Matthew Miller

Matthew Miller

Lives in United States Boston, United States
Works as a Systems Architect
Has a website at http://mattdm.org/
Joined on Aug 25, 2006
About me:

1996-1999: Casio QV10A
1999-2004: Nikon Coolpix 950
2004-2007: Olympus C-5060
2006-2006: Fujifilm F20
2007- : Fujifilm F31fd
2007-2007: Pentax K100D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)
2007-2009: Pentax K10D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)
2009-2012: Pentax K-7 (still mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)
2009-2011: Fujifilm F200EXR
2012- : Pentax K-5ii (+ 15mm, 40mm, 70mm Limiteds)
Now you know. :)

Comments

Total: 97, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Just posted: Our Fujifilm XF 14mm 1:2.8 R lens review article (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

Matthew Miller: Do you have a reference for "The 'R' in the lens name indicates that ... the 14mm has a dedicated ring to control the aperture."?

Previously Fujifilm has indicated that the R stands for "radius angle" and refers to the shaped aperture blades.

Thanks Andy. Sounds pretty authoritative.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2013 at 15:22 UTC
On Just posted: Our Fujifilm XF 14mm 1:2.8 R lens review article (78 comments in total)

Do you have a reference for "The 'R' in the lens name indicates that ... the 14mm has a dedicated ring to control the aperture."?

Previously Fujifilm has indicated that the R stands for "radius angle" and refers to the shaped aperture blades.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2013 at 17:14 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

JMichaelsPhoto: Could achieve the same effect for a lot less money with a lensbaby.

I woudn't say image quality "suffers". Rather, technical image quality is _beside the point_.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2013 at 15:00 UTC
In reply to:

brunobarolo: With a one stop improvement, Panasonic may finally bring their sensors to the level where Sony sensors are today. Nice :-)

"2 times better" = 1 stop.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2013 at 18:08 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: Stability improvements.. bug fixes. Apparently the contrast adjustment is secondary, although some users might find it important if shooting in strong daylight.

Pentax is curiously reticent to admit what bugs they may have fixed in a given release, possibly due to a quaint pretense that if they don't admit problems the product will be seen as perfect. Of course, as with all tech products (I'm looking at you, Boeing Dreamliner), there's always a few bugs at launch. As it is, we get to play a silly guessing game, and people with pet issues get to argue endlessly about them online. It'd be better to just say — even Apple admits to bugfixes in software updates.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2013 at 03:41 UTC

"Caution: Only K-5II/K-5IIs users are permitted to download the firmware update."

So, watch out, all you Nikon and Canon users. The download police will come after you.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2013 at 03:37 UTC as 5th comment | 5 replies

Soooo, not terribly excited. Polaroid isn't a real company anymore: they went bankrupt and the brand was snatched up by vultures.

The article says that the camera will be "made" by Sakar, but Sakar is just an importer and labeller or cheap Chinese junk electronics — they'll contract out to someone to actually design and make the thing.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2012 at 18:37 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

Tilted Plane: Why complain? More is more. Don't read it if it isn't worth your time. For me it's all interesting. Thanks all around. Now just give us a link to this particular new metric (rather than just the general site) and I'll be really happy.

Because if the metric steers people the wrong way, it will eventually steer the market the wrong way, which will in turn make more new lenses designed around an arbitrary and meaningless score rather than attractive real-world performance.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2012 at 20:09 UTC
In reply to:

ianp5a: Harrison Ford did exactly this in the film 'Blade Runner' in 1982. See it 2:00 minutes in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-7iJPwrsw0

Now they just need to build the technology into a mobile phone.

Nice! Now next time I see a movie and want to complain that cameras or computers don't work that way, I'll remember to stop and wonder _how they could_.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 16, 2012 at 16:10 UTC
On Breaking the Rules article (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

iRadio07: Interesting article, I supposed with years of experience and try and learning, you automatically or indirectly use or not use those rules to make the pictures interesting. Speaking for myself I can say that I never crop a picture (digital or film), I try to use the format to its best. I prefer 3:2 than 4:3 its more like the Golden Ratio, check my blog :

http://my-finepix-x100.blogspot.ch

eric

But then, 4:3 is closer to the canvas format generally used by Renaissance painters, who didn't, as a rule, use the golden ratio for framing their compositions.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2012 at 20:21 UTC
On Breaking the Rules article (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Graystar: The rules are never broken. Whenever you think the rules are being broken, what it really means is that a rule is being applied that you're not aware of.

Divide that first image into 8 rows and 8 columns. Go 5 across and 5 down. You'll end up at the box where all the action is...the teeth into the arm. 8/5 = 1.6 It's a perfect Golden Mean placement.

The rule of thirds is actually a simplified version of Golden Mean placement.

"Centered on the fifth column" is not the normal expression of the golden ratio.This is exactly an example of the magical thinking to which I am referring. You have a preconceived idea that you _really want_ to fit, and don't mind bending it until it does. And then it's trotted out as proof.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2012 at 20:15 UTC
On Thomas Park still life 14 sushi - with grid showing 8/5 location photo in Graystar's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

There's a lot of "biting of the arm" on various intersections. What exactly is especially "poignant" about that particular tooth?

Or are you making a new rule which says that the box between the 5/8th mark and the center line is special?

This is really magical thinking. If you have a rule in mind and go looking for it, you can find places where it will apply everywhere, finding justifications for where it doesn't quite fit, and simply discarding cases where your theory doesn't line up. Here, you've chosen to fit it to for the placement of items in the scene in the border and aren't trying to fit it into proportions of features of the image itself as is more traditional in golden-ratio-ism. You can claim that this is a "rule", but you're on really weak ground both historically and in modern studies of aesthetics.

Note also that since you've drawn your lines at 0.625 instead of 0.618, you're a little off from the magical number — not that it makes any real difference!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2012 at 20:13 UTC as 2nd comment
On Breaking the Rules article (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Graystar: The rules are never broken. Whenever you think the rules are being broken, what it really means is that a rule is being applied that you're not aware of.

Divide that first image into 8 rows and 8 columns. Go 5 across and 5 down. You'll end up at the box where all the action is...the teeth into the arm. 8/5 = 1.6 It's a perfect Golden Mean placement.

The rule of thirds is actually a simplified version of Golden Mean placement.

This is magical thinking. You're taking a pre-conceived rule, making a somewhat arbitrary application of it, and then declaring that the result fits. But what's really so special about the left-top part of her fourth tooth from the left? The composition just has asymmetric balance— a fundamental rule which makes perfect sense — and the coincidence of alignment with some specific fraction is simply that: coincidence.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2012 at 03:47 UTC
On Just Posted: Pentax K-30 full review article (272 comments in total)

I wonder if it might make sense to have completely separate silver/gold awards for video and for still photography? They're really very different use cases, and I know there's a trend towards converged devices, but it's a shame that a camera which really focuses on being a great camera gets dinged in the awards because it's not a camcorder.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2012 at 04:46 UTC as 49th comment | 5 replies
On Hands-on with Nikon V2 article (454 comments in total)
In reply to:

Matthew Miller: Can the built-in flash trigger Nikon's wireless CLS flashes?

Well, that's good for _me_, because I'm far less tempted by the system.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2012 at 16:53 UTC
On Hands-on with Nikon V2 article (454 comments in total)

Can the built-in flash trigger Nikon's wireless CLS flashes?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2012 at 19:26 UTC as 51st comment | 3 replies
On 11 Cool Photography-Related Kickstarter Projects article (48 comments in total)

I have no real use for the Astro, but the design is so clever and appealing that I kind of want to get one anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2012 at 13:23 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

gl2k: Great idea because storage is soooo expensive. LOL
2 TB about €100

Robust, business-class storage costs something like 10¢/month per gigabyte. For real. That €100 stand-alone drive is just one part in a big system.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2012 at 20:08 UTC
In reply to:

DougRight: Ashamedly, jpg and a fairly predictable camera almost gets me all I need. Lossy RAW pegs exactly what I want - white balance control a chance at recovery all at a minimal cost beyond jpg storage. Bravo!

No need for shame. If it works for you, you're winning.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2012 at 20:05 UTC
In reply to:

MrTaikitso: Short term, Connected Cameras. (To differentiate from the non connected.) Long term, Cameras. Why? as per my blog post here...

https://visionaforethought.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/is-the-old-way-really-better/

...like the other items I list in that post, the 'connected' camera is how cameras should always have been. In a year or so, we'll wonder how on Earth we managed prior. Consider the now:

1. Grab camera.

2. Take photo(s).

3. Locate connecting cable. "Oh bummer, I left it in the cafe/car/train/office."

4. Cable acquired, connect to camera.

5. Pull laptop or iPad from bag, or head to location where there is a USB port equipped connected device such as computer or iPad+connection kit.

6. Transfer images from camera to host device.

7. Share/upload to content distribution medium of choice.

With a connected camera:

1. Take photo(s).

2. Connect camera to 3/4G phone WiFi hotspot signal or other WiFi signal.

3. Upload photos to content distribution medium of choice.

Simples!

I think you're right, but your second list is about two steps too long — #2 and #3 can just happen.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 00:04 UTC
Total: 97, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »