shigzeo

shigzeo

Lives in Japan Chiba, Japan
Works as a Writer, Audio Critic
Has a website at http://ohm-image.net
Joined on Sep 14, 2010
About me:

utterly impressionable

Comments

Total: 617, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Sigma82: Exactly what I needed to reduce the size of my too-big-too-heavy-to-carry reflex full frame gear. Leica mirrorless is the answer!

My god, man, you know that Leica mirrorless started with the T, right? That is super light. The SL is _obviously_ not targeted at the person that wants as small or light as possible.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 08:41 UTC
In reply to:

Arkienkeli: Quick comparison:

Leica SL with 24-90 (f/2.8-4) and this 90-280 zoom: total price about $18800 and weight 3.84 kg

Fujifilm X-T1 with 16-55mm (f/2.8 all the way) and 50-200mm zooms: $2500 and 1.68 kg.

Short zoom is faster on Fuji, longer slower. Resolutions now 24 and 16 MPix, but 24 MPix X-T2 coming soon. So basically one is paying 7.5 times more to carry 2.3 times more weight for basically same IQ.

If the X-T series were made as robustly as the Leica, or marketed to the same market, it would be a good comparison. The SL is obviously gunning for (successfully or no isn't the matter) the D800/D4 market.

By the same logic, you could compare the X-T1 with any other camera, no matter the build quality, or the market, giving the nod to whatever is cheaper. And trust me, you will find cheaper.

Let's get off this price-is-all comparison thing. It doesn't work unless you seriously think typically, the sort of person that buys a D4 or similar camera seriously looks at the X-T1.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 08:40 UTC
In reply to:

Shinsei: Hasselblad should be cutting cost of the digitalback, rather than reduction of the lens price.

@ProfHandD

Okay, well that's sorted. I'm not sure about which is less to make and I'd hate to guess. You could be right.

I also have an E-mount A7r, but its deep flange back precludes it from many many even moderate wide-angle uses, which is one of the main reasons I bought into medium format backs. Its advantage is the built-in shutter, but that I can't turn it off is also a disadvantage. With a MF back, I can use down to 23mm lenses, whereas the A7r limited me to 60mm at widest unless I wanted macro magnification only. Still, nothing bad to say about the A7r; it sustained the bulk of my business for about two years.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 00:45 UTC
In reply to:

Shinsei: Hasselblad should be cutting cost of the digitalback, rather than reduction of the lens price.

It's really a great price, which after renting phase one backs for 500$ a day, ended up being the impetus behind me purchasing one. I expect that your comment is tongue-in-cheek, or making fun of me. Which is fine.

The Pentax is a lot less adaptable. The CFV-50/c works on dozens of cameras with a cheap adapter and can be adapted for use on Canon/Nikon T/S lenses, FPS bodies, bellows, microscopes, etc. - uses to which integrated solutions like the Pentax are not well suited.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 16:12 UTC
On article Affinity Photo coming to Windows (144 comments in total)

I've been using Infinity Photo off and on again for several months. It is so much faster than Photoshop, but like others have said, for really heavy lifting, I still can't get away from Adobe.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 14:15 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

me_tarzan: Big deal.

If you reduce infinity by 15%, you're still left with infinity. (trust me, it's true).
Dropping Hasselblad prices by 15% takes then from being absurdly, ridiculously and obscenely overpriced, down to absurdly, ridiculously and obscenely overpriced.

In what world is a fixed, finite price even close to infinity? It is exactly the same as if Nikon reduced the price of its lenses by 15%. The base price to invest is higher, but then so is medium format more expensive than smaller formats.

While I get the criticism you're trying to convey, the first sentence makes no sense at all.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 14:02 UTC
In reply to:

Tal Shachar: I believe Sony will buy Hasselblad, and will make everything compatible with both companies equipment. Hasselblad just can't survive on their own, just too expensive, todays cameras even APS-C sensor have very big and sharp images.

Stitching pictures technology like Gigapan makes medium format camera less needed.

I understand why you'd say that, but I must assume that you've never used a digital back. You can do so much more with a back than you can with a fully contained digital camera. For instance, digital backs can attach to microscopes, to technical cameras, to bellows, to pancake cameras, and to AF bodies.

That level of compatibility is only available through modular systems. If a small-sensor manufacturer separated the APS-C sensor into a modular back, it would be wonderful to pair with sharp enlarging lenses as well as wide-angles, but even so, it would have a host of limitations due to its size.

Different tools for different needs. My work isn't really feasible without a modular back. I own the CFV-50c and CFV-50. Great backs. Amazing output and perfect compatibility.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

Shinsei: Hasselblad should be cutting cost of the digitalback, rather than reduction of the lens price.

Their digital backs are already available at a variety of prices, from as low as it gets: CFV-50c, to precious.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 13:56 UTC
On article On assignment: the Leica Q at a Portland wedding (212 comments in total)
In reply to:

JPMB: I can't stand it: A civil discussion on DPR. What is the world coming to?

@HowaboutRAW: By above meant what I see, which is newest first I guess. Do you see later comments from the bottom or the top?

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 15:19 UTC
On article On assignment: the Leica Q at a Portland wedding (212 comments in total)
In reply to:

JPMB: I can't stand it: A civil discussion on DPR. What is the world coming to?

@HowaboutRAW: I was referring to the douche post above JPMB's:

By Peter Gregg (10 hours ago)
Did I read that right - shooting a wedding, taking a burst of shots, and then turning your camera OFF??? Wow. And further, you already do this "trick" with your DSLRs. You lost all my respect, what a terrible thing to do to a bride.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 13:13 UTC
On article On assignment: the Leica Q at a Portland wedding (212 comments in total)
In reply to:

Caerolle: I can't imagine a camera more suited for a Portland wedding than a Leica.

Naw, a camera purposely trying to be retro would fit in a lot better. That, and things built in 'powerless nations' like Japan would fit the ethos so much better. Fujifilm fits Portland's progressive fit far better than Leica.

In fact, I can't think of a camera company less well-suited to Portland than a Leica.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 12:44 UTC
On article On assignment: the Leica Q at a Portland wedding (212 comments in total)
In reply to:

JPMB: I can't stand it: A civil discussion on DPR. What is the world coming to?

You didn't read the comment above yours.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 12:42 UTC
On article On assignment: the Leica Q at a Portland wedding (212 comments in total)
In reply to:

PeteGrady: Let's be honest...these are nice photos that could have been made with a lot of $700-1,100 cameras. There's nothing that remarkable here beyond the fun and warmth of family and friendship that was captured. But again, you could do it for a LOT less. A Fuji X70 in skilled hands would be right there, and indistinguishable at 1X on the web...which is how everyone except us photo dorks would look at them.

Which can be said of any camera out there.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 12:40 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

[Trigger warning: 27 bat families died in the writing of this post. There may or may not have also been 7000 humans that lost their lives. That of course, is debatable, the correct number likely being closer to one suffering a skinned knee, which was taken care of by the state.]

@JordanAT: no, the original had him tying his own noose in protestation of the destruction of his village by the local coal mine which resulted in the deaths of seven thousand human beings. The meth was a PC response to that. The number of dead was also tweaked, becoming 500. That was too much to bear, so a cigarette was shopped. The number of dead reversed. A coal mine was substituted with a shopping centre and 600 became employed.

Magic!

The struggle isn't over, however; tomorrow, Greenpeace is protesting [the construction of the mall, which resulted in] the destruction of a coal mine that housed 27 bat families. The noose is set to return.

[edit: forgot the mall bit]

[edit: forgot the trigger warning]

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 05:06 UTC
On article Profoto launches collapsible OCF Beauty Dish (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

gazza73: Or you could just get the much better broncolor beauty box?

http://www.bron.ch/broncolor/products/light-shapers/showproduct/beautybox-65/?cHash=68079c6e20187134a61f0be63faca144#.Vt4D0cfy6EI

Semantics was our problem. Of this I'm sure.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 12:38 UTC
On article Profoto launches collapsible OCF Beauty Dish (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

gazza73: Or you could just get the much better broncolor beauty box?

http://www.bron.ch/broncolor/products/light-shapers/showproduct/beautybox-65/?cHash=68079c6e20187134a61f0be63faca144#.Vt4D0cfy6EI

It appears that the attachment speed ring isn't like normal speed rings in that the rods don't attach to it directly. They are already in the collapsible beauty dish and the dish attaches directly to the speed ring.

Profoto's site says:

"Since it is tailor-made for on-location photography, the OCF Beauty Dish is compact, lightweight and easy to use. High-quality fabrics and patent-pending design allows you to snap it onto the speedring without having to bend and fumble with the rods."

So it appears to be what I call collapsible, which basically origamis into a new shape without any of the same setup hassles typical with softboxes. I have only one collapsible dish, from comet. Setup is as simply as slipping it onto the speedring and covering the front. That's it. Completely different to a separate rod folding system.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 02:53 UTC
On article Profoto launches collapsible OCF Beauty Dish (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

gazza73: Or you could just get the much better broncolor beauty box?

http://www.bron.ch/broncolor/products/light-shapers/showproduct/beautybox-65/?cHash=68079c6e20187134a61f0be63faca144#.Vt4D0cfy6EI

Collapsible in this case means you don't set it up by inserting rods. You just pull it out like an origami booklet. The broncolor requires individual rod-insertion.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 14:39 UTC
On article Profoto launches collapsible OCF Beauty Dish (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

gazza73: Or you could just get the much better broncolor beauty box?

http://www.bron.ch/broncolor/products/light-shapers/showproduct/beautybox-65/?cHash=68079c6e20187134a61f0be63faca144#.Vt4D0cfy6EI

@Shiranai:

I understand why people would by Impact, but I wouldn't. The price difference isn't worth it to me. Profoto is well supported here in Japan, so if something goes wrong, there are dealers all over from whom rentals and/or replacements can be found or the product serviced, with expedience.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 07:27 UTC
On article Profoto launches collapsible OCF Beauty Dish (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

gazza73: Or you could just get the much better broncolor beauty box?

http://www.bron.ch/broncolor/products/light-shapers/showproduct/beautybox-65/?cHash=68079c6e20187134a61f0be63faca144#.Vt4D0cfy6EI

If the Broncolor was collapsible, I'd spring for it. As it isn't I'll spring for this. Taking up/putting down is a LOT of work and puts a lot of stress on hard stuff.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 03:47 UTC
On article Profoto launches collapsible OCF Beauty Dish (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

gazza73: Or you could just get the much better broncolor beauty box?

http://www.bron.ch/broncolor/products/light-shapers/showproduct/beautybox-65/?cHash=68079c6e20187134a61f0be63faca144#.Vt4D0cfy6EI

The problem is that the Broncolor isn't collapsible, which is the newsworthy item about this new product.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 02:04 UTC
Total: 617, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »