bluelemmy

bluelemmy

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at www.dthorpe.net
Joined on Nov 22, 2010

Comments

Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8

Its main competitor is the Panasonic GX8, surely? It almost certainly uses the same sensor and is styled and presented in a very similar way.

I'm amazed that the Panasonic is not even mentioned - does anyone have any idea why?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 10:16 UTC as 47th comment | 3 replies
On article Photokina 2012: Interview - Stephan Schulz of Leica (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

hydrospanner: When you can't (or don't want to) answer a valid, direct question...go ahead and insult the person that asked it. Wonderful.

I used Hasselblad, Rollei and Mamiya as well as 35mm in 35 years as a professional photographer.
Occasionally I would use MF for someone like Athena who wanted to reproduce my stuff poster size and thus the extra technical quality was necessary.
But mostly I used MF for the 'look' and 'feel' of the results. No-one seeing even a smallish 15x12 inch printed portrait would mistake the results from a Hasselblad and 150 or 250 Sonnar with those from a Nikon and appropriate lens.
The main thing, though, was that clients could tell the difference. That meant extra money in my bank account.
Anyone approaching MF from the point of view of simple pixel count/ sensor area is simply missing the point. And yes, it would imply that they have not used or do not understand MF.
Would anyone seriously think that Ansel Adams woud have taken the same pictures on 35mm as he did on his10x8 inch stand camera? No, of course not.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 22, 2012 at 08:14 UTC

>Users may have occurred problems

What?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2012 at 11:18 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

bunfoolio: Goverment shoud just not be involved in issues such as this. What a waste of time, money, and ultimetly innovation in the industry.

I have applied a small hack to my GH2 which enables you to record for as long as you like within card space limitations.

It takes a couple of minutes and can be reversed at any time. It is freely available.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2012 at 13:37 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: I can't think of any famous Hollywood movie having a 30 minute single raw take...

... or any digital DSLR movie for that matter.

(unless you're filming growing grass...)

There may be, out there... possible.

The lack of imagination of some people is astonishing. There are many, many reasons why people would require >30min recording times.
I have just cycled part of the the Olympic cycle race route, for example. I film from a chest bracket mounted camera. Such a video requires continuous shooting for more than 30 mins.

Direct link | Posted on May 19, 2012 at 17:15 UTC
In reply to:

Donald Lam: Digicams are not designed to be a dedicated camcorder. The small battery will be hard pressed to record for more than 30 minutes. Heat sinking of the sensor and electronics is another issue.

>Rubbish, I've recorded continuously on my hacked GH1 for hours with no problems.

Ditto with my hacked GH2. I can also plug mine into the mains and get over 5hrs continuous AVCHD with a 32gb card.
The hack is simplicity itself to apply and can be removed any time.

Direct link | Posted on May 19, 2012 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

Bernd M: I don't understand why I'll have to pay US$ 5.700 for a Zeiss 135mm F2.1 when I could buy a Zeiss Sonnar T 135mm F1.8 for US$ 1.800. What makes the Cine Lens so much more expensiv? Can anybody tell me?

Some of the comments here just illustrate the massive gulf between amateur and professional photography.
Zeiss are producing these lenses to the highest standards, tailored to the needs of professional film makers. These lenses have little value to an amateur. Their precision manufacture and imaging is important to a professional and that is what they will be paying for.
What a fool you would be to make a twenty million dollar movie and quibble over a few thousand for a lens!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2012 at 15:25 UTC
On article Leica includes Lightroom 4 with most camera purchases (35 comments in total)

I already use LR4 so bundling it with the M9 is not an asset but an on-cost for me.

They need to offer a price without the bundled LR. Why should I pay for something I don't need?

Unless Leica can convince me that Adobe do not charge them for their software and there is no cost to it for the customer. But I don't believe that to be so.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2012 at 16:53 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8