timo

timo

Lives in United Kingdom Singapore and/or, United Kingdom
Works as a Ex-publisher, now freelance writer
Joined on Nov 17, 2002
About me:

Pentax *istD, K30, and K5 (and several bodies in between)

DA: 15, 21, 40, 70, 18-55 (a gang of those), 50-200, 55-300
FA: 24-90, 50 f/1.7, 135 f/2.8
M: 28 f/3.5, 50 f/1.4, 50 f/1.7, 100 f/2.8, 150 f/3.2, 200 f/4
K: 28/3.5, 50 f/1.2 (until someone stole it on a Belgian train), 105 f/2.8

Fuji X20, Panasonic GX7 (with 20/1.7; 12-32; 18-42 Mk II; 45-150; Sigma 60mm)

Started photography with egg-shaped Brownie 127. First SLR owned: Canon AE-1, 1980. First DSLR: Pentax *istD, 2002 (ish). Today, the Panasonic GX7 and Fujifilm X20 stand in for the K5 and K30 when a DSLR set-up is killing my back.

Comments

Total: 88, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: Why in the world would a customer who pays $7500 for a camera...that uses lenses costing thousands of dollars each...be using a consumer grade photos app that is given away for free?

That would be like someone buying a Rolls Royce but then buying seat covers at Walmart, only to complain that the seat covers don't look good in the Rolls.

Apple makes many marvelous products, and their computers are the best, IMHO. But their Photos app is meant for the basic consumer, the one who primarily takes photos with their iPhone. For that purpose it works well.

But I am still baffled as to why anyone with this camera would use the Photos app in real life.

Hardly the point. You would complain if your audiophile CDs would not play through a cheap hi-fi system.

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2015 at 02:50 UTC
On Field Test: Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm F2.8 DN lenses article (159 comments in total)

I would have thought the 60mm is better than this slightly 'qualified' review suggests. On the GX7 I would say it is outstanding by any measure.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2015 at 07:30 UTC as 23rd comment
On CP+ 2015 Sigma Interview article (197 comments in total)

Very good interview - his answers were much less formulaic than you often get with Japanese executives. You get the impression that he was actually listening to the questions and answering them, rather than giving a low-risk, bland response which adds nothing. Often with these interviews you feel you could have supplied all the answers yourself without actually reading the interview. Not in this case.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 02:55 UTC as 60th comment | 1 reply
On Kowa announces pricing for three Micro Four Thirds lens article (148 comments in total)

Some rich bankers will buy these for their m4/3 systems just for the look of them (I like the green) and the tactile experience. Even if the optical performance is as claimed, very few users will actually need it. Landscape photographers who don't have to carry gear too far from their cars might love them.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 01:51 UTC as 33rd comment

There's some more constructive and informed coverage at Imaging Resource.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 05:34 UTC as 47th comment | 2 replies

Really crummy editorial: Whoever writes up this stuff has left out the crucial qualification: * The world’s shortest standard zoom lens for use with digital SLR cameras (as of February 1, 2015, based on RICOH IMAGING research)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 05:29 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

jimrpdx: DPR streak is safe, you simply cannot wrote a Pentax note without a barb. It's insulting to the brand and to readers. No Canon articles about the M-series features not implemented in later announcements, no Olympus reports that note how you cannot tell them apart from six feet away. Pentax put LEDs on one camera that could flash in specific instances, and could be turned off.. yet the stigma will outlive the current writers and no doubt will come up again in 2045. Absurdity reigns.

Par for the course. It's true DPR do seem to shoot a lot of trivial barbs in Pentax's direction, either in headlines or editorial text; irritating, but no big deal I guess …

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 05:23 UTC

All my great old K-mount primes will come into their own again. This won't do a lot for K3 sales though.

For me, a lot will depend on price, size and weight. I'm confident about the performance.

It'll be interesting to see how the Pentax lens range develops.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 03:31 UTC as 92nd comment | 5 replies

Even if the figures are not particularly accurate, in the main rankings it seems surprising to me that Sony has not made that much headway. M4/3 is clearly not conquering the world. And in the compact ratings it seems amazing that Canon does not figure, when you consider how dominant they were in that sector 10 years ago.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2015 at 11:16 UTC as 54th comment
On Budget X: Hands-on with Fujifilm's new X-A2 article (161 comments in total)

The lens could be useful.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2015 at 01:09 UTC as 27th comment
On Quick Look: The art of the unforeground article (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pixel Pooper: This article would have worked better as a tweet.

A comment that applies even more to 95% of all postings on this forum. Still, why waste the opportunity for a bit of pooping?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 05:04 UTC
On Quick Look: The art of the unforeground article (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cane: You have to be brave to post an article to this group of hyenas. It's like serving cold soup at an senior center.

Everyone must be furious at the price they paid to subscribe to this site and then not learn anything because you can't teach experts new tricks.

How true. Except that no one has paid anything to subscribe to the site, a fact that is generally forgotten.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 04:59 UTC
On Quick Look: The art of the unforeground article (85 comments in total)

The fact is that both these photos do have foregrounds, whether its the effect of reflections in the water or the abstract pattern on the sand.

Everybody on here sounds a bit 'know-it-all", but it's amazing how many landscape shots you see where the photographer has used a wide angle lens to include a lot of interest on the horizontal axis, while forgetting that it includes an extensive vertical axis as well. Hence the need for foreground elements, leaving aside all this guff about 'leading the eye' etc.

It's a lightweight article but makes a point. Why not?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 04:57 UTC as 16th comment
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1457 comments in total)
In reply to:

macky patalinghug: mock solemn -the article's tone seems to suggest that it is saying something that will open your eyes. :) The content is pretty simple: If you are convinced that full frame is for you, sell your current stuff and start anew. For doing it step by step will only handicap you as a photographer.

of course we may or may not agree to this as some folk have the 2 systems simultaneously.

'For doing it step by step will only handicap you as a photographer.'

Why? I have no desire for a FF camera (too big, too heavy, too expensive). But a high percentage of my Pentax lenses, old and new, will work perfectly on both. Although I have absolutely no intention of doing it, a progressive transition would work fine for me.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 07:05 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1457 comments in total)

Nothing new in the article but some of the points are worth making. Many people reading the Pentax SLR forum will have tired of the never-ending complaints about the lack of a FF 'upgrade path'. It has become a kind of religious dogma for some, it seems to me. And I think we all spend too much time and money on upgrading, when we should be simply making the best use of what we have.

But I disagree about the 'oddness' of FF lenses on APS-C - many Pentax lenses marketed for APS-C will work on FF; and many legacy FF lenses work superbly on APS-C, albeit with a different FOV. You just adjust your mental interpretation of what focal length works for what circumstances.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 03:16 UTC as 265th comment | 1 reply
On UK Landscape Photographer of the Year winners announced article (157 comments in total)

I'd rather look at any of these than the over-processed, artificial-looking, garish monstrosities that attract the oohs and ahs and adulation on Flickr, and in some of the DPR challenges.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 00:47 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (455 comments in total)
In reply to:

timo: In the absence of a viewfinder, I cannot quite see the point of this camera. Yesterday's formula, it seems to me, despite the good image quality. It looks pretty enough, in the nice clean way of the pioneering Canon compacts of old.

@lacikuss I tried to use a phone cam but gave up when I couldn't see how to wind the film on.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 23:57 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (455 comments in total)
In reply to:

timo: In the absence of a viewfinder, I cannot quite see the point of this camera. Yesterday's formula, it seems to me, despite the good image quality. It looks pretty enough, in the nice clean way of the pioneering Canon compacts of old.

@ Joseph Black

So maybe stability and visibility in bright conditions are of little concern to you. And I assume you're not affected by the fact that many (I dare say most) people over 45-50 have to either put on or take off glasses when using a screen for framing ...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 09:12 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (455 comments in total)

In the absence of a viewfinder, I cannot quite see the point of this camera. Yesterday's formula, it seems to me, despite the good image quality. It looks pretty enough, in the nice clean way of the pioneering Canon compacts of old.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 05:03 UTC as 57th comment | 10 replies

These re-badged, mis-styled cameras come in the category 'Great Mysteries of Life'. There is a cross-reference in 'What Were They Thinking?'

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 04:59 UTC as 28th comment
Total: 88, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »