JhvaElohimMeth

JhvaElohimMeth

Joined on Dec 5, 2012
About me:

http://fuorisposto.tumblr.com

Comments

Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: Still waiting for a compact and moderately fast ultrawide fixed lens for 4/3

If I remember is a fisheye, and I don't like fisheye.
But I'm not sure if it's a rectilinear lens or not.
EDIT: it seems to be rectilinear but not compact enough, for my needs...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2015 at 00:03 UTC
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: Still waiting for a compact and moderately fast ultrawide fixed lens for 4/3

For me would be ideal a light and compact 9mm 2.8

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2015 at 22:01 UTC

Still waiting for a compact and moderately fast ultrawide fixed lens for 4/3

Direct link | Posted on Apr 4, 2015 at 22:30 UTC as 4th comment | 6 replies

I know, it's not important, but it's SO ugly!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 17:30 UTC as 85th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: I think that to compete in all aspect with micro 4/3 fuji would need a cheap and portable 56mm f/2...
And maybe a small camera like x-m1 but with a decent electronic viewfinder...

So you can have Fuji quality and a very small set of good quality lenses:
18mm f/2
27mm f/2.8
and the 56mm f/2 (maybe they won't never produce it...).

Now I have GX1 with elec. viewfinder, 20mm 1.7, 45mm 1.8 and sigma 60mm 2.8

I would like to try Fuji quality but I would be obliged to have a bigger body just to have finder, and there's no small fixed focal tele lens for that system...

I'm looking for something as small as gx1 + finder + oly 45mm.
For small lens I intend the Fuji 18mm f/2, 27mm f/2.8...
23mm is too big for me.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 17:23 UTC
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: I think that to compete in all aspect with micro 4/3 fuji would need a cheap and portable 56mm f/2...
And maybe a small camera like x-m1 but with a decent electronic viewfinder...

So you can have Fuji quality and a very small set of good quality lenses:
18mm f/2
27mm f/2.8
and the 56mm f/2 (maybe they won't never produce it...).

Now I have GX1 with elec. viewfinder, 20mm 1.7, 45mm 1.8 and sigma 60mm 2.8

I would like to try Fuji quality but I would be obliged to have a bigger body just to have finder, and there's no small fixed focal tele lens for that system...

Ok X-E2 should be enough cheap and small, but maybe a small eq.85mm tele lens would be nice to have.
There's just the massive and expensive 56mm f/1.2!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 15:12 UTC

I think that to compete in all aspect with micro 4/3 fuji would need a cheap and portable 56mm f/2...
And maybe a small camera like x-m1 but with a decent electronic viewfinder...

So you can have Fuji quality and a very small set of good quality lenses:
18mm f/2
27mm f/2.8
and the 56mm f/2 (maybe they won't never produce it...).

Now I have GX1 with elec. viewfinder, 20mm 1.7, 45mm 1.8 and sigma 60mm 2.8

I would like to try Fuji quality but I would be obliged to have a bigger body just to have finder, and there's no small fixed focal tele lens for that system...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 23:28 UTC as 23rd comment | 7 replies
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

SynLyn: Please Compare this with the upcoming SIGMA 50 1.4 too ! That would be really useful.

well Andy, it happened now :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2014 at 21:38 UTC
On Just Posted: Ricoh GR Review article (214 comments in total)

Really interesting little camera

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 15:07 UTC as 70th comment
In reply to:

Photog74: This reminds me of a story from about 10 years ago when Magnum photographer Alex Majoli would use three Olympus C-5050 compact cameras to document the Iraq war. There have always been, and will likely always be, photographers who use smaller devices instead of the generally bulky SLRs preferred by the majority of their colleagues. This is nothing new, actually.

I have that compact, nice tool...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2013 at 15:09 UTC
On The Devil's Washboard, Pfeiffer Beach, Big Sur in the Sunset in the beach II challenge (30 comments in total)
In reply to:

AllanZ: Wow just amplified the photo, its straight out photoshoped!!! :( i really thought it was a HDR at least but no , i see to many layers working on this photo, :(

You might be a good lawyer, maybe not a good photograper...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2013 at 20:43 UTC
On The Devil's Washboard, Pfeiffer Beach, Big Sur in the Sunset in the beach II challenge (30 comments in total)
In reply to:

AllanZ: Wow just amplified the photo, its straight out photoshoped!!! :( i really thought it was a HDR at least but no , i see to many layers working on this photo, :(

Raptor: how a picture shot at daylight and called sunset could win? Levels on PS were even glued badly, it's evident, innatural. It's a BEGINNER shot, and "beginners" are the voters. Thumbs down for you and the author of this ... aborted "collage"?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2013 at 12:48 UTC
On The Devil's Washboard, Pfeiffer Beach, Big Sur in the Sunset in the beach II challenge (30 comments in total)
In reply to:

John of Brisbane: This is a photoshop composite. It is easy to see the sky has been superimposed. Even the light on the water shows full daylight from the completely opposite direction. Checking on Sunset times at Big Sur on Dec 31st 2012 reveals that sunset occurred at 17:02. Check the EXIF data on this phot which reveals that the photo was taken at 15:10 a full 2 hours BEFORE sunset. This photo should have been DQ'd . 14 x 5 votes are also very suspect.

photography is in the hands of fools. :(

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2013 at 12:45 UTC
On The Devil's Washboard, Pfeiffer Beach, Big Sur in the Sunset in the beach II challenge (30 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rajeshb: 14, 5.0 votes. must be a great shot :)

no, must be photoshp

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2013 at 12:45 UTC
In reply to:

jj74e: I don't understand pros using an iPhone. You want mobility so you drop all the way from a DSLR setup to an iPhone? What about losing the tripod/reflectors/accessories? Using a smaller DSLR or mirrorless cam?

The beauty of mobile photography is not in that it gives professionals a unique approach; the beauty comes from accessibility, that suddenly so many more people can take photos on the spot without having to make space in their jeans or budget for another camera.

You're telling me you need an iPhone to move around quickly? Sure it's fun, and the photos aren't bad- but that's what I say to describe my friends or my own photos, for Facebook that is. Not for professional work.

Not to be anal about professionalism (I'm not one myself; i'm speaking as a person who wants their wedding photographed), but there's a line between spontaneity and losing why I'm paying you.- because in essence these are shots more any of my friends would take for free.

Fuji x100 is the answer for this kind of pictures

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2013 at 10:08 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: Many here are entirely missing the point, which is fairly obvious, IMO.

It is as simple as that: forget the mobility talk, just erase this part. It all comes down to gathering as much attention as you can (that could easily be called marketing).

That guy succeded on that task in spades: his shoot is here, published on DP review, and seen all across the world.

That's the power of an idea, and the power of creative marketing.

You know this guy's name now. Before that shoot, maybe you didn't.

Just a (really, really) clever marketing stunt. Nothing at all to do with quality or mobility.

questo è verissimo, (anche se io il suo nome già l'ho scordato XD)
Spero non demolisca i ricordi di altre coppie con l'iphone! Vai! TUtti color salmone e stampette alla instagram.
"Aspetta che scatto, un attimo non ha focheggiato, ok, no aspetta il ritardo allo scatto"
come pubblicità ok, nella pratica però si fa credere che un iphone (perché gli altri smartphone le foto non le fanno?) sia tanto figo da poter fare i matrimoni.
Con una Pentax Q + 9mm hai un effetto simile ma con una macchina fotografica vera. Se poi vuoi qualità c'è sempre la fuji x100...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2013 at 10:05 UTC
In reply to:

Sean65: I think it's pretty cool. It's quite anti gear-head which is likely to anger many on this forum. With an iPhone you just concentrate on the picture and not the gear.

stop saying stupid things, please!
If you want to concentrate on the picture there are many compact camera with fixed lens. Pentax Q, with 9mm, Fuji X100, Ricoh GRD IV, Sigma's compacts....

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2013 at 09:56 UTC
On The Devil's Washboard, Pfeiffer Beach, Big Sur in the Sunset in the beach II challenge (30 comments in total)

un fotomontaggio eseguito a photoshop, e fatto anche male. Thumbs down

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2013 at 10:03 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

aardvark7: I am sure that someone will be able to explain why we can't have our cake and eat it...

My immediate reaction is why wouldn't the lens manufacturers offer this, along with their existing line up? I presume there is a good reason.

@eroll:mmm... it should work

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2013 at 17:15 UTC
In reply to:

aardvark7: I am sure that someone will be able to explain why we can't have our cake and eat it...

My immediate reaction is why wouldn't the lens manufacturers offer this, along with their existing line up? I presume there is a good reason.

WHY NOT PENTAX? '70 and '80 lenses made by pentax are amazing

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2013 at 12:19 UTC
Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »