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
About me:

If you're reading this it's probably because I wrote something that confounded or intrigued you. You should know that much of what I say is uncomfortable truth laced with straight faced sarcasm. Don't take it to heart. If it helps you may think of me as just some guy on the internet.

Comments

Total: 631, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

electrophoto: My guess is as good as anyone else':
Samsung makes a fine product, but certainly lacking big-brand CAMERA recognition. Whilst Samsung has been playing the camera game for a few years now, initially they only offered rebranded cameras.
There were a lot of changes to their "system" and honestly to this day I have to see ONE professional shooting samsung.

Competing against Canon & Nikon, Sony & Fuji ... even Panasonic & Oly...
up its sleeve to change that any time soon.

Simply this:
For CANON & Nikon you have an incredible lens array, from the both canon & nikon and a great number of third party manufacturers. same for accessories. Flash Systems...
...
Samsung is a bit of an Island in that regard
And I doubt Samsung will change that anytime soon.

So unless they offer something mindblowing at an exciting (Very competitive) price and full host of lenses, accessories, etc... I don't see how they can be competitive, even widely successful. So I can understand if Samsung pulls back.

Optically, there are more than just colour and light (I assume you mean contrast?) aspects that make up the valued visual characteristics of a lens.
But I get what you mean. The lenses that Samsung have been making do seem to be the result of a high degree of care.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2015 at 00:13 UTC

Perhaps it's being replaced with the rumoured (I started this rumour - just now) NX1-PP model?? PP <--- Pixel Peeper

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2015 at 00:10 UTC as 300th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

electrophoto: My guess is as good as anyone else':
Samsung makes a fine product, but certainly lacking big-brand CAMERA recognition. Whilst Samsung has been playing the camera game for a few years now, initially they only offered rebranded cameras.
There were a lot of changes to their "system" and honestly to this day I have to see ONE professional shooting samsung.

Competing against Canon & Nikon, Sony & Fuji ... even Panasonic & Oly...
up its sleeve to change that any time soon.

Simply this:
For CANON & Nikon you have an incredible lens array, from the both canon & nikon and a great number of third party manufacturers. same for accessories. Flash Systems...
...
Samsung is a bit of an Island in that regard
And I doubt Samsung will change that anytime soon.

So unless they offer something mindblowing at an exciting (Very competitive) price and full host of lenses, accessories, etc... I don't see how they can be competitive, even widely successful. So I can understand if Samsung pulls back.

Better? Better in what way? Some narrow subjective point of view, or are you taking into account every attribute that concerns the usability of a product?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 23:07 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Just as I've been saying for a while.
Digital sales are slumping, while analog sales are pumping.

Jadot: It works both ways -

What is it with Digital photographers (or those who fear buyers remorse as I like to call them) seeming to need film to fail as a way of justifying their own personal expense?

You know the ones - the 'Film is Dead" protests are always driven by the pitch that film is too expensive and difficult to use. These are the same people who spend huge sums of money on updating their gear because there's a bigger number on the box this year, and somehow this will up the quality of their photos. While their cameras are so complex that even after chimping and checking their LCD screens that they blow highlights. Y'know... if they spent 1/10th the money and just concentrated on composition, lighting and some pre-thought they would be better photographers. Regardless of analog or digital.

The irony being that this is a visual medium and they still can't tell how an analog shot looks different. 'I can edit a photo to make it look just like analog!' they say...'

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2015 at 02:26 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Just as I've been saying for a while.
Digital sales are slumping, while analog sales are pumping.

BJL wrote: 'Meanwhile sales of mobile phones other than smart phones declined'

and then he wrote: 'Mobile phone sales are not down'

So which is it?

In regards to analog photography, Ilford says sales are up, my suppliers in Sydney says sales of film, chemistry, paper and darkroom printing services are up. Fuji says Instax is up. My film processor here (one of a handful in Sydney) says he's been processing more and more C-41 over the last year or so. Prices of second hand equipment are increasing due to demand.
Second hand SX-70's were selling on Ebay for $25 about 3-4 years ago. Now they are selling for $200+
Yes, more people are turning to analog photography.
Alternative process photography is also getting a lot of interest.
I think people are just getting bored of digital cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2015 at 06:02 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Just as I've been saying for a while.
Digital sales are slumping, while analog sales are pumping.

Okay,

DSLR sales are down.
Mirrorless sales are down.
P&S sales are down.
Mobile phone sales are down.

Smartphone sales are up.
Analog sales are up.

Better?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2015 at 05:43 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Just as I've been saying for a while.
Digital sales are slumping, while analog sales are pumping.

I'm not comparing anything nor am I inferring anything. I'm simply leaving the assumptions to you guys.
Are digital sales not decreasing?
Are analog sales not increasing?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2015 at 02:46 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Just as I've been saying for a while.
Digital sales are slumping, while analog sales are pumping.

BJL, you are aware that smartphone sales growth is declining yes?
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3115517

So smartphone sales declining.
PS digital sales down.
DSLR sales are also down.
Mirrorless sales are down too...

While analog sales are up...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2015 at 03:06 UTC

Just as I've been saying for a while.
Digital sales are slumping, while analog sales are pumping.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2015 at 23:03 UTC as 42nd comment | 21 replies

Interesting and creative work. Perhaps some look a little too retouched... and what's with the blown highlights on number 6?
Some of these look dangerous as well.. hopefully those who disregard safety won't give this kind of photography a go. I remember an article several years ago about a bride drowning when the photographers asked her to get into the water (river? ocean?) and the weight of the soaked dress swept her away.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2015 at 23:00 UTC as 45th comment
On article Studio tests and samples: Leica SL (beta) (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: I'm inclined to completely disregard the studio test scene when the 4 default cameras that come up for comparison on page 2 have shots taken from 3 different angles... :/
Easy to see when you look at the bottle lids.

It doesn't affect my assessment as much as it affects my ability to 'begin' making an assessment. The bottle has been moved. How do I know other parts of the scene have not been moved? Consistency and minimisation of variables is important when testing.
I understand you go to great lengths to present us with this information (I really do appreciate the effort), but I'm thinking the studio scene could have been a lot simpler considering you're not in a science lab and it's meant to be a controlled scene.

'... (in the center, anyway). Those are really the only things you should be using our studio scene for.'

So.. the importance of camera/lens performance outside the center of the frame is not a consideration? I guess it's more of a lens thing but corner performance in regards to sharpness and chromabs is important to me. Especially in situations when I want to use negative space in the center of the frame and have my subjects along the edges.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 03:07 UTC
On Connect post Samsung launches enormous 18.4-inch Galaxy View tablet (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

backayonder: Would be useful for showing clients large images before printing etc?

Not at that PPI. I mean, you could get away with it, but it's not ideal compared to other options on the market. The 2-3 year old Ipad destroys this screen for the purpose of print previews.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 01:03 UTC
On article Studio tests and samples: Leica SL (beta) (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: I'm inclined to completely disregard the studio test scene when the 4 default cameras that come up for comparison on page 2 have shots taken from 3 different angles... :/
Easy to see when you look at the bottle lids.

Samuel, yeah that makes sense, but doesn't explain why the bottle on the right is at a different position (rotated) when you compare say... the Leica SL to the Canon IDX.
Also, why not try and use a common focal length (equivalent) say.. like 35mm which most fixed length cameras use, (DXO ONE, X100, RX1) or most normal zooms are capable of achieving? I would think that the least amount of parameter variation would give more comparable results?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 00:43 UTC
On article Studio tests and samples: Leica SL (beta) (750 comments in total)

I'm inclined to completely disregard the studio test scene when the 4 default cameras that come up for comparison on page 2 have shots taken from 3 different angles... :/
Easy to see when you look at the bottle lids.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2015 at 23:30 UTC as 91st comment | 9 replies
On article Erez Marom: On the importance of naming images (106 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: The Evolution in Reverse image and title are hilarious. I expect it to offend many people in that stage. Beautiful images, as always, Erez!

I find it unnecessary and kind of condescending that the title has to be force fed here rather than letting the viewer make the visual connection themselves. I wouldn't say I'm offended, but rather that I'm not offended as much as I just think your titles are silly and contrived. <--- My opinion.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2015 at 04:39 UTC
On article Erez Marom: On the importance of naming images (106 comments in total)

Apart from record keeping/identification purposes and to provide context with art pieces, I really don't think it's necessary to name a photograph.
If you're not good at coming up with an apt name it will detract from the image. On the flip-side the name/description could be a piece of work in and of itself.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2015 at 04:26 UTC as 15th comment

Not the best example to showcase the tech, but the difference in DR is hugely noticeable. Also the absence of rolling shutter is a big deal.
Current tech is way outdated and has been long due for a change.
To those saying 'New tech that looks like 20 year old video??!!'... yeah, film emulsions from decades ago still beat most digital solutions with regards to highlight control and other characteristics. Deal with it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2015 at 00:43 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

junk1: How does it do at high ISO and did they improve DR? :-)

We'll never know because DXO won't test this thing due to the conspiracy to keep Nikon from collapsing. They also don't want people knowing the D600 splatter was actually dolphin oil. I know this because I've seen plenty of shops and I can see the pixels.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2015 at 04:25 UTC
On article Lomography launches Lomo’instant Wide camera (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Awaiting review...

Lol, 35mm baby format can't compete with 6x10cm medium format. No point comparing.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 07:36 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Can we please stop calling them 1" sensors?
It's a terrible misnomer based on nothing that is relevant these days.

Ahh I see, it's just misleading like the 645Z.
It's just way off the mark when a line like this is used:
'the G9 X is still a little on the pricey side, but you're getting a sensor (1") that's considerably larger than that found in the PowerShot S120 (1/1.7")'
Where size comparisons are being made between two different things, the term inch or (") is used on both, but is representative of something that doesn't let you compare them properly.
It's like saying, 'My IQ is 250-type' and expecting no one to have an issue with this.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 23:56 UTC
Total: 631, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »