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: 547, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (672 comments in total)

I loved the entire concept of the X100 series. The hybrid finder is the only thing in the last several years of camera releases that has excited me.
Good to see this release tweaking the usability of the camera.
My only personal wish would be for the lens to be a little easier to control. I'd be happy if it was slightly bigger with the aperture ring and focus ring more prominent. Also a good focus ring travel distance that stops at either end of the scale so pre focusing can be done without looking at the camera.
Basically more tuned for manual focus use.
But... still tempted to get one of these.
If only I didn't just order 20 rolls of Fujifilm...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 00:32 UTC as 82nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

pkosewski: Ah... the "eyes are sharp" thing.
I looked at some shots in the gallery. We are talking about DoF of 2-3 meters. It's not really about nailing focus as getting something in focus or being totally lost. Players are isolated very well...
As such, 20% rate of "being totally lost" is quite a lot. Especially at 5 fps.

I'm pointing this out because Olympus is planning to release the 300/4 and
600mm FF equivalent is not exactly a general-purpose lens. With this quality of focusing I don't think it will win over many nature photographers...

@SmilerGrogan, 'As far as testing lenses like the upcoming 300mm, I think it would have higher rate of keepers because a lens like that has to be shot off of a high-level tripod with a Wimberly gimbal mount, or at the very least a hell of a monopod.'

But but but... Olympus Head Honcho said that lens is for handholding unlike other equivalent FF lenses. So you must be wrong... :p

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 03:01 UTC
In reply to:

pkosewski: Ah... the "eyes are sharp" thing.
I looked at some shots in the gallery. We are talking about DoF of 2-3 meters. It's not really about nailing focus as getting something in focus or being totally lost. Players are isolated very well...
As such, 20% rate of "being totally lost" is quite a lot. Especially at 5 fps.

I'm pointing this out because Olympus is planning to release the 300/4 and
600mm FF equivalent is not exactly a general-purpose lens. With this quality of focusing I don't think it will win over many nature photographers...

I thought I read that a 20-25% AF failure rate was normal for pro cameras/lenses. Either from a lens rentals article or wikipedia.
At the very least wiki says 'Autofocus accuracy within 1/3 of the depth of field (DOF) at the widest aperture of the lens is not uncommon in professional AF SLR cameras'
So modern AF is not 100% spot on 100% of the time.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2015 at 22:24 UTC
In reply to:

Ayoh: Its a shame the interviewer didn't call him out on the nonsense about the 300mm lens being the same as a 600mm lens on full frame. The "effective focal length" is obviously just a function of pixel density and not sensor size. A full frame sensor with the same pixel density as the four thirds camera has the same resolution.

I was thinking more about how he totally disregards the existence of mirror reflex lenses which in 500-800mm range for full frame are very much hand holdable.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2015 at 05:31 UTC
In reply to:

J A C S: The "Editor's Note" leaves a bad taste in the mouth. If you had something more to say, you should have said it during the interview.

This remark is not restricted to this interview only.

I agree ^^^^
In short, let the reader read between the lines of the interview.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2015 at 05:28 UTC
In reply to:

D Gold: I was quite positive about the 40 meg feature in the actual review of the new Olympus, but looking at the trees and water in the picture of the temple, the sensor movement becomes painfully obvious and ruins the image.

(fixing typo)

You can see that the trees in the centre of the frame are sharp, but the ones on the edges are not. Check the parts of the trees that have no leaves.
Also, movement seems to be captured with staggered lines, but not all of the trees exhibit this look. Yet they are blurry.

Capturing images for stitching requires you to lines up the edges of the frame. Everything within each individual frame is usually sharp. If anything you might see misalignment at the seams.
With these images it looks like that misalignment ends up occurring over most of the frame. At least in that situation stitching seems the better option.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2015 at 05:13 UTC
In reply to:

obsolescence: The 40MP high res mode is the main feature that would make me want to buy an OMD camera -- I could fix the artifacts of moving objects by patching in upsized segments from outtakes in post. What I really need for architecture and landscape is a 17mm equiv. shift or tilt-shift lens, preferably one that's not too expensive (like Canon's is). I'll bet Samyang could build one.

Why don't you just stitch a bunch of nodal pointed 24mm shots together to get high resolution?
And why do you need a 17mm TS lens if you're willing to go to the trouble of patching and doing so much post work?
Just curious...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2015 at 01:05 UTC
In reply to:

D Gold: I was quite positive about the 40 meg feature in the actual review of the new Olympus, but looking at the trees and water in the picture of the temple, the sensor movement becomes painfully obvious and ruins the image.

(fixing typo)

[sarcasm]
But studio photographers say it's sharper in the corners than full frame!!
Don't believe everything you see with your eyes. Hearsay is more reliable...
[/sarcasm]

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 23:01 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Magazines like Communication Arts are full of stuff like this, and call this photography, but I don't agree with it.

This is actually digital illustration work, but done through elements of photography. So this is not photography per se.

It is staged, and unreal. Same as life in the movie set is not real life of a person, but staged. And we don't call movies real life.

Photography, likewise, is supposed to memorise elements of reality, or, the truth. And even then, when going through a mountain of negatives that showed truth, photographers would look at all of them to pick one where all nuances of truth were the most obvious and overwhelming.

'Photography, likewise, is supposed to memorise elements of reality, or, the truth.'

This isn't 1891...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 03:36 UTC

I'm kind of reminded of Martin Paar's work with 1,3 and 9.
Although Paar works with real life captured documentary as opposed to staged and retouched. In doing so he effortless says so much more about society and culture, and gives us much more to look at.
I understand the commercial appeal of Bradshaw's work though. And it's clean and tight and well done. It's made to sell to the masses.
Not sure why number 10 is there though. It really doesn't have anything redeeming about it.
My 2c.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 00:35 UTC as 12th comment
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review preview (818 comments in total)
In reply to:

gmarmot: I fully understand that most people here are photo geeks, as am I, however I'm a bit mystified at folks who downgrade micro 4/3 because of image quality, & say a larger sensor is necessary. What are you doing with your photos?
I'm retired & been traveling in 21 3rd world countries for 6 years (sometimes backpacking). My 1/2.3" sensor images were often good enough that at a slide show folks were shocked to learn what camera I used.
The point is that most photographers will not need a sensor larger than the EM5II has, and the viewers of their pics will not know the difference. Carrying 36+ oz of my EM5 (now EM5II) and lenses going from 24 to 600 mm, is the absolute max size and weight that is feasible for me.
As I'm 62 and grew up shooting film in 35m and larger sizes, I would like to have the image quality of a sensor larger than 35mm full frame, but the weight, size, and cost would, in no way, be worth it.
How many of you actually need a sensor larger than this one?

'The point is that most photographers will not need a sensor larger than the EM5II has'... based on what info from what research conducted by whom?
This is your opinion, just as 645 being the sweet spot for me is my opinion relevant only to me.
'Carrying 36+ oz of my EM5 (now EM5II) and lenses going from 24 to 600 mm'
Carrying all that stuff because you don't actually know what you're going to be taking photos of... Not all of us have this problem.
'How many of you actually need a sensor larger than this one?'
It's not just about the size of the sensor. It's the fact that many of these small sensor cameras and their resulting lenses end up throwing ergonomics and easy control access out the window.
For my hands anyway, they are difficult to hold on to and easily change settings.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2015 at 02:46 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: I love me some rectilinear wide angles.
Distortion is for circular fisheye!
Thanks for posting samples guys :)

I don't follow...
Are you saying that the 15mm Canon fisheye covers a greater angle of view and doesn't distort as much as this Canon 11-24?
So... If I crop the central part of the Canon 15mm (which is heavily distorted) it will no longer be distorted???

My line about distortion being for circular fisheye was about my personal choice. ie. If you're gonna have distortion just go all the way and make it full circular.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2015 at 01:10 UTC

I love me some rectilinear wide angles.
Distortion is for circular fisheye!
Thanks for posting samples guys :)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 23:11 UTC as 48th comment | 3 replies
On Readers' Showcase: Maxime Siegler article (48 comments in total)

Some lovely work here :)
Thanks for sharing.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2015 at 01:02 UTC as 31st comment
In reply to:

Marty4650: Before the EM5 II, the EM10 had a few features the EM5 lacked. And now the EM5 II fixed that, but has a few features the EM1 lacks.

You really can never have three discrete products that stair step beautifully, unless you release all three on the same date, then update all three on the same date.

And this is nothing new for Olympus. When the E30 came out, it had a better sensor and more features than the E3 had. Olympus always puts their latest technology into their latest camera, rather than holding it back for the "flagship's next upgrade" like Canon and Nikon usually do.

Ahh.. but perhaps not when you consider format sizes.
I think the size was the main factor that determined how 'PRO' you were. To a degree this is still the case, but there is actual segmentation within format sizes with digital.
I don't think it's as big of an issue as some people make it out to be though. Any camera in good hands can still produce good results.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 03:14 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Before the EM5 II, the EM10 had a few features the EM5 lacked. And now the EM5 II fixed that, but has a few features the EM1 lacks.

You really can never have three discrete products that stair step beautifully, unless you release all three on the same date, then update all three on the same date.

And this is nothing new for Olympus. When the E30 came out, it had a better sensor and more features than the E3 had. Olympus always puts their latest technology into their latest camera, rather than holding it back for the "flagship's next upgrade" like Canon and Nikon usually do.

Totally agree, after spending a lot of money on the latest computer tech I finally decided just to buy things that are 2-3 generations old. You find things at better value for money, more matured firmware and the market almost never demands the latest tech anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 02:20 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Before the EM5 II, the EM10 had a few features the EM5 lacked. And now the EM5 II fixed that, but has a few features the EM1 lacks.

You really can never have three discrete products that stair step beautifully, unless you release all three on the same date, then update all three on the same date.

And this is nothing new for Olympus. When the E30 came out, it had a better sensor and more features than the E3 had. Olympus always puts their latest technology into their latest camera, rather than holding it back for the "flagship's next upgrade" like Canon and Nikon usually do.

Marty4650: You know you gotta wait for the EM5 III cause Olympus have already stated that it will have a faster high resolution mode ;)

RichRMA: 'That hold-back is what has produce a "class system" in digital that never existed in film.'
I don't think this is correct.
There were overlapping models released by many brands with more/less features, and metal/plastic bodies, mechanical/electronic components, long/short shutter lifespans, faster/slower max shutter speeds etc...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 00:18 UTC
On Flasher smartphone flash launched on Kickstarter post (73 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Why not just use a handheld LED torchlight?
You can control direction that way, set it up on a table while you shoot from elsewhere. Or even use a second one for hairlight...

Or you could just put a correction gel infront of it...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 10, 2015 at 23:35 UTC
On Flasher smartphone flash launched on Kickstarter post (73 comments in total)

Why not just use a handheld LED torchlight?
You can control direction that way, set it up on a table while you shoot from elsewhere. Or even use a second one for hairlight...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 9, 2015 at 22:14 UTC as 35th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

fmian: Full frame camera with a major feature being crop mode for crop lenses.
What's the big deal about a crop mode? I can easily create a lightroom preset to do the same thing.
Am I missing the importance of this??
Enlighten me.

@ragmanjin
Your original statement said that APS-C lenses won't mount on full frame Canon bodies.
What about all the APS-C lenses with Canon mount made by Sigma and Tamron?
What you should have written is 'Sorry, by APS-C lenses I was only talking about Canon branded EF-S lenses and how they can't mount to a Canon FF'.

ps. My website isn't a blog.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 9, 2015 at 01:00 UTC
Total: 547, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »