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

PHtorino: that lens is crap though!

Without the lens it makes for a great white balance reader...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2015 at 06:15 UTC

Supply and demand.
There would literally be thousands of photographers out there who are willing to shoot Taylor Swift for free and give up their rights. It's not totally the clients fault if photographers themselves (as an industry) have been undervaluing themselves. Where one disagrees and declines to shoot, another 5 will pop up and offer themselves up to be eaten.
In contrast, there is only one Taylor Swift.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 23:21 UTC as 50th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The attraction of a wide angle macro lens escapes me. Every time I've ever wanted to do macro, I wanted longer focal lengths than practically any macro lens ever made.

So, I use my Kenko extension tube set with my 70-200. Even that doesn't really have enough working distance. Now, with a teleconverter and a crop body, then it feels about right.

So, my main macro lens has an equivalent focal length of 448mm.

From looking at the samples, it would be good for when you want the environment in the shot as well as the small close up subject. All in focus.
As opposed to completely separating the subject from the background with your longer lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 04:18 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.

Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.

I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).

By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.

@Rick Knepper: It would be more helpful to my state of mind just to ignore you...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 23:35 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1034 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tharaphita: Lets wait and see how that on sensor PDAF works, specially not in good light.

And what about Nikon lenses support with power aperture and on sensor PDAF?

Nikon lens support... lol.
Nikon have enough trouble supporting their own lenses...

^^^
Below the belt jab...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 06:56 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.

Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.

I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).

By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.

@setaside2: But Canon can put a bigger number on the box so they win. :p

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 04:08 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.

Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.

I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).

By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.

So... you're gonna get a 70mm motion film camera then?
The specs would outdo your current requirement request and sort you out for at least the next 10 years...
Should I send you some ebay links?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 02:57 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.

Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.

I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).

By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.

Rick, I suppose you want all that to come in at under $1000 as well??
Why not pano stitch your photos for higher resolution? Or better still.. shoot medium format film. Nominal resolution from a good scanner and the smallest frame size will get you about a 60mp file. 120mp if you want to shoot 6x9cm.
Wait.. you want 6-7 fps as well.
I'd look into a 70mm motion film camera if I were you. 24fps!!!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 01:00 UTC

Great interview in terms of both questions and answers.
Sony comes across as humble yet confident. Thanks! :)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 00:54 UTC as 38th comment
In reply to:

fmian: I would rather just get a Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS.
Take a step back for wider coverage and a step forward (or crop) for a tighter shot.
IS mostly overcomes the 1 stop advantage of a f/2.0 lens, as you can easily shoot handheld at 1/8s with the IS lens.
It's less than half the size and weighs 3.5x less than the 24-35.
In terms of sharpness I can only look at the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 crop to compare it with, and the 28mm trounces that lens when it's also set to 28mm f/2.8.
I'm thinking Sigma has kind of lost the plot here and are going for the spectacle of having a wider aperture zoom than anything else. With a lot of sacrifices though...
Anyway, just my thoughts.

That's somewhat true ZAnton, but if one were really concerned about shooting at the fastest speed the 24mm F/1.4 or 35mm f/1.4 would be better options anyway.
Otherwise it's always possible to get creative and drag the shutter. Or you could shoot in the dark and use the flash duration as the speed. There is no strict rule saying moving people need to be shot at a certain shutter speed.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 23:20 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: I would rather just get a Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS.
Take a step back for wider coverage and a step forward (or crop) for a tighter shot.
IS mostly overcomes the 1 stop advantage of a f/2.0 lens, as you can easily shoot handheld at 1/8s with the IS lens.
It's less than half the size and weighs 3.5x less than the 24-35.
In terms of sharpness I can only look at the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 crop to compare it with, and the 28mm trounces that lens when it's also set to 28mm f/2.8.
I'm thinking Sigma has kind of lost the plot here and are going for the spectacle of having a wider aperture zoom than anything else. With a lot of sacrifices though...
Anyway, just my thoughts.

It's just a different test.
The 28mm is designed for full frame.
The 17-35 is designed for crop.
Some lenses look worse when they're not used on the format they were meant for. I seem to remember some wide full frame zooms looking worse on crop.
Anyway, I'd say both tests are somewhat flawed. But between them is the only indication we have of anything until the 24-35 is tested.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 06:51 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: I would rather just get a Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS.
Take a step back for wider coverage and a step forward (or crop) for a tighter shot.
IS mostly overcomes the 1 stop advantage of a f/2.0 lens, as you can easily shoot handheld at 1/8s with the IS lens.
It's less than half the size and weighs 3.5x less than the 24-35.
In terms of sharpness I can only look at the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 crop to compare it with, and the 28mm trounces that lens when it's also set to 28mm f/2.8.
I'm thinking Sigma has kind of lost the plot here and are going for the spectacle of having a wider aperture zoom than anything else. With a lot of sacrifices though...
Anyway, just my thoughts.

I thought discerning photographers didn't use zoom lenses :p

I was looking at the test images at the following page:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=789&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=854&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Where the 28mm f/2.8 IS is sharper with more contrast than the 17-35 at all focal lengths (and both lenses at f/2.8.

I suppose sample variation and different test methods can make one lens sharper than another and vice versa.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 05:55 UTC

I would rather just get a Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS.
Take a step back for wider coverage and a step forward (or crop) for a tighter shot.
IS mostly overcomes the 1 stop advantage of a f/2.0 lens, as you can easily shoot handheld at 1/8s with the IS lens.
It's less than half the size and weighs 3.5x less than the 24-35.
In terms of sharpness I can only look at the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 crop to compare it with, and the 28mm trounces that lens when it's also set to 28mm f/2.8.
I'm thinking Sigma has kind of lost the plot here and are going for the spectacle of having a wider aperture zoom than anything else. With a lot of sacrifices though...
Anyway, just my thoughts.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 03:12 UTC as 16th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

fmian: $599??
Haha.. okay.. More expensive than better cameras that come with more tech inside and are standalone.
You can get an:
RX100 for half the price.
RX100 II for a bit less than this.
RX100 III for a little bit more.
The size advantage of this is made irrelevant when you consider it needs to be attached to an iphone to uncripple it.

Shoot film bro.
An 80 year old 135 film canister still fits in a modern film camera.
And if push comes to shove you can process it in coffee, vitamin c, washing soda and salt. :p

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 03:46 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: $599??
Haha.. okay.. More expensive than better cameras that come with more tech inside and are standalone.
You can get an:
RX100 for half the price.
RX100 II for a bit less than this.
RX100 III for a little bit more.
The size advantage of this is made irrelevant when you consider it needs to be attached to an iphone to uncripple it.

@Rishi Sanyal

'You always have your iPhone on you.'
Not always with you, and not always available to use.
ie. When it's charging (only one battery).
When it's updating.
When you're on a phone call.
When it's memory is full (can't replace memory)
When it's in for repair.
.
'if you chose a RX100, you wouldn't leave your iPhone at home'
But you could if you wanted to... you're not bound to it.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 03:13 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: $599??
Haha.. okay.. More expensive than better cameras that come with more tech inside and are standalone.
You can get an:
RX100 for half the price.
RX100 II for a bit less than this.
RX100 III for a little bit more.
The size advantage of this is made irrelevant when you consider it needs to be attached to an iphone to uncripple it.

@Richard Butler
I'm making a comparitive assessment based on what is available new on the market right now, as opposed to strictly how it compares to some spec/price from the past. Just like the DPReview % score system. :)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 03:00 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Different strokes for different folks.

For me, this gadget makes absolutely no sense. I can buy a Panasonic GX7 for less than the cost of this iPhone plug in.

Granted, it should provide much better image quality than any cell phone camera can. Bus so can most real cameras that cost less. I think the smartphone cult is overreaching now, and creating products their customers really don't want.

The cell phone photographer doesn't need better image quality. They have told us for years that their iPhones are "good enough for their needs." This product makes about as much sense as a Nikon D810 that can send text messages and that you can play Angry Birds on.

But like I said... someone will want one of these things. Even if I'm not that someone.

@misha
That's it!
Planned Obsolescence.. they would be fools for designing it with that connector only and not being aware of the way things change...
Anyway, this will be an experiment for them to see how the market responds.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Different strokes for different folks.

For me, this gadget makes absolutely no sense. I can buy a Panasonic GX7 for less than the cost of this iPhone plug in.

Granted, it should provide much better image quality than any cell phone camera can. Bus so can most real cameras that cost less. I think the smartphone cult is overreaching now, and creating products their customers really don't want.

The cell phone photographer doesn't need better image quality. They have told us for years that their iPhones are "good enough for their needs." This product makes about as much sense as a Nikon D810 that can send text messages and that you can play Angry Birds on.

But like I said... someone will want one of these things. Even if I'm not that someone.

And when Apple changes their iPhone connector again, this device will become redundant.
What's that term used to describe something that is designed to be useless after a certain amount of time?...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 23:34 UTC

$599??
Haha.. okay.. More expensive than better cameras that come with more tech inside and are standalone.
You can get an:
RX100 for half the price.
RX100 II for a bit less than this.
RX100 III for a little bit more.
The size advantage of this is made irrelevant when you consider it needs to be attached to an iphone to uncripple it.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 23:28 UTC as 58th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

fmian: Can someone explain to me what this Cine adapter actually is? never seen anything like it before...

If that's what it is then it's insanely expensive considering Shape (a premium brand) sell theirs for almost a fifth of the price.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855426-REG/SHAPE_lgkit8_Lens_Gear_Kit_0_8.html

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 23:29 UTC
Total: 498, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »