Noct

Life Member
  • Content count

    1,448
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Noct last won the day on 8 April

Noct had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

128 of my posts have been liked

About Noct

  • Rank
    Master Member
  • Birthday 12/10/59

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Eindhoven NL
  • Edit my pics?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

567 profile views
  1. The formula behind the numbers in the table isn't exactly rocket science: (diagonal) Angle of view = 2 * arctan((half of diagonal) / (distance between sensor and lens)) diagonal = sqrt((sensor width)^2 + (sensor height)^2) For the numbers in the table the focal length is used for the distance between sensor and lens, in other words the numbers in the table are only accurate for the lens focussed at infinity. If one understands the model there is no need to remember any figures, because one can always easily reproduce them (if needed at all). It should be noted that camera manufacturers do not always specifiy numbers precisely. For example, my Fuji 23mm F/2 lens clearly gives a wider view than my Fuji 23mm F/1.4 lens. This leads to the question: how to determine accurately the focal length of a lens, without a dedicated optical bench in a lab
  2. My first DSLR was a D70 too, it had to go back 4 times for service before the backfocus was solved. There was an opening on the back that they called the finder; peephole would have been a better description. Compare the thingy with one of the latest APS-C Nikons, the D500 and the difference is day and night.
  3. Thom Hogan's remarks in full context: http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/stop-complaining-mirrorless.html As Anthony already mentions, in fact he is extremely positive about the X-T2. And he is very positive on the Olympus'es too. When was the last update to PhotoNinja? Why is the Iridient X-Transformer tool still in beta? That are some of the things you have to accept in order to live with X-Trans I fully agree with his closing remarks: "Simply put, if you aren't generating great photos from your mirrorless camera system and lenses, something is wrong. Very wrong. We've got exceptional products to use now, so make sure you know how to use them to best advantage"
  4. Nah Mike, the X-T2 is too silent With the D810 he certainly would have turned his head to you...
  5. The new Nikkor 28mm f/1.4 prime is the successor to the Nikkor 28mm F/1.4 AF from 1993... The Otus appeared just a few years ago and is MF.
  6. A friend saw my Fuji's and before I could warn him "but you will need a good raw converter in order to get the best out of it" he decided to get an X-T2 with the zoom. He wasn't happy with the results from the jpg's and out of Lightroom, was happy with Iridient but mentioned that he got the best results with the latest version of Capture One Pro (10.1). Out of curiosity I downloaded the 30-days trial, and I must say that am positively surprised about how well it renders X-Trans files. Colours, sharpness and demosaicing seems to be very well done and the .raf's are processed with reasonable speed, much faster than Iridient Developer. PhotoNinja, Iridient Developer (Mac only), Iridient X-transformer; IMHO Capture One Pro 10.1 can be added to this list of software that handles X-Trans properly. Definitely worth a look.
  7. As seen earlier today, D500 with 300/2.8VRII
  8. Exactly. The D820 will most probably be a little bit larger than the D500 because of the mirrorbox size (remember d300 size vs D700 size). The "retina" flippable LCD is well done on the D500 and is safe when flush against the body, and personally I like to see the flash gone. It will never accidentally popup again
  9. A site dedicated to emulating impossible lenses and creating ultimate subject isolation by stitching pictures from large aperture lenses: https://www.bokehpano.com Warning: Maybe not the best place to go for those with a weak stomach for "equivalency". (My apologies if this has already been linked here)
  10. I think so too; my personal preference (X-Pro2 or X-T2) is the X-Pro2 despite the lack of articulated screen and the finicky ISO adjustment, something most over here will never understand (and imho they don't need to)... Things can always made to be better, my observation is that we always find time to talk about weaknesses in the previous generation (of camera(s))... Actually Thom Hogan likes the X-T2, in his most recent blog he calls it (together with the D500) the only APS-C "workhorses": http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-hot-or-not-list.html
  11. Alan, I know you never will consider reading one of his ebooks on Nikons, but he has more knowledge on the matter than his resume suggests and takes decent pictures too.
  12. Simply because X-Trans is different than Bayer every reviewer will pay attention to it... Yes he did. But many valid points are made w.r.t. handling etc. (AF-ON button!) than can/need/should be solved in future versions.
  13. The mechanical adjustment is more complicated and delicate than the "software" adjustment as being used in SLR's with phase detection AF. Some people claim to be able to DIY, but most send the equipment to Wetzlar for adjustment that can take many weeks.
  14. For those still interested in X-T2 reviews, one by Thom Hogan (famous for his "complete guide to the Nikon xxx" books). The Fujifilm people should read it. http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a-note-about-camera-reviews/fujifilm-camera-reviews/fujifilm-x-t2-review.html
  15. A properly adjusted / calibrated rangefinder camera can be very accurate w.r.t. focussing, especially with wide to normal lenses, but a lot can go wrong in that rather complicated and delicate mechanical / optical construction. There are enough stories on the Leica forum about "my camera and lenses are in Wetzlar for calibration" to make this something for consideration.