenced by my profession but Im liking frequent updates especially when security bugs are found. While I understand the association with patch Tuesday and Microsoft I would be more concerned with not having updates for the sake of appearing stable.

#248117 Do these things work well?

Posted by nwcs on 30 November 2017 - 06:13 PM

I have something like it. Yes, they work quite well. It isnt as good as a drum scan or other high quality scans but it does the job pretty easily. Most of my film, nearly all, isnt worth the effort or expense to make it perfect and this type of thing is plenty good enough.

#248116 For only $12,795 you to can.....

Posted by nwcs on 30 November 2017 - 06:10 PM

Honestly, I dont see why anyone would want this lens. It probably isnt any better than the Canon 85 1.2 or Nikon 85 1.4 but costs 9x more and without autofocus.

#246815 Lightroom C or CC?

Posted by nwcs on 29 October 2017 - 08:13 AM

I've tried it. It works well but it's far more expensive. It updates yearly so they'll have Capture1 11 out in December. So $300/yr for Capture1 and that's pretty steep. If you like Apple's Aperture then C1's catalog structure will feel natural. If you don't like that project based approach then you'll find C1's structure woefully lacking. Also it's a myth that it renders better than Lightroom. You can get the same results -- it's just that C1 starts closer to a finished point with a pre-set tone curve and more aggressive sharpening. It's a good alternative with better tethering but I think it's a costly way to go.

#246591 Makes no sense to me!

Posted by nwcs on 23 October 2017 - 05:05 PM

Adding a new entry in a shrinking market was a poor choice for Samsung. A late entry, even if technically good, would have a hard time grabbing mind share from the market leaders. Once you carve out Canons, Nikons, and Sonys market share theres not a lot left for profitability in a declining market.

#244992 BD500 camera plate

Posted by nwcs on 03 September 2017 - 10:35 AM

OK, I had a brilliant idea. I put some gaffer tape on the plate itself to increase its thickness. Worked perfectly. So it's very snug now. What would we do without gaffer tape? It's like duct tape's little brother.

#244917 BD500 camera plate

Posted by nwcs on 31 August 2017 - 11:15 AM

It's such a standard Allen wrench sized that I don't expect I'll ever leave the wrench attached. I'm hoping the new screws take care of the problem. I like the basic design better than the Kirk alternative. I didn't want to go with a knockoff. At this point I'm willing to put support to the companies who create rather than clone.

#244871 BD500 camera plate

Posted by nwcs on 30 August 2017 - 06:51 PM

Thanks! I was hoping it was a fluke. But since I've not had a RRS camera plate I wasn't sure.

#244856 BD500 camera plate

Posted by nwcs on 30 August 2017 - 05:45 PM

Well, heard back from them. They're sending me another screw and a special screw that is 3/4 mm shorter so I bet that will work. I'm impressed by their customer service. :)

#244382 Latest D850 Update

Posted by nwcs on 20 August 2017 - 12:26 PM

Exactly. It's why on the nikonian boards I was "famous" for buying the 200-400 a couple of times. My eyes are sometimes bigger than my time/opportunities. I may wait to see what happens after the D850 comes out. Maybe snag an even cheaper D750 or D810.

#243852 Milka Cows are purple but in Zeewolde they're...

Posted by nwcs on 06 August 2017 - 04:49 PM

I don't know about milka cows but milka chocolate is great!

#243841 Nikon Rumours - My experience of using consumer optics, professionally

Posted by nwcs on 06 August 2017 - 01:39 PM

Overall it's about finding the right compromise, as I said in that thread. For people like me, enthusiasts with not a lot of time to spend, it may not be worth spending a great deal of money on equipment. Over the years I've had my share of Tamron 200-500, 150-600, Sigma 150-500, and time with the Nikon 200-400. I definitely appreciate what Tamron and Sigma et al have done for Nikon users. However Nikon knows the secret sauce and their stuff generally works better.


Right now all I have is a 300 f4 PF and 1.4 E3 TC. Not cheap but my thinking turned to this: if I have little time I want to maximize the potential of the few situations I get to shoot. So I end up with better stuff that way. A true wildlife pro (how many are even out there anymore?) will want the best because it has fewer compromises where they need it most: performance.


I'm really glad we have such a wonderful assortment of lens options these days. Many opportunities for the right situations.

#243693 Happy Anniversary.... Where's the BEEF?

Posted by nwcs on 02 August 2017 - 07:11 AM

The DL would have done better than the KeyMission. I guess we will never know the full reason why the DL series was cancelled. Probably more to it than we realize.

#220741 Do you have CC?

Posted by nwcs on 22 April 2016 - 05:57 PM

Interesting. I had CC for a year or so but never saw that either. It's good for those who like digital frames though.

#204907 50mm vs 85mm FX format

Posted by nwcs on 12 October 2015 - 09:17 AM

The 50mm AF-S is much better than the AF-D although the AF-D is cheaper. If you're not going to use it anywhere near wide open then the AF-D may be the best choice. As for "what the eye sees" it's not so clear as to say that 50mm is that. There are many different opinions on the subject. I'd say it's fair to say that it mimics one *aspect* of the eye but not all of them. For example, as Thom Hogan says at http://www.bythom.com/myths.htm:


"One recent photography book I was browsing through repeated the oft-made claim that a 50mm lens most closely matches that which our eyes see, the so-called "normal" lens. The problem with this, of course, is that the eye/brain connection includes a number of subtle features, such as peripheral vision and near-constant reorienting and focusing. In general, I find that I "see" about a 24mm-equivalent field of view, with my vision concentrated on the equivalent of anything from a 80mm to 300mm lens (and this range has narrowed as I grow older). (For those that are curious, most human eyes are about 16mm in focal length and the pupil's iris can manage effective apertures of from about f/2 to f/11.)"


In the end it doesn't really matter, 50mm or 85mm or 24mm. They are merely in-camera crops.


Let's take a brief step back. You find a given scene in front of you and you like the perspective. You slap on a 24mm lens and you see in the viewfinder a lot of what's in front of you. Then you put on the 50mm one and now you see less in the viewfinder. Then the 85mm and even less. Now let's say you took a picture each time. Lens distortions aside, you could fit that 85mm picture inside of the 50mm one perfectly and seamlessly. Same as the 50 into the 24. The picture didn't change at all, it was merely cropped as you increased focal length.


So this reframes the question entirely from "which lens for this situation" to what crop of the scene in front of me works? Lenses don't change perspective at all, they don't flatten or expand depth of field. They are crops of field of view. Now, the physics of the lenses dictate that to accomplish the crop there is stretching on wide angle views to fit everything in and that can be interesting or undesirable. But it's still not changing the perspective which is the distance between camera and subject and subject with background.