fmian

fmian

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Photographer/Re-toucher/Consultant
Has a website at www.primephotography.com.au
Joined on Mar 28, 2010

Comments

Total: 253, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

JBurnett: I've always wondered what has prevented other companies from producing a full-frame M-mount camera, maybe with a built-in EVF where the rangefinder is. Body only. No auto-focus to worry about -- maybe focus-peaking with the EVF. No IBIS to worry about. Price it like the Sony A7 body. Maybe pair with a Voigtlander 35 or 50 to create a (relatively) inexpensive kit.

Would there be a market?

Or you could just buy one of the many film cameras out there...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 04:08 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: Removing the Red-Dot should make Fuji very happy as Fuji made X100 and X100s just liking Leica (more or less) but Red-Dot. No?

BTW, there are only few camera forge put Name/Logo on the face but Fuji X100/S.

So theoretically, Hyundai make a car that looks like a Porsche, and then Porsche release a model without their signature badge so it looks a little bit more like the Hyundai (but still quite obviously a Porsche}, and Hyundai would be happy?
I think the two models are so far apart that sales of one will not affect sales of the other.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 04:01 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: Removing the Red-Dot should make Fuji very happy as Fuji made X100 and X100s just liking Leica (more or less) but Red-Dot. No?

BTW, there are only few camera forge put Name/Logo on the face but Fuji X100/S.

I don't see what this has to do with Fuji.
Completely different camera. These are full frame manual focus only rangefinders. Fuji X100 is not any of that. In a completely different price bracket marketed to a different demographic also.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 02:11 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Is it just me or are the Metz flashes overpriced and overrated?
The few recent models I have handled in camera stores seemed very flimsy with poor choice of materials/build. When re-positioning the head the top sections were kind of loose rather than rigid. Even the $50 YN flash I bought ages ago felt better than the 58 model Metz.

When I was looking at flash options the Metz 58 (can't exactly remember which one) was perhaps $50 to $100 cheaper than the canon 580ex. And the build quality difference was night and day. This was consistent through their 24 and 36(I think) model as well.
I wasn't seeing it as a 'it's this much cheaper than Canon so it's better value' situation. But rather 'it's much more expensive than a yong-nuo and the build is worse so would would I bother?' situation.
Anyway, if ppl are happy with it that's fine. :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 00:30 UTC

Is it just me or are the Metz flashes overpriced and overrated?
The few recent models I have handled in camera stores seemed very flimsy with poor choice of materials/build. When re-positioning the head the top sections were kind of loose rather than rigid. Even the $50 YN flash I bought ages ago felt better than the 58 model Metz.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 06:25 UTC as 17th comment | 5 replies
On Niko announces service advisory for D810 'bright spots' article (375 comments in total)

One would think that with such a quick replacement/revision of the D800 Nikon would have tested this camera thoroughly through all batches.
It's appropriate for all eyes to be on them in regards to quality control since they've had issues with it recently.
Kudos to them for acknowledging it quickly. Hopefully this will begin to restore faith in then, if it's not too late by now.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 00:07 UTC as 42nd comment
In reply to:

racketman: Good fun but I suspect children's real nightmares are more subtle than these creatures.

I suspect there would be plenty of wet beds if we are to be more realistic :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 00:57 UTC

One would think that R&D costs would be covered by GoPro cheekily changing the housing and connected accessories for the last 3 releases. Surely they have made a massive packet of money from people buying batteries, filters, screens, and cases all over again.
Anyway... news comes as a surprise. Maybe they should downsize and create another supply/demand squeeze.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 01:08 UTC as 14th comment
On Readers' showcase: Landscape photography article (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Quite disappointed to see such bland choices. Number 6 being the one exception.
Most of them leave me with a 'Nothing much to look at here' feeling and a lot of technical nit picks.
I'd really like to be able to say otherwise.

^^ If you were directing those comments to me then thank's for your feedback :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 04:51 UTC

Great work! Thanks for sharing :)
The fact that he uses hands on techniques with a scalpel just makes it all the more impressive. I wish more photographers would think outside the photoshop box.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2014 at 23:24 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

DigiMatt: I know not to expect much from the DPR crowd but really these comments are full of ignorance. Most of you have confused camera negative film with distribution print films. These are two TOTALLY different things for different purposes and demonstrate the folly of DPR readers who comment about things of which they know nothing.

The deal today was to help keep camera negative film in production. This is the film that is actually used in the movie cameras. There are no issues with light fluctuation or bad quality with camera film. What you all have complained about was worn out or misused/abused film print distributions. This is no longer an issue as the vast majority of movies are shown digitally, whether they were shot on film or digital cameras.

True. Most everything has already been dissolved or sold off, so there is virtually no hope of restoring Kodak to it's former glory.
I am less concerned about Kodak as a brand or company here, and more interested in the continuation of film and developing facilities.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 23:00 UTC
In reply to:

DigiMatt: I know not to expect much from the DPR crowd but really these comments are full of ignorance. Most of you have confused camera negative film with distribution print films. These are two TOTALLY different things for different purposes and demonstrate the folly of DPR readers who comment about things of which they know nothing.

The deal today was to help keep camera negative film in production. This is the film that is actually used in the movie cameras. There are no issues with light fluctuation or bad quality with camera film. What you all have complained about was worn out or misused/abused film print distributions. This is no longer an issue as the vast majority of movies are shown digitally, whether they were shot on film or digital cameras.

Surely you must have known that someone would have misunderstood you on a photographic website forum.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_print_film

'Color print film is the most common type of photographic film in consumer use. Print film produces a negative image when it is developed, requiring it to be reversed again when it is printed onto photographic paper.

Almost all color print film made today is designed to be processed according to the C-41 process'

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

DigiMatt: I know not to expect much from the DPR crowd but really these comments are full of ignorance. Most of you have confused camera negative film with distribution print films. These are two TOTALLY different things for different purposes and demonstrate the folly of DPR readers who comment about things of which they know nothing.

The deal today was to help keep camera negative film in production. This is the film that is actually used in the movie cameras. There are no issues with light fluctuation or bad quality with camera film. What you all have complained about was worn out or misused/abused film print distributions. This is no longer an issue as the vast majority of movies are shown digitally, whether they were shot on film or digital cameras.

DigiMatt, With all due respect you are incorrect.
The backing layer that motion film has on it can be easily removed in the darkroom before processing. I know people who buy motion film and bulk load it to shoot in 35mm stills cameras. Then they process it themselves at home.
To say it is a TOTALLY different thing and then call others ignorant, confused and say they know nothing is just ironic.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 06:44 UTC
In reply to:

DigiMatt: About motion picture camera negative films, which this news concerns:

Today's movie films are excellent, and make beautiful motion pictures. The gold standard remains Kodak Vision 3 motion picture films. They are scanned immediately after processing and the rest of the workflow all the way to the finished movie on your screen is digital. The reality is that everyone who doesn't shoot on film tries to make digital look like it was shot on film. If that is the goal then why not shoot on film in the first place?

It's more expensive for lazy/inexperienced film makers.
If shooting is well planned and tight, you can have a low shooting ratio and not spend a lot of money.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 06:35 UTC
On Readers' showcase: Landscape photography article (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Quite disappointed to see such bland choices. Number 6 being the one exception.
Most of them leave me with a 'Nothing much to look at here' feeling and a lot of technical nit picks.
I'd really like to be able to say otherwise.

"but an image should hold its own in any context."
I hope you realize this is an impossibility.
Could you fully appreciate the Sistine Chapel if you only saw miniature plastic recreation of it?
Scale is an important thing to consider when outputting an image. As is how the light is meant to be cast on the final print. And how it is framed. And it's viewing height/distance.
Not to forget whether the image is part of a series or not. As some images don't have impact on their own, and only make sense when seen together.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 04:27 UTC
On Readers' showcase: Landscape photography article (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Quite disappointed to see such bland choices. Number 6 being the one exception.
Most of them leave me with a 'Nothing much to look at here' feeling and a lot of technical nit picks.
I'd really like to be able to say otherwise.

RunStrom
Have you seen Rhein II as it was intended to be seen? ie. printed 1.9 x 3.6 meters?
Or just on a tiny low DPI LCD screen?
It's difficult to appreciate something when you are seeing it without the correct context. And it's kind of sad that these days almost everyone expects an image to be normalised to be viewed on a computer screen as the final product.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 02:57 UTC
On Readers' showcase: Landscape photography article (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

jl_smith: Wow, all these haters, you'd imagine they could do such a better job.

Yet, you click on 99% of their names:

Gallery Stats : Photos Uploaded - 0

Challenge Stats : Entries - 0

Website : none listed

I propose DPR give many of them a new profile stat:

Credibility - 0

:D

I gave praise to image number 6 in my comments below.
It really stands apart from the others and is an awesome shot.
And I'm not 'hating' because I'm jealous or can't give praise.
I'm just not the type of person to blindly jump on to a bandwagon and follow everyone elses suit if I don't agree with things. I'm not afraid to say what's on my mind and many people seem to find that kind of frank critiquing refreshing.
Don't like my comments or opinion? That's fine. I really don't mind. :)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 02:49 UTC
On Readers' showcase: Landscape photography article (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

jl_smith: Wow, all these haters, you'd imagine they could do such a better job.

Yet, you click on 99% of their names:

Gallery Stats : Photos Uploaded - 0

Challenge Stats : Entries - 0

Website : none listed

I propose DPR give many of them a new profile stat:

Credibility - 0

:D

I see it as the complete opposite jl_smith.
DPreview, whether it likes it or not has the responsibility of setting some sort of standard when it posts a showcase like this. It's representative of not only the readers talents but the acuity of the people who run the site.
I would much rather see no images compared to the uninspiring stuff chosen here. So if you can't see the photos taken by the naysayers, count your blessings. It's probably a good thing.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2014 at 23:10 UTC
On Readers' showcase: Landscape photography article (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Quite disappointed to see such bland choices. Number 6 being the one exception.
Most of them leave me with a 'Nothing much to look at here' feeling and a lot of technical nit picks.
I'd really like to be able to say otherwise.

stevo23: For which image?
RunStrom: I respect your opinion, however I don't see much that is done well here in regards to colour, tone, content, bloom/highlight control.
Of course, just my opinion.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2014 at 07:02 UTC
On Readers' showcase: Landscape photography article (107 comments in total)

Quite disappointed to see such bland choices. Number 6 being the one exception.
Most of them leave me with a 'Nothing much to look at here' feeling and a lot of technical nit picks.
I'd really like to be able to say otherwise.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2014 at 23:02 UTC as 29th comment | 11 replies
Total: 253, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »