PIX 2015


Lives in United States Dallas, TX, United States
Works as a Test Automation Engineer/Stock Photographer
Joined on Dec 23, 2003
About me:

Check out www.totalqualityphoto.com for SHARP
stock photography...Thank you!


Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18

As for "advantages of mirrorless systems", are we forgetting a big one, IMHO...The lack of AF Adjustment (or AF Fine-Tune, as some call it)! In other words, since the mirrorless systems focus right off the sensor itself (no reflex mirrorbox like in a DSLR), assuming the system and lens are not faulty, the Focus is always spot-on....There can be no "back-focus" or "front-focus" issues, again, assuming the system and lens are not faulty. That, to my 57-year-old eyes, is of critical importance, if "Sharpness" is a criterion of one's photography. Thank you.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2015 at 02:57 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
On Consumer SLR Camera Roundup 2013 article (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ciskje: In this target, movie capability are important, only 100d and A58 have acceptable performance.

I second that about the D5300 being great for video, also for stills, when paired with the superb sharp 16-85 Nikkor Zoom!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2014 at 08:04 UTC
On Nikon D5300 preview (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

Piggy the bad: I read these comments and wonder how you all managed to take photos 30 years ago when there was a thing called film & cameras had lenses that you had to manually focus & if you were lucky you could spot meter in addition to the average metering !!!

HI Puddlepyrate. As a former large format (view camera) user, I can attest to the extremely high quality of Master Ansel Adams' work, and that today's digital cameras cannot come close to replicating the sharpness, detail, tonality and subtle nuances of Mr. Adams' b/w images. I would guess that a Phase One 80 meg medium format back would come close to a 4x5 view camera in terms of detail, but not for 8x10 (or larger) systems. You're talking gigabytes of data there! BTW, I would also venture a guess that Mr. Adams would be pleased with the vast levels of control and precision over one's image from the use of editing tools like Photoshop! Thank you.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2014 at 08:27 UTC
On Nikon D5300 preview (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

wakaba: Played around with a 5300.

Conclusion: APS is dead.

So Nikon: I want a middleformat body with a detachable back and 100mb raw, prims finder, taking FX and better lenses and the simple functionality of a D600.

Hello Wakaba.
I'm curious...To what do you base your conclusion that "APS is dead", from "playing around" with a D5300? I think the image quality of the D5300 (coupled with good optics, NOT "kit" lenses) is superb, and I'm speculating, based solely on a great 30x40" print I made from an older, lower res Pentax K-5, that the D5300 can produce some stunningly sharp very large prints! It shoots at 5fps, has a very solid (granted, not D4 "Pro") build, has a decent buffer, large, clear LCD, good viewfinder, customization, built-in GPS and WIFI, and is light and portable. What else do you require in a DSLR that is not found in the D5300 or "any" APS system? I can only think of Full Frame's larger sensor and better wide-angle lens compatibility as two possibilities, but not everyone requires that, which is why APS-C continues to have a place in photography...it's image quality is simply sufficient for the vast majority of photographers. Thank you.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2014 at 08:15 UTC
On Nikon D5300 preview (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

jimkahnw: For me Nikon has offered ever greater disappointments. I bought a 5200 ten months ago and now it's obsolete. But, I bought a 5300 along with the 18-140. The first lens could not focus on distant subjects at 18mm. The second and third copies had horrible fall off toward the left side of the frame. Focus was inconsistent, even on a tripod, with VR off. Exposure was inconsistent, too, varying as much as 2/3 stops on the same subject during a portrait series. I should have know better; the demo camera at the PhotoPlus trade show performed the same way. When I told the rep that the camera wasn't making consistent exposures, he said it was the lighting--tungsten theatrical lights. Are these people for real?

I wrote to tech support about the performance problems. Basically, I was told to return the equipment to Nikon for evaluation. You bet I returned it: to the dealer for a refund.

I bought my first Nikon in 1974 and it's been down hill ever since. I'm trying another brand.

I upgraded from the D5200 to the D5300, not because of an "issue" with the D5200, but simply because I'm a Sharpness fanatic, and wanted the improved sharpness of the 24 meg sensor sans AA (OLPF) filter. I am seeing a difference, especially when using a "Prosumer" grade lens like the Nikkor 16-85, which Hogan rates as better than the 18-140 in terms of image quality. I'm certain that one of the superb Micro-Nikkors would be even better! FYI, I started with the Nikkormat FT3 in 1977, and have been pleased with the quality of Nikon products in general. Also, IMHO, just the introduction of a new model camera does not render the previous model "obsolete"...it can "Still" produce the same level of image quality it did "before" the new model came out, correct?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2014 at 07:58 UTC
On Nikon D5300 preview (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lin Evans: I sold my D7100 to buy the D5300 and I'm very happy with the performance and feature set. I wanted a swivel live view display, GPS and Wi-Fi and am enjoying the really nice improvements over my D7000 (which I still have) in resolution and out-of-camera jpg quality. It would be convenient to have autofocus fine tuning but not a deal killer without it. So far (two years) I haven't needed it on my D7000 so hopefully I'll be able to use some of the nice new Sigma lenses with the docking station and lens based autofocus control with my D5300. The carbon fiber body on the D5300 is excellent. It's strong, light and quite sufficient in my opinion.

Lin, I too, am considering the Sigma 30 with docking station. You'll probably get yours first, so if you wouldn't mind commenting about its' image rendering and whether the AF adjustment was needed with the D5300 to steve@totalqualityphoto.com, I'd greatly appreciate it! Thanks again, and good luck with it!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2014 at 07:45 UTC
On Nikon D5300 preview (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnbgood52: Looks interesting, though I think it's a bit inaccurate to refer to the 5300 and its ilk as "beginner models." There are a lot of people like me with many years experience who opt for cameras like this due to price considerations. We'd like to have a D800 or a D4, but we simply can't afford it. Cameras like the D5200 - D5300 offer a decent, affordable alternative.

Johnbgood52, you've said it best, sir! I absolutely agree...I find the D5300 (paired with good optics, of course!) to be capable of some stunningly sharp images with excellent tonality and dynamic range. I believe that the Image Quality is among the very best in APS-C systems, and one would have to go full frame to see any appreciable improvement in Image Quality!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2014 at 07:40 UTC
On Nikon D5300 preview (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

Average User: I have just bought the D5300 along with the Sigma 1.8 18-35 zoom. I wanted this camera because I use objects to steady my old hands, so can see my images better with the articulating screen, I wanted the 39 point auto focus, and I wanted the clarity of no anti aliasing.
In sum, the above combination has given me wonderful clear images, images I could not have otherwise gotten. The lens allows me sharper low light photos with lower ISO's with precise zooming that considerably improve the results. The sensor is a little better than the 3200, and the focusing is better, so the images are more often clearer.
Using the fx lenses I have for my D600 I can get more telephoto clarity on the 5300 than I can with the d600.
In tripod tests, I still get the clearest images with my Sony Nex 7 with the 24 mm zeiss. However, in low light, my D600 is still better than the others.
Hope this helps.

HI Average user. I have the D5300 with an excellent Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 zoom. I have also been considering the Sigma 18-35 1.8, but obviously it encompasses part of the range within my 16-85. Aside from the much faster maximum aperture, do you think I'd gain anything else in terms of image quality (again, my 16-85 Nikkor is quite sharp for a zoom...so much so that I am considering a macro (either Sigma 105 or Nikkor 85) in order to obtain sharper images! "Sharpness" and detail in very large prints are my main criteria. Any advice to steve@totalqualityphoto.com would be appreciated! Thank you.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2014 at 07:36 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review preview (2081 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: This isn't a pro camera. It doesn't even have mirror lockup.

Didn't know mirrorless cameras needed MLU...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2013 at 03:16 UTC
On Nikon D5200 added to our studio comparison database article (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

sarkozy: why buy this camera, if there is a Pentax K-5?
K-5 = bombproof construction - completely weatherproof, etc.

Well, as a former (mostly happy) Pentax K-5 user, I did just that very recently...switching over to Nikon, for several reasons, i.e., higher resolution sensor, robust electronics, and the vast Nikon System. While I was quite pleased with the superb Pentax FA/DA * and Limited optics, and the build quality and ergonomics of the K-5, I found that the electronics of the K-5 sometimes was a bit "flakey". For example, when shooting a still life of mariachi band figurines, my K-5 would sometimes switch focus point just prior to exposure, as if I had face detection on and physically selected another face in the group (which I did not). But post processing showed the sharpest point of the image, and it wasn't the point I had manually selected. This happened more than once, under varying lighting conditions. Also, the K-5 required a fair amount of AF Micro-Adjustment for several lenses, to compensate for some back focus issues. So far, the Nikon D5200 is rendering quite sharp images consistently, which is good, since there is no provision for correcting potential back/front focus issues, just overall Sharpness. Other than those issues, I loved the Pentax System! FYI, if anyone needs a new Metz 56AF-2 flash (with 4 Sanyo EneLoops) for Pentax, please drop me a line. Thanks.

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2013 at 03:12 UTC
On Nikon D5200 added to our studio comparison database article (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

GarysInSoCal: In the hands of a competent Nikon JPEG menu adjuster, combined with someone who can edit JPEGs to perfection, while using a sharp quality lens (Nikon 17-55 or 16-85 comes to mind), I'm SURE results coming out of the Nikon 5200's sensor will render images that are superior to anything in the 4/3s format, or anything coming out of Canon's current APS-C camp. I know this because I've been shootin JPEG magazine covers with Nikon cameras for several years now (samples on my MM page). Listen to the reviewers at DPReview & DXOMark... for they have no reason to lie to you concerning the performance of this camera & sensor. They are time-tested, proficient camera & sensor evaluators, and are NOT paid by Nikon to fabricate results. I've purchased several cameras based on their reviews, and have yet to be dissapointed with any past purchase (current owner of D600). It's my opinion that those wishin to find fault in their testings are merely fanboys of another camera manufacturer.

Well stated Gary. I agree with your points, as I've owned both m4/3 (Panasonic G2 and Panny 20mm) as well as the Nikon D5200 with 16-85 and 35mm Nikkors. While the OM-D (with good Olympus glass like the 60 macro or 75) does deliver sharp results, with equally high-quality optics like the Micro-Nikkors 60 or 105, I would bet that the D5200 would trump the OM-D overall image quality, just by virtue of sensor size and processing engine. Thanks, Steve

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2013 at 02:49 UTC
On Hands-on with Fujifilm's X100S article (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kongtotoro: I wonder how the next generation of OMD will be improved.

Yes, Kono, I was wondering that too. But this Fuji X100S sure has me interested! Too bad they could'nt have weather-proofed it too (with that fixed lens, I'd have thought it easier to do.)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2013 at 08:15 UTC
On Dpreview Users' Poll: Best Camera of 2012? article (1509 comments in total)
In reply to:

RJM400: I suspect the Nikon D800/E may well be the better camera overall. I don't know and don't really care. I went out on a night shoot with a pro who used the 800 and, in my lowly opinion, I was more than pleased with how my images compared!

I am using the OM-D E-M5 camera and having so much fun.

For what I paid for the OM-D, grip, and top lenses it is about what the Nikon 800 body alone costs! (For near comparable results as far as I'm concerned)

I love the portability and whole OM-D system.

I'm so glad I didn't become a Nikon or Canon lemming.

RJM, I too, am a former Nikon film user gone digital, currently using a Pentax K-5, but seeking a smaller travel kit such as the OM-D and the superb Oly primes 12, 45, 60 macro, and 75, lenses which are much smaller, lighter than any "comparable" Nikkors, while maintaining super-high quality! Kudos to Olympus for the OM-D System! Regarding the poster who said that "m4/3 was a miscalculation", how can high quality AND portability be a bad thing?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 31, 2012 at 04:05 UTC

I too, like my equipment looking "new" as long as possible, but my BIG concern is Sharpness! If this Panny 12-35 is significantly sharper than the kit Oly 12-50 on the Oly OM-D, then this lens is a viable alternative. Otherwise, I would see no advantage to spending the extra $1,000 on this lens over the Oly 12-50.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2012 at 18:06 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Thomas CJ: As a E-M5 user, I am very interested in these lenses. Probably I am just one of very few people who are actually NOT happy with the optical, but much more the MECHANICAL quality (or lack thereof) that all current MFT lenses have. Yes I am not happy with the 12/2, the 45/1.8 (this one has good optics, but very weak mechanics) and I returned the brand new 25/1.4 as well because it simply was not good enough for my taste.

The E-M5 needs REALLY good lenses, if you have these you can get gorgeous 24x36 prints out of it, even bigger, and IMO it also would profit very much from lenses that won't lose their quality after the first slight knock. I hope that Schneider-Kreuznach will deliver maximum quality and find enough customers to introduce all the three planned lenses to the market.

If I could change anything, I'd prefer the 14/2 to be a 17/2 or 17/1.4, though. But my main concern is the optical and mechanical quality.


Hi Thomas. I am considering the OM-D EM-5 system as my "travel" system, already having a Pentax K-5, with superbly sharp and well-made optics. I've made superb 24x36 prints from the Pentax, and am very interested in how you say about the OM-D "if you have these you can get gorgeous 24x36 prints out of it". So, you think that size enlargement can hold its own against a simialr size APS-C sensor print?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 31, 2012 at 13:48 UTC
On Nikon D600 Hands-on Preview preview (712 comments in total)

Sounds awesome, but one thing that scares me, if I read this preview right, is the omission of AF Micro-Adjustment. After using other DSLRs like Pentax, I am seeing how valuable this function is in terms of obtaining maximum sharpness from one's lenses! What's the reasoning (beside the obvious "cost factor") of omitting this feature?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 13, 2012 at 13:50 UTC as 190th comment | 1 reply
On Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 now available for Pentax article (1 comment in total)

As a Pentax K-5 shooter primarily interested in image sharpness, I was debating between this Tamron 17-50 and the Pentax DA 17-70. Though I've read good and not so good reviews of both, the number of reviews alleging dust particles in the Tamron was alarming, and being into Quality Assurance, I cannot say that I am convinced that Tamron has reliable QC. Therefore, I will most likely go with the Pentax 17-70, which would seem to mate better with my K-5 in all respects.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2012 at 19:09 UTC as 1st comment
On First Impressions: Using the Nikon V1 article (131 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boris F: Very nice DP's comarison V1 to G3:
looks like the lens initialy was designed for m43.

As a Nikon admirer, I wish them luck with this system. As for myself, I am of the opinion that the target "soccer mom" buyer is not going to want to bother with either RAW post-processing or even changing lenses too often. Image Quality may be fine for them, IF they can capture the shot they want. Personally, I would opt for Image Quality over portability, but that's why I use an APS-C DSLR over even m4/3. Best of luck to Nikon though!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2011 at 02:36 UTC
Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18