jerome_munich

jerome_munich

Lives in Germany Munich, Germany
Joined on May 16, 2010
About me:

This account is rarely active. Please do not send messages, they will not be read quickly.

Comments

Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Alphoid: I'm wondering how much the 0.77x crop factor does for you, relative to economies of scale and the type of engineering that goes into a modern, high-end mass-produced dSLR.

I'd love to see an actual, objective comparison to a D800 with a nice Zeiss lens, a Sigma 35mm f/1.4, or similar. 35mm lenses have come a long ways since the days when I last saw someone compare MF to FF.

I hear all about the magic of MF, but I wonder if at this point, it is still real or just psychosomatic.

Actually, recent MF lenses are much better than 35mm lenses, especially for wide-angle lenses. The idea that MF lenses needed to cover a wider field but did not need as high a resolution per mm died with the film MF cameras. With digital, MF manufacturers started to produce really impressive lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2014 at 14:19 UTC
In reply to:

KAllen: You will not need to go a D800 to ask that question.
I don't own MF digital but I would if I could despite all the comparisons people make with the D800 etc. It's not all about the number of blades of grass you can record But I can't justify it.
I wouldn't go the Hassy route all the same, the 1/800th of a second top speed kills it for my needs.

"I don't see the need to choose flash over reflection pads."
That is what I thought until I tried a reflection pad with a live model and she could not keep her eyes open with the sunlight reflected in her face... ;)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 06:06 UTC
In reply to:

Tower: Does any one think about the LENS? Forget 500V systems is a great mistake.

Hasselblad has an adapter to mount the old V lenses on the new H cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 06:04 UTC
In reply to:

jon404: I'm out of touch. Could someone tell me why, in this digital age, we need detachable backs? Don't you just swap out memory cards? Or, do these backs include a hard drive -- and , if so, do you actually need one... with the high-capacity memory cards that are available now?

The backs can be mounted on other cameras, for example technical cameras (look e.g. at Sinar, a manufacturer of this kind of cameras, to find out what they are). Technical cameras allow for movements (tilt and shift), which is useful for architecture or product photography.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 06:03 UTC
On Interview - Phil Molyneux, President Sony Electronics article (133 comments in total)

"The A99 becomes the first pro-level SLT camera. Are pros ready to give up an optical viewfinder?

PM: We're being disruptive. Part of the appeal of being disruptive is that pros see that we're being innovative and want to explore what Sony has to offer."

Being disruptive is a good thing. Being disruptive without the safety net of offering the customers what they know and love is a risky bet on the future. Keeping a line of more traditional cameras in parallel with a more "modern" line of SLT cameras would be a prudent choice and would insure support from faithful users.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2012 at 19:25 UTC as 55th comment | 1 reply
On Sigma 30mm f/2.8 on the NEX-7. article (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hubertus Bigend: I think the crops are not really sharp – my guess is that the air was not calm enough to get proper long-distance sharpness (possibly would have made supertele shooting quite impossible that day). I think the originals on your Flickr page show closer buildings which correspond better to your praise of the lens, though!

Anyway, thanks for showing us. Although it remains one of the least exciting lenses of late, it actually might make sense as a cheap but good standard prime for both NEX and Micro-FT, after all. Of course it would've been nicer if it was f/2.4 or f/2, or if it had at least some macro capabilities...

Something went wrong with the crops, when you click on them they are enlarged 2 times. This is why they do not appear perfectly sharp. On my flick account you have the native resolution.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 31, 2012 at 04:56 UTC
On Sigma 19mm f/2.8 on the NEX-7. article (9 comments in total)
In reply to:

wus: How does it compare with the Sony 16mm pancake?

You have pictures taken from the same place in my flickr account for direct comparison. Basically, the 16mm's center is sharp and the corners less so.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 31, 2012 at 04:53 UTC
On Sigma 19mm f/2.8 on the NEX-7. article (9 comments in total)
In reply to:

dansenor1: hello, thank you for the review
I've ordered the lens after reading it and cannot wait to know if dmf works on this lens
thank you

DMF works.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2012 at 12:18 UTC
On Sigma 30mm f/2.8 on the NEX-7. article (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

madmaxmedia: The short registration distance doesn't make it hard to design lenses, any more than a longer registration distance. The lens elements can be as far away from the sensor as the designer wants, the registration distance only governs the distance of the mount from the sensor, correct?

You are correct, yes.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2012 at 05:51 UTC
On Sigma 30mm f/2.8 on the NEX-7. article (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

cptrios: Thanks! I've been waiting for this for ages now, and these results have me excited. Any idea when the 19mm might pop up?

If you had looked at my flickr account you would have found the same kind of pictures taken with the kit zoom... ;)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2012 at 10:48 UTC
On Sigma 30mm f/2.8 on the NEX-7. article (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

AdamT: my 16mm Pancake is incomparibly better than the DUD sample above - Sony really need to get sample consistency with their Kit lenses, I had a Dud 18-55 like that . I`ve got good samples of both now

I don't think that my copy is bad, at least it appears to be correctly centered. I have another copy which is worse.
Keep in mind that this is f/2.8 and the extreme corner. It also seems that dpreview enlarges the image by a factor of 2.

There are full size downloads of horizon pictures taken with the 16mm (and the kit zoom, and many A-mount lenses) on my flickr account.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2012 at 09:07 UTC
On Sigma 30mm f/2.8 on the NEX-7. article (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

futile32: Thanks, had mine pre-ordered for a while, but have been eager to see a review on it. Looks like its a good investment for the price.

Would have liked to hear some feedback on the Sigma AF compared to Sony, and how it functions with MF.

The AF works just like on a Sony lens, but it is noticeably noisier and a bit slower. The camera needs to focus back and forth to detect the focus point (that is how it works with all lenses), on the Sigma you perceive the process better than on the kit zoom, meaning it is a bit slower.

Manual focus works just fine, the feeling is similar to a manual focus lens. I can't hear any noise when manual focussing.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2012 at 09:04 UTC
On Sigma 30mm f/2.8 on the NEX-7. article (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

cptrios: Thanks! I've been waiting for this for ages now, and these results have me excited. Any idea when the 19mm might pop up?

I should get a 19mm on monday.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2012 at 06:31 UTC
On Sigma 30mm f/2.8 on the NEX-7. article (19 comments in total)

Has a fast standard prime being announced beyond the CZ 24mm? I thought it was a fast standard zoom?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2012 at 06:31 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

thx1138: Sorry it's ridiculous to think IBIS system can cope with a supertele lens like this. IBIS does not stabilise the VF image and with a 500mm on a crop sensor the image will be bouncing all over the place. if you've never used a supertele you will be shocked. Now add a 2x TC and try it! This should have had IS built into the lens; no way a sensor will be able to be shifted enough to counter the extreme shake of such long FL. Oh that's right Sony doesn't have such a thing.

Same here: I use a 500mm on a A900 (the cheap catadioptric one) and steady shot works quite well.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2012 at 06:54 UTC
On Similar, but not copied, image found to breach copyright news story (738 comments in total)

People should really read the judgement before commenting. The conclusion is, in substance, that infringement came from trying to produce a similar picture. There are other pictures of the red bus in front of a B&W Big Ben, but they do not look similar. An example here:
http://www.sabistyle.com.au/blog/?tag=routemaster-double-decker-bus

To make it similar, the defendant had to chose a similar skyline, remove the people and traffic and remove the sky. And he did that with the clear intent to produce a similar picture.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 07:15 UTC as 289th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

jerome_munich: I understand that a professional photographer (i.e. one who derives his or her income from selling photographs) has an interest in this procedure.

But I am not a pro, I don't sell pictures. Why would I go through the expense of hiring an attorney to stop publication of my pictures? Why would I even invest time and money to look for copyright violations? I will never get any of that effort back.

I will only pursue if I feel that I have more to gain than lose in a legal fight and I believe that the "no-win no-fee" representatives will only do the same. Sure, if a picture of my kids is used for a major publicity campaign or, heaven forbid, for adult products, I *will* sue and I am pretty sure that I would find a lawyer willing to help me

But the average infringement for the average amateur is likely to be a small picture used on a web site, possibly in a different country. The infringer is probably only going to take the picture down, and never pay anything. If we ever pursue the matter to court, the infringer can easily prove that usage rights for a similar picture can be had from microstock agencies for less than 5$. How much am I likely to get back? Seriously?

I understand that the matter is different for a pro, who can prove how much his or her pictures cost since they are routinely sold. But amateurs do not have quite the same deck of cards in their hands in these matters

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2011 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

aeolos: the people who steal your images are the kind of people who would not buy them in the first place..

same with the entertainment industry. they claim they lost x amount of money because of copyright infringement but those people who download all the music and films would not buy them if that would be the only way to obtain them.

copyright laws are so 20 century haha

Plenty of photographers take pictures without getting paid. They are called amateurs. I feel that they are forgotten in this discussion...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2011 at 18:19 UTC
In reply to:

djec: i find not caring when i see my copyright infringed saves me a lot more effort and allows me to spend my time doing better things. to each their own i suppose.

"Not dependent on sales of images to pay the rent, put food on the table, and send the kids to college" is what happens to EVERY amateur. Therefore amateurs and pros have very different views on the subject.

As an amateur, I can't even claim damages if some of my pictures are used, because I don't sell them. I can't issue a bill without going through a complex procedure which makes it not worthwhile for a one off occasion. And I won't go to court, because it is likely to cost me a lot more than I can ever get back. So, indeed, "not caring" is probably the best solution.

OTOH, that article may prove useful for a pro, who is likely to convince the infringer to settle for a lump sum.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2011 at 16:02 UTC
In reply to:

djec: i find not caring when i see my copyright infringed saves me a lot more effort and allows me to spend my time doing better things. to each their own i suppose.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would make "millions" with stock agents. Which stock agency do you use? Can we have a look at the kind of pictures you are selling?

There are photographer who make good money with stock photos, I am not disputing that. I am disputing the "millions". And, BTW, photographers who make money out of stock pictures do not photography for fun as amateurs do. They do the kind of photography that the agency sell, not the ones they would like to make. It is work.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2011 at 08:06 UTC
Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »