Scottelly

Scottelly

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Photographer, videographer, photo/video editor
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: 847, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Framing fashion with Dixie Dixon (23 comments in total)

She spent four torturous years photographing swimsuit models all around the World . . . uhuh. Torture. For sure. If that's torture, then I want to be tortured for the rest of my life. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 04:47 UTC as 5th comment
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (232 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frame Seeker: I like to see a comparison to the Zeiss SAL2470Z2 and a comparable Canon and Nikon lens to see how competitive that new FE sens is.

I don't think you have to worry. No doubt there will be a lot of comparisons made between the Canon 5Dsr with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L II and this new lens mounted on the Sony A7r II. Just wait like one month and do a search for comparisons of those two lenses on Google.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 04:35 UTC
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (232 comments in total)
In reply to:

UCSB: Hummm ... my Canon 24-70 2.8 II does much better than these samples.

So you shoot with that Canon lens mounted on a Sony A7r II? What adapter do you use? I'm interested to know why you don't just use the Canon 5 Ds r you have listed in your gear list.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 04:32 UTC
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (232 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nimbifer: Cooked RAWs? Thanks for the information, DPR. That was all I needed to know.

I'll never ever consider purchase of such cameras or lenses. To me it is the exact equivalent of olympic athletes proven guilty of doping. No way, Sony. I do hope, DPR takes this into account in their reviews and will not hand out gold or silver awards to that stuff.

Do you all really think that there is such a thing as a raw file that is NOT cooked?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 04:30 UTC

I'm glad Sony realizes that trying to correct CA while shooting 4K video would be a little taxing on the processor, so they've decided to just make the lenses right. Maybe they're getting ready to produce cameras that shoot great 8K video too.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 19:38 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

dave veneri: Come on Sony! How about a 50 1.4????? Also, these lenses are BIG. The whole idea of the mirrorless cameras is to reduce weight! It makes no sense to want to cut weight in one area and not the other. Canon and Nikon lenses are smaller so why not just get the D750 and the same lenses?

It's funny . . . the smallest of the 50mm f1.4 lenses is the Sony at 221 grams. Why can't Sony make a good 200 gram 50mm f1.4 for their FE mount cameras? Because they won't WANT to? Maybe they're afraid people will just buy that and be happy with it and not buy anything else.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

coyot3: Somebody call sony an tell them a 32 elements lens is not a cool thing. I really want to like sony but the lens are not their thing.

Actually, many of their lenses are the best available in their class. Just take a good look at their 16-50mm f2.8 and their 16-80mm f3.5-4.5 and their 70-400 G II.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

bluevellet: I like the non-answer for APSC lens development

I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 18:33 UTC
In reply to:

bluevellet: I like the non-answer for APSC lens development

Actually that was an answer. He stated clearly that he has NOT been doing any APS-C lens development. That's enough for me to believe they plan on abandoning APS-C and dedicating their time and energy to full-frame, as they probably should, since that is where the profit is . . . and someone with an APS-C sensor can use a full-frame lens anyway. If you want compact and light, get a micro-4/3 camera! Hmmm . . . doesn't seem to fit with the whole concept of mirrorless, does it? Again, as usual, Sony seems confused about what to do.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

evog: The two seconds of the video that actually gave a taste of the camera's resolution were pretty interesting.

Here's a video that shows it better for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okudd7b9dis

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 14:06 UTC
In reply to:

whakapu: Not sure what the the point of that video was. He said the Phase 1 back he was filmed using in the video was the only one in the world, so what was the video filmed with?

Who cares what the video was filmed with? Does it really matter? This video is about demonstrating that you CAN shoot with a Phase One XF outdoors . . . and even using a drone. It IS possible, which seems to be a fact beyond the thinking of most old men, who dominate the field of photography. Yes, I just said that the field of photography is dominated by old men, and this video is for them, to demonstrate that they can use this new, 100 MP back and XF camera the way they might use a Nikon D810 or Canon 50Ds.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 14:06 UTC
In reply to:

art99: I thought this camera was shooting in video mode as almost all the footage was 99% video and a few stills. I know it does not shoot video but the demo was not clear to me of it's intent. Sure, you can strap almost any camera on a drone these days and rent a heli but what's the point? Show me a side to side cropped segment comparison to say an A7R2 or anything in that league at various iso's. I am sure it will out resolve all but it's that difference I want to see if it's worth the 49 grand.

Remember that the equipment can be sold when the expedition is over. None of the $300,000 for chartering the research vessel is recoverable though.

;)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 20:29 UTC
In reply to:

art99: I thought this camera was shooting in video mode as almost all the footage was 99% video and a few stills. I know it does not shoot video but the demo was not clear to me of it's intent. Sure, you can strap almost any camera on a drone these days and rent a heli but what's the point? Show me a side to side cropped segment comparison to say an A7R2 or anything in that league at various iso's. I am sure it will out resolve all but it's that difference I want to see if it's worth the 49 grand.

It's only worth the $49,000 to a select few photographers who need it. For most people who like high resolution photos it isn't even worth $10,000. My guess is the difference between a Canon 5Ds and this thing is pretty small. The horizontal resolution is probably only about 25% more, making it a pretty crazy investment. But if you have an almost unlimited budget, why not get it? Often the cost of the camera equipment is just a small part of a production. Let's say you're doing a 3 month trip to Antarctica with a crew of people. Let's say to do that you're renting a 180 ft. long arctic exploration vessel. How much do you think something like that costs? I'm talking about an expedition that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. To buy a couple of $50,000 cameras and $20,000 worth of lenses for them is just part of the equipment cost. Then there is the other electronic gear, like communications equipment, the cold weather gear, the high-end tents and other camping gear, etc. etc.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 20:28 UTC
In reply to:

Satyaa: I see more of the videographer's skill here than anything special about this camera. If he was given a GH4 rig, I'm sure he would have produced a video equally good.

Or, is it that the image/video quality doesn't matter when most cameras today produce videos at twice the resolution of our TVs?

I thought it was pretty obvious that this is a promo video for the Phase One 100 MP back and the XF camera. OF COURSE you can't see the resolution in a video . . . even a 4K video (which this isn't). They're just trying to show that it's possible to use the XF outdoors for the type of stuff people typically use a Nikon D810 or Canon 5Ds. I guess you couldn't figure that out though, huh? Hmmm . . .

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

johnsaxon: In the early days of digital I used to shoot commercial stuff with a Mamiya medium-format and a Kodak 16MP digital back. You could see individual threads in the cloth of a shirt which was already overkill for the purpose of a printed catalog. Not sure why you would ever spend the money on this unless you wanted to make a really large print with very fine detail up close. This has surpassed the ability of any of the reproduction or viewing mechanisms that we have. Even with my Canon 5D I generally have to reduce the file size way down for any practical purpose.
Maybe the whole logic here is to impress the client with how state-of-the-art your gear is, regardless of any practical purpose.

Wrong. I've printed 19.6 MP photos at 40x60 inches, and that's not even large in advertising. That was Foveon quality, and those photos aren't even good enough for that size, because the detail is lacking. A 12 MP Canon 5 D or even a 22 MP Canon 5 D Mk III won't cut the mustard if you want to print the typical size of photos you see in a shopping mall or on a gallery wall. That's why medium format digital cameras are used for such work. I think you must be getting old and your eyesight is going bad.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 20:16 UTC

Looks good, but from a superficial look at the comparison tool, the X-Trans sensor doesn't seem to offer anything special vs. the sensor in the Nikon D7200, as far as resolution is concerned. It'll be nice when an X-T2 becomes available. I do think Fuji made a mistake by not including 4K video capability in this new camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 20:07 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply

WOW! Now THAT is an awesome lens!

This makes me want to try Fuji cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 19:37 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Scottelly: They're only $220 at B&H. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1203130-REG/manfrotto_mlspectra2_spectra2_led_light.html

. . . but for about 1/3 the price I'd probably get this brighter dimmable LED light: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1183521-REG/vidpro_ultra_slim_led_230_on_camera_video.html

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 19:33 UTC
In reply to:

Scottelly: It seems to me that if you don't need to save the money, the variable color temperature lights might be a better choice:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1017745-REG/manfrotto_mls900ft_spectra_900_ft_led.html

Of course, I think I'd probably just get this thing for WAY less money: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1183521-REG/vidpro_ultra_slim_led_230_on_camera_video.html

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 19:33 UTC

It seems to me that if you don't need to save the money, the variable color temperature lights might be a better choice:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1017745-REG/manfrotto_mls900ft_spectra_900_ft_led.html

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 19:20 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
Total: 847, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »