nathantw

nathantw

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jun 11, 2009

Comments

Total: 143, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

nathantw: If you want to make a lens that will last "forever" then you better start by making it out of a material that will last "forever" and not break down. I don't think rubber gaskets are going to help since they can melt into sticky goo. Then put them into a mount that won't change, such as what Nikon, Leica and Pentax did.

Notice I specifically didn't say it had to made of metal? I did that on purpose. Some plastics get brittle and break after a few decades, especially if it's out in the sun, so notice I said didn't "break down?"

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 18:02 UTC
In reply to:

Turbguy1: So far, the Nikon F mount and the Leica M mount come closest to "living forever", PERIOD!

Pretty sure the Pentax K-mount is still going strong too.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 02:08 UTC

If you want to make a lens that will last "forever" then you better start by making it out of a material that will last "forever" and not break down. I don't think rubber gaskets are going to help since they can melt into sticky goo. Then put them into a mount that won't change, such as what Nikon, Leica and Pentax did.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 02:08 UTC as 23rd comment | 3 replies

The culprit is film. Everyone is going back to it. LOL

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2016 at 06:56 UTC as 57th comment | 3 replies
On article 1.4 and More: Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II comparison (240 comments in total)

Now that's what I'm expecting in a modern lens, CA is corrected and no color fringing. Why Canon and Nikon seemed to think this was okay and charged a fortune so you can have the privilege of using them. Good to see at least one company that changed their way.

It appears Sigma did it right the first time.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 05:12 UTC as 36th comment
In reply to:

nathantw: Who pays the tax on that wonderful high-end medium format camera? The photographer, of course.

So, EthanP99, you're working very hard to get clients (and to get them to pay), you make whatever you can. Then you win a prize and suddenly you're out $5000 when tax time comes. Yeah, great. Complaining? No, just being realistic.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2016 at 00:30 UTC
In reply to:

nathantw: Who pays the tax on that wonderful high-end medium format camera? The photographer, of course.

It's all fun and games until the tax man comes.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2016 at 00:26 UTC

Who pays the tax on that wonderful high-end medium format camera? The photographer, of course.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2016 at 15:35 UTC as 24th comment | 14 replies

So, is this like a GoPro camera where you take it with you to shoot everything? That's the impression I got with this video.

I really, really liked that video shot in the helicopter when they're following that train. That was a unique view that I've never seen before. Very cool.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2016 at 04:08 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Cinetics Axis360 review (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

brittonx: Um... What about GigaPan? They are pretty affordable...

I actually own a Gigapan Epic 100 and a Epic Pro and the Pro. The Epic 100 is light and portable but the downside is that you can't do night photography and the stepping increments aren't as fine as the Pro. The Epic Pro is very, very nice and versatile, but very big and heavy though I can put up to 15 pounds onto it, which I have.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 1, 2016 at 07:09 UTC
On article Video: a look at the Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II (125 comments in total)

What did he say? A couple firmware upgrades from greatness? LOL. From what I heard people who buy this will be lucky to get even one firmware upgrade.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 15, 2015 at 14:43 UTC as 35th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Denis of Whidbey Island: Would knowledge of large format black and white photography with a digital insert qualify?

Only if you can handle a traditional darkroom also.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 08:21 UTC
In reply to:

nunatak: my Gitzo's are keepers. but so too are my Benro and Sirui carbon legs. they're all solid.

Gitzo may add an iteration of "finish" to their products over most competitors, but when it comes to the critical functions of weight/support, Gitzo only equals some of their much less expensive Chinese made cousins.

all things being equal, i'd prefer to blow my budget on better glass than pay tribute to a slightly better finished set of legs. JMO.

I have a Gitzo 224 and a Bogen (Manfrotto) 3028 that I purchased at the same time. That combo has worked very well for me through the decades. It has been one of the sturdiest platforms I've used without any play or slop. If I want to use the camera in very low positions I could mount the head to the bottom of the center console and still have the camera in an upright position and not upside down. Very nice combination, but heavy at 5 pounds.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2015 at 04:18 UTC
In reply to:

nathantw: Wow. Look at those prices. Yikes!

Don't get me wrong. I purchased my Gitzo 224 in 1983 and have been using it as my main tripod since. It has served me very well and will continue to do so for decades to come. It'll probably outlive me. Using the inflation calculator I paid what came out to about $500 back then. So, yes, these are lifetime types of purchases provided you don't do anything really weird to break them. I just saw these prices for today and to me they're still "yikes." That's expensive.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2015 at 18:55 UTC

Wow. Look at those prices. Yikes!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2015 at 16:38 UTC as 11th comment | 5 replies
On article Gitzo introduces three new Center Ball Heads (41 comments in total)

Love the Gitzo I purchased in 1984. Still using it today as my main tripod.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2015 at 06:13 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
On article Fujifilm announces X-T1 IR for infrared photography (205 comments in total)
In reply to:

nathantw: I find it interesting that in the old days of film if we had a camera that had an infrared dot on the focus scale all we needed to do was buy a $15 (I'm exaggerating) roll of infrared film and a filter. Then there was Nikon's digital camera, the Coolpix 950 (I think), that did IR really well. Now you can get digital IR from Fuji for $1700. Man, inflation is a b*tch.

You did it yourself? Was it hard?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 14:18 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces X-T1 IR for infrared photography (205 comments in total)

I find it interesting that in the old days of film if we had a camera that had an infrared dot on the focus scale all we needed to do was buy a $15 (I'm exaggerating) roll of infrared film and a filter. Then there was Nikon's digital camera, the Coolpix 950 (I think), that did IR really well. Now you can get digital IR from Fuji for $1700. Man, inflation is a b*tch.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 14:10 UTC as 37th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Was this back when photographer still have access to Whitehouse or are these staff photographer's work?

Also. I can only imagine how much better the quality would be if a modern FF was used without flash.

I wouldn't douibt if many of these were likely shot with a Leica M.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

nathantw: Actually looks good. Thanks for the samples. One tip, though, 85mm is good for closeup portraits and the 24mm isn't.

Barney Britton, you definitely called it. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 18:48 UTC
Total: 143, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »