Lives in United States United States
Works as a Photographer, videographer, photo/video editor
Has a website at
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.


Total: 685, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 (69 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 12th 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 117th comment
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (240 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
In reply to:

Shiranai: Whats the difference between using this or just using a normal LED video light from say Yongnuo with 291 more LEDs and at the same time 12 times cheaper?
And don't tell me the only difference is, that it "flashes" instead of being permanently on.

For a long time the best way to freeze motion has been to use a studio flash. Most quality studio flashes emit bright light for just an instant, like 1/10,000 second or less, when set to 1/2 or 1/4 power. If the studio strobe is powerful enough, 1/4 power is plenty, and since most cameras can not open and close their shutter faster than 1/8,000 second, using a powerful studio strobe is the best way to go. You still have to get the timing right though. That can be done using a slave to catch the flash from the muzzle of a gun. If you're trying to catch some other event, like a balloon popping from a needle poking it, you will have to figure out some other way to trigger the strobe. There are strobe devices that flash when there is a loud sound though, so something like that could be used to trigger the slave of a studio strobe.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 19:22 UTC
On Ten things you need to know about the Sony Alpha 7 II article (263 comments in total)
In reply to:

d2f: No matter how Sony improves their camera FE bodies the lens segment of the system is not keeping up with the customer desires for a wider selection of fast and affordable lenses. By comparison Fuji is listening to their customers and the Fuji XF lens development is addressing the desires of their customer base i.e. 56mm portrait lens and other F1.4 solutions. Maybe Sony believes that this segment will be carried by the third party lens makers like Mitakon, but larger third party lens companies like Sigma will be reluctant to support a niche market until the number of end users increases. And there in lies is the catch 22 for Sony. The only saving grace for Sony shooters are the third party the lens adapters, but that is only a band aid on the problem since I suspect most want modern optical designs with AF and IS attributes as well.

Agreed. 8 lenses just doesn't cut it. This might seem counterintuitive, but it's absurd that Sony makes only one long zoom (which isn't really a long zoom) and NO long primes for these cameras. And a 70-200mm should be f2.8 . . . not f4. Sony made some really great glass for their other cameras, and since they made an adapter to use that glass they do offer more . . . but no OSS, and a 500mm lens with no image stabilization is just crazy. With their other cameras they could claim there was image stabilization in the body, but until this latest camera they couldn't make that claim for the new system. I guess they figured people who want to shoot long telephoto stuff would get bodies with APS-C sensors, and that does make sense. Now they have a solution, though not the best one. They really need to make a version of the 70-400mm with OSS.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 29, 2014 at 09:19 UTC

Oh no. The wholesale sell-out of work competing against fine art photographers continues. This should make it more difficult for photographers to sell prints.


Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2014 at 23:04 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

sneakyracer: Yeah, clock keeps ticking and the current mirrorless players keep improving their cameras while Nikon and Canon wait and wait. By the time they decide to get into the game it might be too late. The Canon and or Nikon mirrorless offering would have to be insanely good to compete.

I think Canon and Nikon are so afraid of alienating their huge base of customers that they are unwilling to offer a competitive mirrorless system. It is a dilemma, for sure. I believe that if Canon is smart, and they are, they have been producing full-frame mirrorless cameras for years now, as test prototypes, keeping them top-secret. I am thinking they have probably already produced a good one, but they are now working on a complete line of them, so they can offer one for under $1,000 and two for between$1,200 and $2,000. They may have been using a lot of resources producing a set of great lenses for them too. This may be why they have not made a new professional level camera in years. They might even have a couple of high-end, $5,000 pro level mirrorless bodies in development, so they can launch their new line with 5 bodies at once. They will have to have a dozen new lenses too . . . if they really want to outclass Sony.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 18:22 UTC
In reply to:

vladimir vanek: Add a nice 35/1.4 pancake and here we go.... ;) But I doubt it's possible to make pancakes for such a large sensor, isn't it?

Why? If a pancake can be made for APS-C then one can be made for full frame too. I don't think you'll see a 35mm f1.4 pancake though. I don't know if any such pancake lens has ever been made. They MIGHT make a 35mm f2.8 pancake though. That would be a pretty cool street shooter's machine, if the image quality is good enough.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 18:17 UTC
In reply to:

Valen305: Sony finally came to its senses and put the shutter button in the right place. IBIS is great! Will there be an A7R?

There is already an A7R. I guess you mean an A7R II, right?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 18:14 UTC

I was wondering if they were going to do something like this. I hope they do it slowly, with a mix of cameras that do have IS and some that don't have it, so the third party lens makers don't eliminate image stabilization from their offerings for Sony again.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 18:09 UTC as 128th comment
On Sony debuts 21MP stacked CMOS sensor for smartphones article (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

kwa_photo: I'll say this. Everyone just think about where we were with sensors 5-7 years ago. FF, APS-C, p&s, cell phone, etc. Now look at today. Back then, many would have not thought a 1" sensor could do what it does today. Nor would many have thought of a camera phone being anything that could compete with a "larger" p&s sensor. Yet, here we are.

In 5-7 more years, I'd be willing to bet that high end camera phone sensors will be producing IQ with very good resolution up to ISO 1600 and 3200. We'll see 1" sensors performing at levels of most APS-C (think a6000, XT1) of today and APS-C going beyond what standard FF does today. 4/3 will also progress. FF? Watch out. Look at that Sony A7S. I think ISO 56,000 will be a walk in the park for most.

PDAF and best AF tech today will also look pretty slow as well. It all changes, always does. Sit back and enjoy the ride :-) Of course, I could be completely wrong too LOL!

I'm actually surprised they haven't made an MoS2 (molybdenite) sensor for smartphones yet. THAT would be a step forward, and whoever is the first sensor manufacturer to start producing them will gain a huge amount of market share.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 05:54 UTC
On Sony debuts 21MP stacked CMOS sensor for smartphones article (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

Emacs23: OSPDAF for cellphone sized sensors is a joke: these tiny 192 points are just can't get enough light
This is strictly the place for software predictive autofocusing

I remember people saying that 10 MP was too much on an APS-C sized sensor. Obviously you are mistaken, if they decided to make a sensor with such tiny photo-sites. They're not stupid. One day we might see 100 MP sensors in smartphones.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 05:42 UTC
On Sony debuts 21MP stacked CMOS sensor for smartphones article (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rosember: Interested in small sensor tech or not, every photog should be grateful to the smartphone industries. Compared to photography alone smartphones is a BIG revenue business - and lots of $$ are spent in making these little cams better. Bigger sensors will benefit from this development, too - and get cheaper as well as the development costs will be returned mostly by smartphone buyers (uhh, us again?). :)

What developments came first to large sensor? How about layered sensor technology, such as that in the Sigma cameras? How about on-chip phase detection AF?

Yes, the BSI configuration came to the small sensors first. In fact, it is exclusively in the realm of the small sensors. Maybe it will come to the large sensors one day, but it hasn't yet. What other technologies have been put into small sensors that weren't put into large sensors first?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 05:40 UTC
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hannu Liivaar: Sample images aside.. whenever you have a chance to try shooting with this camera, just do it. I though I knew it all with FF-s from Canon, Nikon and Sony. 645z starts a whole new world.. And for anyone arguing the price is too high: after trying the camera you'll most probably say the price is too low :) With regards to beaing weatherproof:

Washing the dirt off your $8,000 camera. Priceless.


Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 05:11 UTC
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (139 comments in total)

I tried it, but the only reasonably priced camera that comes close to it is the one you haven't included in the database. Why? The Sigma DP2 Quattro is a stellar performer, and it has a 39 MP mode, so why not add that to the database too?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 05:09 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Hibiscusbloom: As sharp as the 400/2.8 @400?

If the 24-70mm f4 L IS is as sharp as the 50mm f1.2 L at f5.6 and higher, then why couldn't this lens perform with the same sharpness as a prime with a wider maximum aperture? This lens just has to be made to perform well when zoomed to 400mm.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 18:45 UTC
In reply to:

Antony John: Any camera manufacturer that releases new lenses and puts pressure on other companies to do the same is to be applauded.
Now if only Nikon would update their 400mm F4 ...

I think for a savings of $5,000 it makes sense to just get the cheaper, but heavier and longer Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens. If you're carrying a bunch of equipment anyway, which most people do, when they're traveling far, the extra 3 lbs. is only going to add maybe 10% to the overall weight of equipment.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

Lassoni: Has nikon hired trolls to troll the comment section? It doesn't take a wizard to figure out that not only is this better than the nikon's 80-400 AF-S, but it's also probably sharper and better too. As a nikon owner, I most likely will have to wait what the sigma's 150-600 C has to offer, since carrying/holding a 2.8kg lens (sigma 150-600 S) would not be my idea of fun. Heck, even the tamron's 150-600 seems lame after finding out ppl comparing it to canon's 500g lighter 400 5.6, only to praise canon being possibly sharper

Well, this Canon sure looks good, but it's VERY expensive. The Sigma 150-600mm Sports lens is $200 less . . . but heavier and bigger, of course. I have no doubt that the much lighter Canon will be a good choice for someone who wants to travel light and have a long zoom to accompany their 24-105mm f4 L IS or even a 24-70mm f2.8 L II. There sure are a lot of lighter 70-300mm lenses that Canon makes though, and the difference between 300mm and 400mm is not all that much.

With all the other lighter and cheaper options Canon offers, I can't see myself buying it, but I guess SOMEONE will buy this expensive 100-400 though. There was a time when I would have bought the old 100-400. I just wanted that extra reach.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 18:30 UTC
On DJI launches Inspire 1 drone with 4K video recording article (97 comments in total)
In reply to:

wombat661: See:

People think this is just another camera. It is NOT. As a R/C hobbyist for many years, I know the danger of a rotating propeller. Many people have had their fingers cut off by propellers. Photographers on this site have NO IDEA how difficult it is to control an aircraft like this. R/C helicopter pilot takes years to be proficient at controlling a helicopter flying towards you. Is not easy. If you have a GPS failure, can you bring this thing back safely? This thing will get away from you very fast.

DPReview need to stop advertising this as another mirrorless camera because IS NOT. Is VERY IRRESPONSIBLE for any photographers to run out and buy one of there things without investing needed skills to operate an R/C aircraft. Took me half a year of hard work to learn the basics of helicopter flying. Are photographers going to do that?

So get one of these and practice a little first:

That REALLY would make sense, considering how much it's going to cost you if you crash your DJI, like my photographer friend did. Yes, you CAN crash them . . . and a crash can be very expensive . . . not just because you break your drone, but because you might get sued for hurting someone or someone's property. Be careful out there!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 06:46 UTC
Total: 685, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »