Paul JM

Paul JM

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Feb 19, 2004

Comments

Total: 58, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

well it appears that these is some question as to whether this is actually true

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/buyer-beware-treat-peter-lik-photo-sale-with-scepticism-20141212-125khz.html

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 03:48 UTC as 123rd comment
On Ghost Town: Shooting in Kolmanskop article (71 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul JM: Erez, a couple of comments refer to the 'DR' of the A7, but surely there is some HDR action going on in post here ?

Yeah the HDR gig does not do it for me. I like photos to look as though I am seeing them with my eye. Just a matter of personal taste, but the DR in a couple of those shots, in real life, looking at the shadowed back of a wall while looking straight into the sunlight, would just never look that way to the human eye, and I personally dont like that effect at all. I dont think they are leveraging the DR of the camera, but are touched up in post. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 01:58 UTC
On Ghost Town: Shooting in Kolmanskop article (71 comments in total)

Erez, a couple of comments refer to the 'DR' of the A7, but surely there is some HDR action going on in post here ?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 23:23 UTC as 23rd comment | 5 replies
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1669 comments in total)
In reply to:

erotavlas: The only people who were underwhelmed and disappointed by this are the gear fanatics who constantly obsess about having the latest and greatest.

Excellent comment, so can we then presume that you are still using an EOS 630, and only browsing this particular thread seeking inspiration for your film landscapes ?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 06:49 UTC
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1669 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photato: Wow what an epic marketing fail...and to quote my Grand mom.
"Over Promised - Under delivered"

I suspect your Grand mom was a young woman when Canon last released something worth buying

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 05:04 UTC
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1669 comments in total)

what makes me laugh more than this is the continual defence of this company and their complete lack of forward thought, or meaningful innovation by the posters on this forum. Dare to post anything negative about Canon, and you are leaped upon within moments.

I have kept my Canon lens set waiting for some tangible step forward from my 5D mk2, but I continue to wait. And, in the mean time, have shifted my video work to Blackmagic, and my travel work to Fuji

The world is leaving Canon in its dust

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 03:37 UTC as 172nd comment
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Impressions Review preview (2709 comments in total)
In reply to:

taktak91: I'm rarely envious of Canon users, but today I'm very envious.

Of what ? Slightly upgraded version of the previous 7D, with no new trick, and certainly nothing to attract me away from my current cameras. What exactly about this camera makes you envious, compared with the previous model ?
My 7D mk1 is for sale. OK for sports, but heavy, big, and about as exciting as a night with my mother in law

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:18 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (149 comments in total)

absolutely nauseating to see so many posts just canning the concept of flying quadcopters. Any one would think that they are all carrying WMDs the way that people carry on.
They are a relatively new and exciting concept in obtaining new avenues to photography, in the same way that underwater housings, crash camsGoPros etc are
If you are not interested in embracing them, then FFS dont try and turn a DPR article into a pulpit for professing your views on their evils. Take that nonsense elsewhere.
Like any new tool, they can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. If you are worried about their use, then perhaps better to offer constructive suggestions about guidelines rather than just nonsense like 'dont encourage them'.
One could equally argue that the use of mid to long range telephotos lenses in urban communities is more intrusive (most copters use very wide lenses, and you are far less likely to see personal details than a complact telephoto on the beach)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2014 at 04:17 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

abolit: Hey, Fuji! Enough of F3.5 - F5.6 crap! Start making some good stuff! F2.8 all the way thru or , at least , F4 .
Sick of it!

Cobber, the top post on this thread referred to Fuji as producing 'crap'. If you really agree then why are you bother bothering to post here ?
Perhaps you need a ..................reality check............

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 12:57 UTC
In reply to:

abolit: Hey, Fuji! Enough of F3.5 - F5.6 crap! Start making some good stuff! F2.8 all the way thru or , at least , F4 .
Sick of it!

"Reality check"
FFS
Now I have heard it all
Anyway, better late than never mate

Direct link | Posted on Jun 21, 2014 at 15:17 UTC
In reply to:

abolit: Hey, Fuji! Enough of F3.5 - F5.6 crap! Start making some good stuff! F2.8 all the way thru or , at least , F4 .
Sick of it!

Iudex I am pleased to see that u r another emerging Streisand fan. Make sure that u attach a large bowling ball to the back of your head to counterbalance that enormous lens that u crave

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 14:02 UTC
In reply to:

abolit: Hey, Fuji! Enough of F3.5 - F5.6 crap! Start making some good stuff! F2.8 all the way thru or , at least , F4 .
Sick of it!

It is also about keeping the range commercially viable. You may well feel that a huge lens on the front of this camera is going to sell. Fuji clearly (up to this point) dont. If you want to put a Canon 70-200 f 2.8 on the front of this camera, go and by an adaptor. No point flogging Fuji simply because they chose not to produce such an absurd combination. Not everyone wants to put Barbara Streisand's nose on Kate Moss' face.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 07:42 UTC
In reply to:

abolit: Hey, Fuji! Enough of F3.5 - F5.6 crap! Start making some good stuff! F2.8 all the way thru or , at least , F4 .
Sick of it!

Nothing more annoying than this sort of ranting. There is no point opting for a compact system camera, and then screaming for a wide, long telephoto zoom. It must out of necessity be enormous. If you want such a lens, then buy a dSLR. Working with a CSC is all about embracing the smaller system, but accepting the compromises that a small size brings. If you want a fast prime, than Fuji have plenty. If you want a high quality zoom, then Fuji have plenty. If you want a high quality zoom with a long telephoto range, and a fixed 2.8 max aperture, you are looking in the wrong galaxy. Look at the options you have. if you compare with the Canon 24-70 2.8 (which is only about half as long at the long end) you are looking at almost twice the weight (490 vs 805 g). If you look at the Canon 70-200 2.8 with IS, then you are up to 1.49 kg ! Even if you accept f4 in the Canon 24-105, you are still at 670 g. So seriously forpetesake, take your whining elsewhere

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 01:06 UTC
In reply to:

Jogger: Its not good enough for professional use and its too expensive as a toy (which is what it is).

reread the posts mate. What are you referring to when you say 'this is be definition..commercial' ? We were not referring to any particular mode of use. Jogger mentioned commercial use, not me. Clearly this little drone is not appropriate for commercial use. And by the way, the law is different in every country. The FAA is of no interest or relevance to those of us who dont live in the USA. It is hilarious that you seem to assume that we all live there

Direct link | Posted on May 27, 2014 at 00:41 UTC
In reply to:

Jogger: Its not good enough for professional use and its too expensive as a toy (which is what it is).

Fujica, who in their right mind would consider this model for commercial use ? I am afraid your response just smells of a drone hater.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2014 at 01:20 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dailou: ..........continuation from below the need this baby fulfills and is due to canons commitment to the underwater guys and gails, they always at the time of intro have a underwater housing you can get which in comparison to underwater housings is reasonably priced. with the better wide angle, nice viewing display , fast fstop, and decent sensor size, canons good build quality, and canons commitment to providing uw housings this will be a nice small package that should get good underwater results. (see the first half of my reason i like this camera). this is why i like this camera - by the way i have been shooting with this thing for the last 2 weeks and it is pleasant to use and the results are good

Do you think that 'pleasant to use' and 'results are good' is the glowing endorsement that a new Canon camera would once have drawn ? They ought to be leading the pack, but have become reactive. My cupboard is full of old Canon bodies that barely see the light of day. I use the 7D for sports events, and the 5d mk2 for underwater use and video, but thats it. The brand has been left in the dust

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2014 at 23:42 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (689 comments in total)

Just demonstrates to me the problems with where Canon is heading and the lack of imagination in their development dept.
This is really just a minor tweak of the previous model. It would appear that any thought of having a dramatic change of direction with real imagination and foresight is just beyond them. I had, until the last 3 or so year, bought nothing but Canon cameras for more than 2 decades, but now cant really see anything in their line up that appeal at all. My 5d mk2 remains an excellent SLR, but I would love to see Canon jump out of the pack, and produce something really exciting, say, and mirror less interchangeable lens camera with a full frame sensor, that weighs about half of what an SLR weighs (e.g. something along the lines of a Sony A7R) that produces outstanding stills, and high end functional video. There is a window for them here to produce the ultimate non-SLR travel camera. They have the sensor tech.

But sadly, I cant even imagine that this is on their radar

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2014 at 02:48 UTC as 94th comment
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul JM: Great pity. I am sure that some outstanding photographic and video opportunities will now be lost for ever.
I dont at all buy this business of 'its a wilderness..' If that is the case, then why not just ban anyone from going there at all, and risking leaving rubbish, interfering with wild life etc. It is really just a matter of where you draw the line, so I dont think that people want to be too judgemental about where that line is drawn. There are plenty of people who are prepared and committed to the responsible use of unmanned copters etc for aerial photography.
It seems to me rather odd to ban the use of drones in Yosemite, but to allow firearms !
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/weapons.htm

Steve, not at all. I spend a good deal of my life in remote areas in Australia and more than anyone would not like to see them ruined by human interference, but I fail to see what possible threat a handful of responsibly controlled drones could represent to YNP. You are assuming more than you can in suggesting that I think that people are 'allowed to behave just as they would elsewhere'. I just done see that drones represent any more threat to the environment than any of the other issues outlined above
This also needs to be balanced against the threat to your liberties that such a ban represents.
But then, clearly the drone represents more of a threat than a firearm.

FFS....

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2014 at 12:35 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul JM: Great pity. I am sure that some outstanding photographic and video opportunities will now be lost for ever.
I dont at all buy this business of 'its a wilderness..' If that is the case, then why not just ban anyone from going there at all, and risking leaving rubbish, interfering with wild life etc. It is really just a matter of where you draw the line, so I dont think that people want to be too judgemental about where that line is drawn. There are plenty of people who are prepared and committed to the responsible use of unmanned copters etc for aerial photography.
It seems to me rather odd to ban the use of drones in Yosemite, but to allow firearms !
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/weapons.htm

so out of all aspect of human interaction and potential for interference with the natural environment of a treasure like YNP, including vehicles, camping equipment, rubbish, firearms, and anything else that people may chose to bring in, including themselves, that the only abomination that should be banned is the use of drones. Careful what you wish for.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2014 at 08:44 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)

Great pity. I am sure that some outstanding photographic and video opportunities will now be lost for ever.
I dont at all buy this business of 'its a wilderness..' If that is the case, then why not just ban anyone from going there at all, and risking leaving rubbish, interfering with wild life etc. It is really just a matter of where you draw the line, so I dont think that people want to be too judgemental about where that line is drawn. There are plenty of people who are prepared and committed to the responsible use of unmanned copters etc for aerial photography.
It seems to me rather odd to ban the use of drones in Yosemite, but to allow firearms !
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/weapons.htm

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2014 at 08:16 UTC as 73rd comment | 9 replies
Total: 58, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »