Eric Hensel

Eric Hensel

Joined on Dec 25, 2011

Comments

Total: 479, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: "At least for the first few years of its production, the older 24-70mm F2.8 was notorious for cracking rubber around the zoom ring, and for the zoom barrel jamming."

That's the first time I've ever heard of those issues. Sounds like hyperbole.

That's a lotta hyperbole...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 05:48 UTC
On Sony reportedly shifting focus to full-frame cameras article (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

Don Sata: They still have to work a lot in their lens line up. What's the point in buying a small and not so expensive full frame camera if the only way to use it is with huge 1,000 dollar + lenses?

They need to release a line of good compact +/- 500 dollar f1.8 primes.

Otherwise they will remain the vintage lens enthusiast camera.

...and when they do what will you complain about then?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 01:29 UTC
On Sony reportedly shifting focus to full-frame cameras article (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

CanonKen: No matter how cheap and small they make a FF body, the issue is lenses that match in size. I have an a6000 with the 16-70mm f/4 - and it is a small, light, delightful kit. If I try a 24-70mm or 24-240mm on the a6000, it becomes borderline unusable.

There is a place for a FF camera (mainly, FF lenses), and there is a place for an APS-C system.

Of course, one argument could be simply to use APS-C lenses on a FF body when you want to travel light, but that is not the most elegant solution.

"very wary of buying into any camera/brand in the belief that you are buying a long term system." That is a good point. I'm 62 and I fully expect to see unimagined methods of recording images before I check out. That a7rII will look like a toy in 8 years...
In the meantime you must use what is available, though, and I do.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 01:24 UTC
On Sony reportedly shifting focus to full-frame cameras article (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

CanonKen: No matter how cheap and small they make a FF body, the issue is lenses that match in size. I have an a6000 with the 16-70mm f/4 - and it is a small, light, delightful kit. If I try a 24-70mm or 24-240mm on the a6000, it becomes borderline unusable.

There is a place for a FF camera (mainly, FF lenses), and there is a place for an APS-C system.

Of course, one argument could be simply to use APS-C lenses on a FF body when you want to travel light, but that is not the most elegant solution.

Size isn't the reason I use an A7, or Nex5n --though it is a bonus...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 00:21 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

wandiba56: As of now I know no camera that can produce colours as striking as Fuji’s...Bar none, Fuji gives the best colours one can ever imagine. And I have used far more expensive, much more popular and higher megapixel capturing devices yet I dare say they all come short to meet the exquisiteness of Fuji colours...Well done!!

I have a strong feeling these shots were not taken by Rishi...

Most of these are processed from raw...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 07:48 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

wandiba56: As of now I know no camera that can produce colours as striking as Fuji’s...Bar none, Fuji gives the best colours one can ever imagine. And I have used far more expensive, much more popular and higher megapixel capturing devices yet I dare say they all come short to meet the exquisiteness of Fuji colours...Well done!!

I have a strong feeling these shots were not taken by Rishi...

Why would anyone want their colors to look like Ektachrome?
I only used it because it was cheap...by now it would be hard to tell what it really looked like because the slides have all faded...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 02:44 UTC
On Quick Review: PhotoKeeper article (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

morepix: What we don't like:
Covering this kind of item on DPReview.

And as for the "simplistic" interface under the likes list -- the word means oversimplified. :-)

The Royal "We"...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

rfsIII: Nice pix, as always; but in terms of lens-autofocus system interaction, it looks to me like the pairing of camera and lens isn't quite nailing it when it comes to getting the eyes in perfect focus.
All the people pictures look like they're focused on the eyelashes or somewhere other than the surface of the eye. Like in the marquee photo, you can see the photographer reflected in the woman's eye, but he's fuzzy when he should be sharp as a razor.
Which flavor of autofocus was being used? Single point or multipoint?
I wonder are we seeing a problem with the lens? Or the camera? Or a little of both?

"a 'psychic ability to focus on what I want it to focus on', "
Haha --I really think a lot of people don't really understand what's involved with autofocus, and the compromises involved.
I still manual focus images I think will matter (or try, anyway), even though I can't do it nearly as well as I did 50 years ago ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 20:59 UTC
On Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners article (465 comments in total)

I find it amusing that Adobe is unwilling to identify the interns responding here --customer service relies on contact -answering honest questions, honestly -not just a good product.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 18:17 UTC as 43rd comment
On Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners article (465 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Scurvy Dog of PR: I will never buy another Adobe product for as long as I live. The BAN IS ON!

No, he won't --that's how you make voting with your wallet work.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 18:02 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Luis dos Santos article (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eric Hensel: I've shot similarly for years, and have always wondered how others manage to photograph these spots with no people? I can see where timing would work with some, but special permissions would seem necessary for others...

I believe you'll find most of these shots never had people to remove.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 03:22 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Luis dos Santos article (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eric Hensel: I've shot similarly for years, and have always wondered how others manage to photograph these spots with no people? I can see where timing would work with some, but special permissions would seem necessary for others...

Thanks -not what I had in mind, but could be useful...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2015 at 06:45 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Luis dos Santos article (53 comments in total)

I've shot similarly for years, and have always wondered how others manage to photograph these spots with no people? I can see where timing would work with some, but special permissions would seem necessary for others...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2015 at 21:30 UTC as 19th comment | 5 replies
On Readers' Showcase: Luis dos Santos article (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Nice use of HDR! Probably shocking to many people (if not so surprising for me), that the dynamic range of lighting in buildings requires multi-shot HDR processing with a naturally about-as-high-DR-as-you-can-get camera like the A7R.

The same occurred to me. Maybe not so much 'requires' as 'benefits from'? If you're printing very large, the noise level will be (slightly) less, and details sharper.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2015 at 21:26 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Luis dos Santos article (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

ZorSy: They are very nice photographs, executed technically almost to perfection.
BUT.... they represent another artist vision and execution, they are as such not by the pure lack, rather intention and one's creativity. To me, that is always ever-present and somewhat overpowering feeling, the same as photographing nice painting, the sculpture, architectural detail or - God forbid - someone else's photograph.... Therefore, the statement 'Lobbies, office towers and stairwells seem like unlikely places to find artistic inspiration' stands skewed as today they in most cases represent one artist vision (for which they were commissioned in the first place). We (photographers) merely recognise and record it - even artistically, it is still a 'second hand' inspiration.

I wouldn't bother with the nuances --dismissing these shots as somehow less "Artful" than that of other subjects is an insupportable position. Like 'em, hate 'em...they are art.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2015 at 21:21 UTC
In reply to:

groucher: This heavy and expensive lens is nothing more than a 28mm lens with a bit of leeway on either side and plenty of CA. Stay with a 28mm prime for less cost, weight and better quality.

The peanut gallery

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 15:49 UTC

Very cool...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 19:30 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

rfsIII: Nice pix, as always; but in terms of lens-autofocus system interaction, it looks to me like the pairing of camera and lens isn't quite nailing it when it comes to getting the eyes in perfect focus.
All the people pictures look like they're focused on the eyelashes or somewhere other than the surface of the eye. Like in the marquee photo, you can see the photographer reflected in the woman's eye, but he's fuzzy when he should be sharp as a razor.
Which flavor of autofocus was being used? Single point or multipoint?
I wonder are we seeing a problem with the lens? Or the camera? Or a little of both?

The ability to render ever more detail, renders ever more detail
discussions ;*)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 18:01 UTC
In reply to:

Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

" the contract in question is not for work commissioned by Taylor Swift, it's for photographers commissioned by other publications,"
Yes. Vlad has a point.
"As for riding on Swift's coattails, that's just plain wrong. These artists rely on constant media coverage to continue earning the large sums of money they do."
So the cart pulls the horse? Without the artists, event media has nothing.
Obviously compromise is the only way to handle this.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 04:48 UTC
In reply to:

Greg Lovern: How do I delete this inadvertent post??

You can't :)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 04:42 UTC
Total: 479, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »