Grevture

Grevture

Lives in Sweden Stockholm, Sweden
Works as a Photographer, tech journalist
Joined on Oct 14, 2005
About me:

2 x D3, D3s (and an old D70S)
.
Sigma 15-30/f3.5-4.5
Sigma 30/f1.4
AF-S 17-35/2.8
AF-S 35/1.8 DX
AF 50/1.4
Micro 55/f3.5 (borrowed)
AF 85/1.4 D
AI 105/f2.5
AF-S 80-200/2.8 (now retired)
AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR II
AF-S 300/f2.8 II
TC-14E, TC-17E

Used to own:
D2H
D200
AF 10.5/2.8 DX
AF-S 24-120/f3.5-5.6 VR
AF-S 28-70/2.8
AF 135/f2.0
AF 180/f2.8
TC-20E

NPS Member

Canon shooter during the film era, still got the F1 ...

Comments

Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On DPReview Reader Showcase: The beautiful game article (40 comments in total)

* Warrning! This comment contain irony *

For an insightful look at football/soccer as a social and cultural phenomena, here a contribution from one of the great thinkers of our time ...
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/06/25/coulter-growing-interest-soccer-sign-nations-moral-decay/11372137

Oh dear ... ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 00:44 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply

I have shoot sports on and off for 30+ years, and really liked this article. Mr McDaniel sums it up well in the first paragraph: If you have equipment where iso 3200-6400 works, particularily after a bit of scaling down, and pair that with f2.8 or faster lenses, you can shoot almost any indoor sports event.

Today's m43 cameras do that well, meaning they are indeed useful for indoor sports photography.

Usually when someone brings things like this up it erupts into a debate why cameras like Canon Eos 1Dx and Nikon D4s at all are used when you obviously can shoot even tricky things like indoor sports in bad light with much lighter/smaller/cheaper equipment.

Well, as I wrote, a m43 camera is indeed _useful_ for indoor sports. But a 1Dx or a D4s is way _easier_ to use for that. As a professional you want the maximum yield of useable images from every situation in every event since you must always deliver.

BTW, I strongly recommend rollerderby, it is great fun to watch and to shoot.

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 11:18 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply
On Sony SLT-A77 II First Impressions Review preview (589 comments in total)
In reply to:

beavertown: 12 fps + 60fps in Jpg, APS-C Sensor, that puts Nikon 1 system to great shame.

Well done Sony.

Try reading those specs again ... A little slower this time. A bit like 12 fps vs 60 fps ... :-)

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2014 at 13:19 UTC
On 1939: England in Color (part 1) article (219 comments in total)

Great collection, and a great story derived from the collection.

Got to love the understated comment accompanying image 21:
"... as clouds gather in the late summer of 1939."

Yeah, they sure did ...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2014 at 15:08 UTC as 109th comment
On 1939: England in Color (part 1) article (219 comments in total)
In reply to:

Earthrise: These are great, thank you for posting. I wonder what those in 75 years time will make of the images we take now. I suspect that the impact shots we think great now will fade to obscurity and it will be the ones documenting everyday life that become treasured. And there's plenty of those now :-) Looking forward to the next set. Thanks

That I think will be the historical legacy of the cheap compacts and the smartphones - a lot of images of our everyday lives.

How I wish my grandparets have had even the humblest of smartphones ;)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2014 at 15:06 UTC
On Roll with it: Official World Cup ball goes HD article (35 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lars Rehm: Nice to see the winner's team gets to play with it first ;)

I'll just say: 4-4 ... ;)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2014 at 12:05 UTC
On Two photographers re-imagine city potholes article (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prairie Pal: what kind of crap is this? Is has nothing to do with photography. Nothing at all.

And you are of course the one person in the world who defines and decides what is, and what is not photography?

Get over yourself ;)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 15:32 UTC
In reply to:

Rawmeister: It's just depressing to see the industry aim to defraud know nothing rich people with nonsense like this. How do the folks that work for that fallen manufacturer sleep at night. Maybe they don't since the previous ridiculous experiments, and that explains this bogus foray into the near criminal fraud world. Expect things to get even worse. It's a death spiral and might even be some sort of narcotics involved in the corporate culture there.

1. This is not a industry move. It is a move by a tiny marginal player with a legacy brand name with a desperate need for cash flow.

2. With your definitions also manufacturers of jewellery, luxury watches, luxury cars, perfume makers, art dealers, upscale interior designers, and many, many other categories are making forays into the near criminal fraud world. Fraud means selling something under false pretences, and here they are fairly upfront about what they are selling.

3. Unlike what many self appointed experts think, this strategy can be surprisingly successful. The development of the Leica S camera system (which is pretty good btw) was largely funded by selling Leica-branded Panasonic cameras for twice the original price.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2014 at 16:42 UTC
In reply to:

Jon Lewis: Hi All

This badge engineering makes me sick .
Why don't you stick to what your good at making medium format cameras .
And dont lock out other makes backs from your system(phase one)

The problem with that strategy is Hasselblad are not particularly good at medium format cameras either. And that the medium format market as a whole is not profitable.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2014 at 16:35 UTC
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim: Why are there dozens of cries of how much a ripoff this lens is but oure silence on Canon's 50mm 1.2 at a similar price? Unlike all the nay-sayers, I'll admit I've never shot either lens. But I can base my opinions on numbers just like they do and I can look at sample images on a computer monitor just like they do and from what I've seen, the Nikon has superior technical numbers overall and superior image quality, taking into account all factors like edge sharpness, astigmatism, coma, aberration and bokeh. Because DPR says it's not "sharper" than the Nikon 50 1.4, all the armchair quarterbacks say it's a ripoff. Well guess what, Canon's 1.2 isn't sharper than their 1.4, less so in fact, but no one's howling about it's $1500++ price. And I challenge anyone to show me any difference in DOF of a portrait shot at 1.2 and 1.4 without serious pixel peeping. Nikon has needed to go after the EF 1.2 for a long time and they've succeeded. If you think it's a rip, then please don't buy it!

Beholder:

Now you are just getting obnoxious and silly. You have just made up that this lens is not sharp, and cannot focus, opinions which are not supported by the review, and not by practical experience of people actually using this lens.

It is a sharp lens. Not the sharpest, but sharp enough for what it is intended for. It can focus very well, not as fast as some other lenses, but a lot faster then the AF-S 50/1.4 to mention one example ...

You seem completely hung up on some minor details which you blow up out to be grievous problems.

As for the 'speciality' marking its right there in plain view - the price tag :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2014 at 13:11 UTC
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

dash2k8: I just don't see the $1,000 difference. The real-world tests say that this 58mm lens does indeed do some things very well, but $1,000+ well? I guess users will have to respond with their wallets and purses.

I agree the samples provided does not show the differences very well. But they do point out many of the differences in the text.

One difference with this lens is subject isolation, how the in-focus areas stand out from the out-of-focus areas - what is often referred to as making the subject 'pop' or 'pop out'. Another general difference is how well corrected the lens is for some annoying optical problems - like CA and coma.

Now, these differences might not be worth $1000 to you (and many others), but for some they really are. Particularly for a professional photographers shooting lots of portraits or similar, it can be easily worth the $1000.

Look at power tools: I myself mostly potter around at home every now and then, meaning a simple $80 Ryobi drill is just fine. But if I work professionally with it every day, then a $500 Hilti is easily worth the extra money.

The AF-S 58/1.4 is a speciality tool, easily worth every cent for some people, a waste of money for many others.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2014 at 13:05 UTC
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim: Why are there dozens of cries of how much a ripoff this lens is but oure silence on Canon's 50mm 1.2 at a similar price? Unlike all the nay-sayers, I'll admit I've never shot either lens. But I can base my opinions on numbers just like they do and I can look at sample images on a computer monitor just like they do and from what I've seen, the Nikon has superior technical numbers overall and superior image quality, taking into account all factors like edge sharpness, astigmatism, coma, aberration and bokeh. Because DPR says it's not "sharper" than the Nikon 50 1.4, all the armchair quarterbacks say it's a ripoff. Well guess what, Canon's 1.2 isn't sharper than their 1.4, less so in fact, but no one's howling about it's $1500++ price. And I challenge anyone to show me any difference in DOF of a portrait shot at 1.2 and 1.4 without serious pixel peeping. Nikon has needed to go after the EF 1.2 for a long time and they've succeeded. If you think it's a rip, then please don't buy it!

Beholder: Have you any practical photography experience at all? I mean besides reading spec sheets?

Canons 50/1.2 is a odd lens in many ways, and notoriously difficult to use with focusing issues stopped down etc. But it is also a pretty great lens when it is used as intended. As is Nikons AF-S 58/1.4.

These are speciality lenses, designed for specific purposes, they are not meant to be "good bang for the buck" options. Much like a 400/2.8 or a T/S lens to mention more obvious examples - their special uses are easier to see which is probably why they are less controversial.

Just because you and some other people fail to understand the purpose of a specialized lens, it does not necessarily mean it is a failed lens :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2014 at 11:45 UTC
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

thx1138: Sorry for this sort of money for the lens to be poor wide open is just not acceptable, especially in the easiest lens of all to design, a 50-60mm prime. When one can buy a Sigma 50 f/1.4 that is sharp wide open, has beautiful bokeh, low vignetting and only costs $500 and I'll bet the Art series version is going to be even better, then why waste money on the Nikon? The world is awash with excellent 50-55mm primes and ev en if in every other regard the Nikon is excellent, it still doesn't grab me as a sensible buy.

You represent the very simplistic view of lens performance which seem common among many commentators: More money = more sharpness.

This lens has the sharpness it needs, and have other advantages which matter more.

This is not built to be a MTF pleaser, it is a lens designed to be good where it actually counts.

I agree the Sigma 50/1.4 is a excellent lens for its price, but it is a different lens, excelling at different things then the AF-S 58/1.4.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2014 at 11:38 UTC
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

A-Frame: This lens is a portrait photographer's dream. $1,700 for a lens is not absurd to a professional or amateur photographer who knows the purpose and value of this lens. The so called experts here will always have something to complain about.

Tee1up: It of course varies with the subject and the settings, but contrary to what ignorant people like Steppenwolf believes, yes, you can quite easily see differences.

What the AF-S 58/1.4 does exceptionally well, is the same thing for example the AF-S 35/1.4 and AF-S 85/1.4 also does well - make the in focus area stand out in relation to foreground and background.

Also, as the review points out, the AF-S 58/1.4 is much better corrected for several of the more common optical problems: CA etc.

Some people value this, others are for unknown reasons very upset about it ... ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2014 at 11:33 UTC
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

camerosity: I'll take the 50mm. It had sharper results in this test. I think dpreview got it wrong...

New boyz:

I think you misunderstood this a bit: The AF-S 58/1.4 is actually not less sharp then the 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 - just pretty similar fully open according to Dpreview, slightly better in my opinion. And stopped down noticeably better. And yes, the OOF rendition of the AF-S 58/1.4 really is very noticeably better.

So no, they have not given up on sharpness to get better OOF, less CA, less coma, less (and better looking) flair and all the other improvements. They have just maintained it a reasonable level while improving on a lot of other things.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2014 at 01:49 UTC
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

Grevture: I have to say I am amazed by much of the comments here. So much anger and ignorance ... But this seem to be the pattern every time expensive pro gear is launched or reviewed.

Look, the AF-S 58/1.4 is a speciality lens, built for a small but very demanding audience. It is built with a different set of priorities then your typical consumer lens.

It is a short portrait lens, a lens which renders background smoothly. It is a lens which make a subject stand out from its background and foreground. It is a lens which fill a whole in Nikons lineup of pro grade f1.4 lenses. It renders subjects in a similar way to its shorter siblings the AF-S 24/1.4 and the AF-S 35/1.4 and its longer cousin, the AF-S 85/1.4.

All these lenses are expensive, and their theoretical performance might look disappointing for the casual (or ignorant) observer. But they are all great performers in practical use.

The 58/1.4 will be loved among wedding photographers, fashion or reportage shooters. And many others.

To new boyz:

I was actually referring to the reactions I noted to the AF-S 800/5.6, to the AF-S 35/1.4, to the new versions of the AF-S 200/2 and the AF-S 200-400/4. And of course now the AF-S 58/1.4.

The Otus is a Zeiss which seem to make other rules apply. Almopst like anything with 'Leica' printed on it. Everybody just expect it to be outrageously priced, its part of the allure ;)

But the Otus is interesting, it shows how expensive (and big and heavy) it gets when pushing the envelope even further.

I agree with your analysis of the Df though, there Nikon made a campaign which seemed to promise a lot more then the actual camera delivered.

But with the 58 (as with the other lenses I mentioned) it seem to a large degree that some people are offended by expensive pro gear. And others seem to expect performance increases which are linear in relation to the price, like 'if its twice as expensive, it better be twice as sharp' ...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2014 at 01:40 UTC
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

Grevture: I have to say I am amazed by much of the comments here. So much anger and ignorance ... But this seem to be the pattern every time expensive pro gear is launched or reviewed.

Look, the AF-S 58/1.4 is a speciality lens, built for a small but very demanding audience. It is built with a different set of priorities then your typical consumer lens.

It is a short portrait lens, a lens which renders background smoothly. It is a lens which make a subject stand out from its background and foreground. It is a lens which fill a whole in Nikons lineup of pro grade f1.4 lenses. It renders subjects in a similar way to its shorter siblings the AF-S 24/1.4 and the AF-S 35/1.4 and its longer cousin, the AF-S 85/1.4.

All these lenses are expensive, and their theoretical performance might look disappointing for the casual (or ignorant) observer. But they are all great performers in practical use.

The 58/1.4 will be loved among wedding photographers, fashion or reportage shooters. And many others.

Steppenwolf:

Have you actually used the 50/1.4 side by side with say a 35/1.4 and/or a 85/1.4? It is not in the same league, not even close.

The audience? Ever heard of wedding photographers? Portrait photographers? Fashion photographers? Yes, I am talking about people who actually make their living with lenses like these.

What makes you believe this lens cannot be used wide open? It renders wonderful portraits up close wide open. And yes, I really have tried that. It works quite nicely.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 1, 2014 at 14:34 UTC
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

beholder3: I'll memorize this trick: Bad lenses are now called "specialty lenses".
*Any* lens is good for some specialty. Lomography is specialty.

This one has the specialty of being an *underperformer* and it's good for handing over to your kids when they start shooting DSLR and you don't want to give them your good lenses, because they might damage it.
Also a good specialty lens for testing how much rain it can take before water ingress happens.

The price issue is really only secondary. It would still be a poor lens even if it sold for $300. Who wants to spend $300 on a soft lens with autofocus issues which you need to stop down 2-3 stops to get decent results?

And you have of course used this lens? Worked with it? Shot portraits wit it?

Since you make such a bold and strong argument against this lens I assume you make them based on extensive use and comparisons with other lenses?

I have used this lens, albeit only for about two weeks and a couple of thousands of shots, but oddly I actually like it. A lot. And even stranger is that a collegue of mine which shoot a lot of weddings, studio portraits, and fashion actually do love this lens.

But ... What do we know compared to all the airmchair specialists at Dpreview :-D

Direct link | Posted on Jan 1, 2014 at 14:27 UTC
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (413 comments in total)

I have to say I am amazed by much of the comments here. So much anger and ignorance ... But this seem to be the pattern every time expensive pro gear is launched or reviewed.

Look, the AF-S 58/1.4 is a speciality lens, built for a small but very demanding audience. It is built with a different set of priorities then your typical consumer lens.

It is a short portrait lens, a lens which renders background smoothly. It is a lens which make a subject stand out from its background and foreground. It is a lens which fill a whole in Nikons lineup of pro grade f1.4 lenses. It renders subjects in a similar way to its shorter siblings the AF-S 24/1.4 and the AF-S 35/1.4 and its longer cousin, the AF-S 85/1.4.

All these lenses are expensive, and their theoretical performance might look disappointing for the casual (or ignorant) observer. But they are all great performers in practical use.

The 58/1.4 will be loved among wedding photographers, fashion or reportage shooters. And many others.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 1, 2014 at 14:16 UTC as 59th comment | 8 replies
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bo Photo: I don't comment on too many things hear on dpreview, but I do want to put my two cents in, since I own and use the lens. First off is I love the light weight of the lens, I carry two d4's for weddings and anything lighter to help is great. I haven't had any focus issues after fine tuning focus adj. and find it locks in better than my other f1.4 lenses I have, I also love the 58mm FL it just seems to be just right for weddings. I have an older 50mm 1.4D, and its a lot better by far than it. I do think you need to use this lens before you say things like (This lens is a failure.Period), it has become my favorite lens to use. Here is a link from a wedding using the 58mm, http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2502271026

Nice to read a comment from someone who actually understand what he is talking about ;)

I have only used this lens for two weeks, but immediately came to like it - a lot. To me it feels like a wider and faster focusing sibling to my much loved 85/1.4.

I is a speciality lens for sure, and as such has a different set of strengths and weaknesses compared to average consumer lenses. Many people seem unable or unwilling to understand this.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 1, 2014 at 14:01 UTC
Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »