fmian

fmian

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Photographer/Re-toucher/Consultant
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.

Comments

Total: 753, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Bob A L: Is sigma lying about the f1.8 - article says it performs like a f2.8 - one whole stop off?

I'm wondering in what circumstance this 'total light gathering' concept needs to be considered.
I mean... not every lens made for APSc has it's image circle strictly bound to APSc. Many APSc lenses work with minimal vignetting on FF.
So I only see the comparison as being completely arbitrary.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 23:41 UTC
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: 700 grs for a 1.8 85...

And bigger than Canon's 85mm f/1.2...
I thought Sony was having a laugh with their GM 85mm size, but Tamron.. lol..

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 22:31 UTC
In reply to:

Bob A L: Is sigma lying about the f1.8 - article says it performs like a f2.8 - one whole stop off?

I can't help noticing how DP Review has been misusing terms and concepts in their articles lately.
This is the 3rd one I've seen in the last week or so. For a website with such a large readership... how many people don't do their own research and end up believing in the wrong information... and then passing it on to someone else?

I actually had a diploma photography student try to explain to me how 3200 ISO on one camera will produce exposure like 800 ISO on the previous model.

I thought 'Nice one buddy, you just broke a fundamental rule of photography that's been in place for 150 years..'
and promptly lost all respect for him... and whomever was teaching him...

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 05:34 UTC
In reply to:

Bob A L: Is sigma lying about the f1.8 - article says it performs like a f2.8 - one whole stop off?

Where on my light meter do I select whether it's a full frame camera or APSc so it can compensate for this 'light gathering ability'?

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 04:43 UTC
In reply to:

Neez: He should have brought an A7S

Bit of fill light from a reflector would have been nice. Maybe some rim lighting too...

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 05:58 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 First Impressions Review (978 comments in total)
In reply to:

Keith57: Marvellous, just what the world needs, another old school, me too, flappy mirror big bodied heavy camera for old lenses.

@Keith, why even take a photo? Why not just remember what you looked at?

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 04:13 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 First Impressions Review (978 comments in total)

An exciting set of features for an amazing price. Puts this camera in a unique position in the market.
I think the value of 2nd hand k-mount lenses just went up in price from this announcement...

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 22:20 UTC as 275th comment
In reply to:

PKDanny: This isn't a FAST prime lens because oh NO AUTOFOCUS!!!!

@T3: Not for pixel peepers..
Most of the time that also applies to:
- Camera lens combos that haven't been calibrated.
- High resolution cameras that aren't locked down on a tripod.
- Most Mirrorless cameras due to shutter shock.
- Anything that isn't a brick wall at 10 feet shot at the widest aperture on a fast wide prime.

If you care enough to have to pixel peep you're either shooting landscapes/architecture at hyper focal on a tripod, or doing studio work. Neither of which tend to require fast autofocus.

Personally I think about the only benefit autofocus has had to the camera market has been to wildlife shooters and snapshooters that just want to press a button.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 11:32 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: This seems to go against the Sony hubris of 'Our lens has to be bigger otherwise we compromise image quality' Re: their 85mm f/1.4 GM lens.

*shakes head*
I'm pretty sure you guys are just trolling now.
Thanks for the entertainment/confusion.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 11:16 UTC
In reply to:

aris14: Surrealism?

It's a massive leap in definition to be calling bronze and contrasty post processing surrealism. If anything it should be called digital mimicry of an alternative process. Something first year photography students get asked to do.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 04:05 UTC
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: "Fine art". It's a very American phrase. I don't think I've ever seen a fine art photograph that I liked. Too smooth, too slick. It's like that art gallery in Old Sacramento I visited a long long time ago, where the "art" on sale was described mainly in terms of the materials used and the dollar per square ft price.

I'm of a similar mindset, and wonder why, with access to a 4x5 camera these images weren't taken on something like wet plate collodion which has a spectral sensitivity that pronounces freckles even more than the eye can see... instead of post processing a digital image to look like wet plate collodion.

Conversely, I've seen people with tattoos all over their body get photographed as if they have no ink at all with the same process.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 02:38 UTC

How much thinner do they need a camera to be? When we have smartphones with lens+cameras built in that are thinner than 5mm?

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 01:08 UTC as 29th comment
In reply to:

PKDanny: This isn't a FAST prime lens because oh NO AUTOFOCUS!!!!

If you've ever used a manual lens you'll know that you can approximate focal distance by the way it feels and how much you've turned the focus ring. This is before you've lifted the camera to your eye. Once it's at your eye you can fine tune it to perfection without the back and forth hunting of an autofocus system. If the camera is mechanical you won't have any electronics messing with the timing of the shot either.

Also, good manual focus pullers for cinema have been known to follow subject focus around a room just by hand-eye coordination. Without looking at the camera. They just eyeball the distance and know how much to turn the focus back and forth. Practice makes perfect, and not relying on technology to compensate for lack of technique helps as well.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: This seems to go against the Sony hubris of 'Our lens has to be bigger otherwise we compromise image quality' Re: their 85mm f/1.4 GM lens.

@Nawlins, my comment seems to have gone over your head as well.

Maybe if I pretend to demonstrate it in the guise of a virtual finger puppet theater you might understand.

ZY Optics humble finger puppet:
Hi boys and girls! Gee.. do we have exciting news for you today?!! We made a new 35mm f/0.95 lens and this time it's sharper and optically superior to the previous one. And guess what?? We even managed to make it SMALLER... :D

Sony totally pimpin' finger puppet:
Yo yo yo!! Lens announcement!! New 85mm FF f/1.4 GM lens. We've made it sharper, and optically superior to other 85mm FF lenses. And you know what??.. In order to do this we've had to make it BIGGER than other 85mm FF lenses on the market. Even if they have a wider aperture and larger glass.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 05:22 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: This seems to go against the Sony hubris of 'Our lens has to be bigger otherwise we compromise image quality' Re: their 85mm f/1.4 GM lens.

I'm not comparing lenses between brands. I'm comparing company claims and reasoning.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 00:24 UTC

This seems to go against the Sony hubris of 'Our lens has to be bigger otherwise we compromise image quality' Re: their 85mm f/1.4 GM lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 22:15 UTC as 5th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

PKDanny: This isn't a FAST prime lens because oh NO AUTOFOCUS!!!!

^^ This.

+ Manual focus in the right hands can be faster than autofocus.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 22:12 UTC
In reply to:

Thematic: Portraits with different focal lengths. (shared with permission)

http://s2.postimg.org/z4j7r4eih/Focal_Length_Portraits.jpg

Showing the differences in compression.

The comparison shows that the sweet spot seems to be between 70mm and 135mm, going longer makes it slightly out of shape, going wider makes it a lot out of shape.
This is why you find very few people trying to capture flattering head shots with anything outside that range.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 10:15 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Nice job pointing out and being mindful of the distortion between 24mm and 35mm, but way too many shots here where the horizon cuts through the models head and/or where the model is smack bang in the center of the shot.

@Rishi, the wide angle shots where you have stepped back and taken more of the scenery and been able to compose are great. They really are lovely.

It sounds like you are clearly aware that being close up (with WA) doesn't let you compose the subject against the background with freedom, nor does it give you the freedom to compose the subject within the frame. Yet you've taken these close up shots without creatively overcoming these problems you've admitted exist.

There are several ways I can think of to avoid having the models head in the center and to avoid the horizon cutting through it (It doesn't have to be an extreme angle). Perhaps not always in a candid situation, but here you had full control over the placement of the subject and your relation to her and the background. You also have full control over how to handle the image in post. Between all these things there are ways to prevent the lens from being the limitation you say it is.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 05:41 UTC

Nice job pointing out and being mindful of the distortion between 24mm and 35mm, but way too many shots here where the horizon cuts through the models head and/or where the model is smack bang in the center of the shot.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2016 at 21:54 UTC as 81st comment | 6 replies
Total: 753, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »