Scottelly

Scottelly

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Photographer, videographer, photo/video editor
Has a website at http://ffphotos.zenfolio.com
Joined on Aug 26, 2011
About me:

Shooting photos for about 30 years (with a little hiatus in my twenties), I am an "aspiring" art photographer with a little experience shooting products, portraits, fashion, weddings, glamor, landscapes and various other stuff.

Comments

Total: 700, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Panasonic reveals Lumix DMC-GF7 with tilting LCD article (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

aris14: No matter if this or any other camera offering an easy way for selfy pix have the best IQ ever or whatever whatsoever...
Selfies is the depiction of an ill egoism and selfism thus depicting the problems of a rather significantly ill culture... Or should I say civilization..?

People use cell phones to take selfies, because they can. No camera made it easy to do that before, so people didn't do that. Maybe people would have been making selfies for the past 100 years, if they could have done so in an effective, easy manner. Who are you to judge what a society does?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Sony FE lenses are seriously too expensive. If Sony wants to sell the A7 series, they should drop the lens prices down to realistic levels.

Canon 50mm f1.4 = $400
Canon 50mm f1.8=$150
....Sony FE 55mm f1.8 = $1000

Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM = $600
Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM = #200
....Sony FE 35mm f2.8 = $800

Canon 17-40 f4 = $800
...Sony FE 16-35 f4 = $1350

Canon 28-135mm = $500
Sony 28-135mm = $2500

As an amateur, I would be interested in buying an A7 camera if it wasn't for these ridiculous prices.

With a name like "Boss of Sony" you seem to just be a troll. Why no gear listed? No photos posted either? Your comments in other places here on DPR convince me that you are just cluttering this place with B.S.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 16:46 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1347 comments in total)

I think this might be an attempt to get people to waste money on lenses they won't use in the future, once they upgrade to a full-frame camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:51 UTC as 238th comment | 2 replies
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1347 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richt2000: Nice to see that being owned by Amazon, you can write articles advising against spending money!

:-)

I'm not so sure this about not spending money. I think it might be about getting people to spend more money. After-all, if someone is holding back, because they're wanting to get more expensive lenses, and then they will not buy two lenses, because they will be keeping the good lens they invested into, then they will not be spending as much. If people just buy a bunch of APS-C lenses, and then decide to get a full-frame camera, then they will buy more lenses to go with that camera. Amazon wins . . . and so does the camera and lens maker (i.e. Canon, Nikon, or Sony).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:51 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1347 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Silver: The biggest problem with the article I see is that it overlooks the primary reason for the pre-FF lens purchases: mitigating the cost of the purchase.

The point of the lenses applying to significantly different types of situations, depending on whether they are used on an APS-C camera or a FF, is obvious and clear. However, the main reason people start building up a small fold of FF lenses before buying the camera is they want to avoid a large single burdensome purchase, and start splitting it up in a way that is easier to handle. In other words the idea is that they can salvage the glass for the FF body, with the necessary usage adjustments, and still use it on the APS-C camera before making the leap.

This argument seemed to be completely overlooked in the article.

I've sold quite a few pieces of photographic equipment through Craigslist. It's not that difficult. You just have to be willing to let go of your equipment at a price that people are willing to pay. Sometimes you have to re-list it one or two times. It can take a day or two or a few weeks, but as long as you're not too stubborn about the price, you WILL be able to sell your equipment, even if you have unusual and rare Sigma SA mount equipment.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:45 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1347 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: The moment a photography enthusiast removes the concept of "upgrade" in his/her mind... the more enjoyable that photography enthusiast and hobbyist's picture taking would be.

Upgrade spreads the curse of inadequacy, a useful tool of marketing.

.

Full-frame does not weigh that much. The whole notion that someone can't take a full-frame camera with them, because it weighs so much is absurd. I used to carry my Canon 5 D with battery grip and 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens everywhere I went. Now I have other cameras, but if I had a Nikon D4s and a 24-120mm f4 VR I would carry THAT everywhere. The extra pound or two is insignificant. Women carry around purses that weigh in at 5 or 6 lbs. all the time. The reason she doesn't carry the camera is probably more about worry or not really being that serious . . . or maybe she's not into snap-shot or documentary style photography. There are professionals who only shoot once or twice a week, and they leave their equipment at home otherwise. That doesn't mean they are not serious, because they don't have a camera with them every minute of the day.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:37 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1347 comments in total)
In reply to:

SteveCooper: Mr. Butler, I agree with you completely. Thank you for putting this article out there for manufacturers to read :)

I think that most Pentax 645D owners probably feel a lot more comfortable laying out $5,000 for that new lens they want, knowing that Pentax just released a new, higher-resolution, upgraded body, the 645Z. THAT's an upgrade path, and it IS valid. To say it isn't is to act like an ostrich, sticking one's head in the sand (in denial).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:31 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1347 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: Here's an upgrade path for you. You buy a Nikon D610 and a 24-120mm f4 VR. Then you decide you want a wide-angle lens. You want one that's compatible with your camera, but you want one that will work with future cameras too. Do you buy a 10-24mm and a D5300, because that way you can have a second camera and a good quality wide-angle lens? I mean that's not exactly upgrading, but you seem to think that upgrading is something people shouldn't be concerned with. So I guess that's what you would do, because it's cheaper than buying a 14-24mm f2.8 G lens to go with your D610. I'd get the more expensive lens, because I'd think that at some point in the future I might decide to get a D810 or whatever 40 or 50 megapixel (or higher resolution camera) replacement Nikon decides to make in the future (D900?).

Compare that to the upgrade path that Sigma offers. It isn't very inspiring. It makes me thing that I would not want to buy into the system in a big way, spending thousands on nice primes (like the new 50mm f1.4 A), macros (like the beautiful 150mm f2.8 OS), and long, expensive zooms (such as the new 150-600mm). If Sigma offered a real upgrade path, such as a faster body (maybe an SD2 Merrill with the ability to shoot at 8 fps with a buffer that would hold 20 raw frames) and a full-frame camera (such as a Merrill sensor with twice the resolution of the current SD1 Merrill and other Merrill cameras), then I would feel confident that I would be happy in the future with my upgrade options, and I would be much more likely to buy a few more high-end, expensive lenses.

So like with anything else, it's a two-sided coin. Upgrade paths DO matter . . . and then they also don't matter, depending on how you look at it.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:19 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1347 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: Here's an upgrade path for you. You buy a Nikon D610 and a 24-120mm f4 VR. Then you decide you want a wide-angle lens. You want one that's compatible with your camera, but you want one that will work with future cameras too. Do you buy a 10-24mm and a D5300, because that way you can have a second camera and a good quality wide-angle lens? I mean that's not exactly upgrading, but you seem to think that upgrading is something people shouldn't be concerned with. So I guess that's what you would do, because it's cheaper than buying a 14-24mm f2.8 G lens to go with your D610. I'd get the more expensive lens, because I'd think that at some point in the future I might decide to get a D810 or whatever 40 or 50 megapixel (or higher resolution camera) replacement Nikon decides to make in the future (D900?).

What I'm saying is that the upgrade path I took DID make sense, and that what you are suggesting . . . that it is meaningless, is folly. Certainly there are advantages to not feeling constrained to one system, if you consider the possibility of a future upgrade. It's probably a good thing to think that if you ever want to spend a lot of money to get an upgrade, you can just get whatever you want, and not worry about staying it one system . . . but there are advantages to buying full-frame lenses for the system you have, because there IS an upgrade path . . . I followed one that worked just fine for me. I COULD have switched to Nikon at that time. Afterall, I didn't have a lot of expensive lenses. But if I had 5 or 6 lenses, I would have been stupid to switch at that point, unless there was a REALLY good reason to do so. At the time though, Canon's 5 D was the best value in the world of high-end DSLR cameras, so timing was good for me. I'd say now that Nikon offers a great upgrade path.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:14 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1347 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: Here's an upgrade path for you. You buy a Nikon D610 and a 24-120mm f4 VR. Then you decide you want a wide-angle lens. You want one that's compatible with your camera, but you want one that will work with future cameras too. Do you buy a 10-24mm and a D5300, because that way you can have a second camera and a good quality wide-angle lens? I mean that's not exactly upgrading, but you seem to think that upgrading is something people shouldn't be concerned with. So I guess that's what you would do, because it's cheaper than buying a 14-24mm f2.8 G lens to go with your D610. I'd get the more expensive lens, because I'd think that at some point in the future I might decide to get a D810 or whatever 40 or 50 megapixel (or higher resolution camera) replacement Nikon decides to make in the future (D900?).

I bought a Canon 5 D after owning a 20 D for some time. I had a full-frame 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 IS at the time, which I used on my 20 D for longer shots. I normally shot with a Sigma 18-125mm f3.5-5.6. My upgrade path was to get the 5 D and use that full-frame lens I already had. The image quality was better, even though that lens was not exactly sharp. I then got a 70-200mm f2.8 L IS and a 17-40mm f4 L. I also got a 50mm f1.4. I was set up. I used the 28-200 as my all-around lens, but eventually I sold it, because I needed some money, and I made do with the 70-200 and the other two lenses. I didn't miss the 28-200, because I felt confident that my photos with that lens were not as sharp as they could have been, even though I did some tests, comparing the 70-200 at various focal lengths and at f8 there was almost no difference at all. It still bothered me a little that there was some slight difference, so I was happy to not have that tempting "all-around" lens anymore.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:10 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1347 comments in total)

Here's an upgrade path for you. You buy a Nikon D610 and a 24-120mm f4 VR. Then you decide you want a wide-angle lens. You want one that's compatible with your camera, but you want one that will work with future cameras too. Do you buy a 10-24mm and a D5300, because that way you can have a second camera and a good quality wide-angle lens? I mean that's not exactly upgrading, but you seem to think that upgrading is something people shouldn't be concerned with. So I guess that's what you would do, because it's cheaper than buying a 14-24mm f2.8 G lens to go with your D610. I'd get the more expensive lens, because I'd think that at some point in the future I might decide to get a D810 or whatever 40 or 50 megapixel (or higher resolution camera) replacement Nikon decides to make in the future (D900?).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:06 UTC as 251st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

adhall: Would have been nice to also make it equivalent to the Canon/Nikon 24-70s i.e. make it ~f/2.0...

I'm not believing that lenses have to be huge, just because they have large apertures. The 50mm f1.4 lenses from Nikon and Canon are not huge. A zoom doesn't have to be huge either. I have no doubt that someone could make a 15-70mm f2 for APS-C size sensors, with image stabilization, which would be less than 500 grams. They might have to use a couple of titanium parts or some carbon fiber stuff, but it could be made ultra-light and produce great image quality in the center of the image at f2, good image quality all the way across the frame at f4 and very good image quality all the way across the frame at f8. Sigma could do it, but they're selling plenty of 18-35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 lenses as is, so why would they make such a beast to eliminate a bunch of their sales of those two lenses? Tamron should do it.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 18:03 UTC
On Cook Islands 2013-09-15 082 photo in maple's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Beautiful. It's PARADISE!

:)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 16:12 UTC as 1st comment
On Toshiba announces world's first SDHC card with NFC article (52 comments in total)

Ummm . . . maybe SOMEBODY will want it.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 04:46 UTC as 9th comment
On Toshiba announces world's first SDHC card with NFC article (52 comments in total)

So these memory cards have batteries in them?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 04:42 UTC as 10th comment | 7 replies
On Jill photo in Mooder Man's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Very cool. I wonder what that red jewel is/does in the middle of her/his forehead. Great shot!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 27, 2014 at 15:46 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

munro harrap: All cameras are point and shoot, or thats how I use a DSLR, as most digicams I have owned are too slow. If you are going to be robbed of £750 for an LX100, you may as well buy a DSLR. After all, I paid in a shop £730 for my new D7100 body.

These things are all very well, but they should be priced in realistic terms, because , quite apart from their dreadful image quality, a camera with an electronically focussing and extending fixed lens lasts only as long as the lens opens and shuts, and is very slow to use with you having an eternally long delay between zooming and the zoom getting to where you want it to be. Then another wait while you adjust it again- because they never stop where you want them too- how can they- they cannot read minds? And then another delay to adjust focus and another delay for the often dreadful shutter lag: imagine PAYING for that?

They are priced what people are willing to pay for them . . . or they drop in price and are no longer produced, if there is not enough profit at the price point where they are able to be sold. That's all. You must admit that these cameras are better than the $300 cameras, right? Is there something better that's priced at $500? I don't think so. The fact is there are lots of different cameras at lots of different price ranges, and there are very few people who are willing to pay more than $500 for a digital camera. These then are slow selling cameras, which probably would not sell much faster at $100 less . . . or even at $200 less, and there would probably be very little profit if they were priced for $300 less. So what makes sense? Should the companies make a lot of money on each one, or sell just a few more and make less than half as much on each one?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 21, 2014 at 03:36 UTC
On Have your say: Best High-end Compact Camera of 2014 article (77 comments in total)

Has ANYONE worked with even half of these? What's the point of this?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 15:01 UTC as 16th comment | 5 replies

Well, it seems to me that if the buyers are anonymous, the sales should have been kept anonymous. He should have left things as they were, with "One" for $1 million as his most expensive sale. As it is now, it just looks like he's trying to generate free press coverage, and frankly I don't believe these sales are real. I was skeptical of the $1 million sale . . . but $6.5 million? . . . to an anonymous buyer? I don't "buy" it.

Still, the guy has done a great job of marketing his work, and I do like his prints. I wish him all the best.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 04:48 UTC as 121st comment
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Not that I can afford such a camera, but the fact that it's a crop sensor compared to a real full frame 645 camera seems a let down.

There IS the advantage of being able to eek out every bit of detail from the center of the image that the lens projects. Still, I get where you're coming from. The same goes for the full-frame 35mm shooters. It just seems like the 645Z isn't a "real" medium format camera, does it? I believe that 35mm film is equivalent to about 20 MP with 100 ISO Ektar. That would make a 6x7 equivalent to about 80 MP digital at 100 ISO with Ektar . . . as long as you're using a good lens and shooting with good technical skill. Those here who are all digital and think film has no advantages should think about blown highlights. Do you know what color a neon green bikini is in the bright sunlight with a digital camera? Not green. With film it is the color it is supposed to be. Same goes for bright orange, red, etc. The biggest problem with digital cameras is blown bright colors in sunlight. Until digital evolves, it will never match film. That said, I'm not saying film is better - just different.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 02:09 UTC
Total: 700, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »