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: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Robert Soderlund: As usual these capture the moments where a certain expression has nothing to do with reality, but rather the emotion the photographer tries to express. If a person has a certain look, he too often chooses that photo and thinks it expresses the situation of the population in question.

Emotion in photography should in my opinion have no weight, what photography does if done correctly is documenting the facts, not twist them and make people draw conclusions of a certain second in a certain war that could take years. Its the experience of suffering that is bad, you can only capture part of it, the emotions are not to be taken in pictures.

For example, everyone who has been ill knows that taking a picture of themself does not explain how they felt during that illness. If you however got blue or pale, thats where photography comes in handy, to bring out the truth, not how your lips or expression was during a certain time of the day.

Robert Soderlunds: Who's facts? :)

Your comment is just amazingly naive, sort of what you expect to hear from a child.

"Emotion in photography should in my opinion have no weight" ... Oh dear :-)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 09:26 UTC
On Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think article (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

Grevture: To me this poll is basically impossible to answer - because to me many if not most enthusiasts would happily use more then one camera in parallel, with different sensor sizes, depending on the situation.

So essentially, all the top six options are appropriate, depending on the situation and one's shooting habits in various situations.

And the bottom option does not work either - because sensor size does matter to people. Just not a single one.

Steve, you might want to take a look at Panasonic FZ1000 ... One inch sensor and 25-400/2.8-4 zoom is a pretty neat combo.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 01:26 UTC
On Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think article (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

Grevture: To me this poll is basically impossible to answer - because to me many if not most enthusiasts would happily use more then one camera in parallel, with different sensor sizes, depending on the situation.

So essentially, all the top six options are appropriate, depending on the situation and one's shooting habits in various situations.

And the bottom option does not work either - because sensor size does matter to people. Just not a single one.

Matthias: Exactly, it is a bit like asking a carpenter what he likes best, his saw, his hammer, his plane or his chisel. Answer? Neither and all of them.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2014 at 20:11 UTC
On Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think article (198 comments in total)

To me this poll is basically impossible to answer - because to me many if not most enthusiasts would happily use more then one camera in parallel, with different sensor sizes, depending on the situation.

So essentially, all the top six options are appropriate, depending on the situation and one's shooting habits in various situations.

And the bottom option does not work either - because sensor size does matter to people. Just not a single one.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2014 at 13:46 UTC as 37th comment | 6 replies
On Dronestagram contest winners announced article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: "Photography" just fell from the art of profane to the art of ridiculous.
Now it even excludes human eye behind the camera, and replaces it with a remote controller.
I personally don't know what this "art" is, but when something is totally removed from our senses and sensibilities, and drowns in the blind fad of times, it despises everything we sensibly believe is human side of photography.
Drones are not the apparatus, but drones are people who engage in this profanity just for the sake of "ability".

So paintings made from anything but direct observations are not art either then?

Whenever something is done that has not been done before, there seem to be a choir of angry detractors eagerly standing by to moan and groan about it.

This is photography just as much any other photography. Just because you cannot see past the technology used, it does not take away any of its potential value.

And for your information: remote controlled photography has been around for many, many decades already :)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2014 at 12:59 UTC
On DPReview Reader Showcase: The beautiful game article (48 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 6th 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 (669 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 (221 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 113th comment
On 1939: England in Color (part 1) article (221 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 (29 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
Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »