jwkphoto

jwkphoto

Lives in United States Albuquerque, NM, United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at jwkphotodesign.com
Joined on Jul 28, 2011

Comments

Total: 46, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Video: A quick look at the Sony a6300 (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

drivecancel: I see it still uses that awful eyecup...

Well, not quite, it's been 16 months and it hasn't fallen off yet!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 20:16 UTC
On article Video: A quick look at the Sony a6300 (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

drivecancel: I see it still uses that awful eyecup...

I put a little bit of rubber glue on each side if the eyecup over a year ago and it hasn't fallen off. With a little push in can be removed if needed.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 23:31 UTC
In reply to:

PatMann: Not quite 645 full frame, but close (about 93.4%). My Pentax 645 slides are about 41.5 x 56mm in image area. Certainly still a long way from 6 x 6 or 6 x 7 medium format film sizes.

When George Eastman invented the original Kodak camera, the film he made was 70 mm wide. Thomas Edison was was inventing a motion picture camera and he went to Eastman to find out what kind of film he could produce for him. Eastman cut his film down the center to make 35mm film. The first Leica camera was made to test test the movie film for proper exposure using the same frame size as the motion picture camera, 24mm x 18mm. This was called full frame. It was too small for any kind of still film quality so the frame size was doubled to 24x36. For a while, this size was called double frame.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

PatMann: Not quite 645 full frame, but close (about 93.4%). My Pentax 645 slides are about 41.5 x 56mm in image area. Certainly still a long way from 6 x 6 or 6 x 7 medium format film sizes.

Way back in the days, anything smaller than 4X5 was considered small format!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 3, 2016 at 19:00 UTC
On article Sony a6000 Review (878 comments in total)
In reply to:

doclannybay: Hi! everyone.

I'm a zero knowledge about camera ( Please i mean ZERO). I want to buy a camera for my lovely daughter for Christmas gift. I read the review (Sony A 6000, it fit my budget to compare with Cannon D-70 too expensive, still
don't have the right answer for my question which i have in mind. I would like to post my questions here , please somebody help:
* If the camera has feature as video , could it video long 1 hour for wedding ?
*What should i have the lens for the camera, which could do the job such as:
- Wide angle - Portrait - video filming - sports
They all fours in one or do i have to buy 02 difference lenses
Thank you so much for helping me

No, you can not do a 1 hour video with a still camera. the law will only allow 29 mins. at most. With the a6000, the longest I've gotten has been about 23 min. or so before it heats up and shuts down. After about 15 min. of cooling off, I can get another 18 min. before it shuts down again. You would be better off getting a video camera to do 1 hour.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Kill Kodak, you kill film photography. Kill Sony, you kill digital imaging. I would not be surprised if Kodak was not deliberately sabotaged and expropriated, at least to an extent. So when one day Sony Imaging goes bust in the deflationary economy, like Kodak did, imaging industry goes the way of film, at an accelerated pace.
And we are back to the drawing board, pencil and pen. So we should invest in Steadtler's and Faber Castel's shares? :-)

Kodak invented digital photography beginning in the 1970s. They could have made it even better but they let others do it. They basically got out of the digital business at the turn of the century and by that time digital began taking over. Kodak caused there on death when they could have been a world leader. By the way, film and darkroom sales are now headed up!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2015 at 00:34 UTC
On article Holga Digital camera project launched on Kickstarter (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

Andy Xorx: I'd be glad to have a "fun camera" with an open (royalty free) bayonet, module design and an array of simple plastic lenses. But! Based on a full frame sensor. Let it be very old and low pixel count. This concept could bring lots of fun. Holga idea is hollow as I see it. You get nothing more than you already have in a similarly priced chinese smartphone. But there you have a phone bundled in!

My FF sensor, 12.8 MP & serious Tool - the Canon EOS 5D was a piece of junk too. At 8000 frames, the shutter button fell apart and it cost $250 to fix it. I sold the camera on ebay and switched to a Sony A300, best camera move I ever made!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 6, 2015 at 15:45 UTC

For me to look at photos of Cheney is like looking at photos of Hitler, not a dimes worth of difference.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2015 at 23:30 UTC as 50th comment | 2 replies

Why does Canon have lower Dynamic range than my lowly Sony A6000? When will Canon get their act together? Canon 12.4 and A6000 13.1.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2015 at 00:57 UTC as 36th comment | 9 replies
On article Beyond the table top: 5 mini tripods reviewed (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

jwkphoto: I keep in my camera bag a Leitz Table Top tripod I bought in 1969. I've used it hundreds of times and made many of my best photos with it. It still works perfectly!

Mine has the shorter ball head so it's a little lighter. It was whooping $26 when new and at that time it was a lot of money equal to $169 in today's money. Another way to look at it is my Sony A6000 at today's $600 is equal to $93 in 1969 money! My new 1969 Minolta SRT 101 was $225 and in today's money, $1,450.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 22:09 UTC
On article Beyond the table top: 5 mini tripods reviewed (190 comments in total)

I keep in my camera bag a Leitz Table Top tripod I bought in 1969. I've used it hundreds of times and made many of my best photos with it. It still works perfectly!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 16:45 UTC as 73rd comment | 2 replies
On article Sony a6000 Review (878 comments in total)
In reply to:

jwkphoto: I'm a professional real estate photographer and I have the A6000 with the 16-50 kit lens. This camera replaces a Sony A65 with a Sigma F4-5.6 10-20 lens. I find the 6000 to be superior to the 65 in nearly every way. For my photos I find the 16-50 to be optically better than the Sigma. the 6000 does in camera lens corrections for lens distortion and color correction which greatly reduces my photography and post processing time by 30%. I know there has been lots of discussion about how bad the quality of the kit lens is but I've made very sharp 16x20 prints from it and it can go even larger.

I love my little A6000 and everything about it!

I don't need one, I already have the sigma 10-20 and a Sony lens adapter. I only use it when I need a wider angle. I find the 16mm setting on the 16-50 to be perfect for 99% of the photos I make, there's too much perspective distortion when used any wider which most RE snappers use.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 23:41 UTC

People here are complaining about the price of $3200. In today's money that is nearly $900 cheaper than the junk 12MP Canon 5D I bought in 2005. It's the worst camera for dependability I ever bought and I'll never buy another Canon, it's Sony for me ever since 2008!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 21:43 UTC as 197th comment
On photo Sam.ACR_ISO200_f1.4 in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

This photo brings back great memories, my first new car was a 67 Mustang!

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2015 at 14:58 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Fujifilm XF 16mm f/1.4 R WR Samples Gallery sample gallery (1 comment in total)

This photo brings back great memories, my first new car was a 67 Mustang!

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2015 at 14:58 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

jwkphoto: About 25 years ago, I got tired of so many lens caps in my bag of Minolta Maxxum lenses I decided to do something about it. I took double sided form tape and stuck two rear caps together and wrapped them together with black electrical tape. This way, I have two lenses stacked together and it reduces lenses rolling around in the bag and misplacing caps . My first digital cameras were Canon and I did it with them too. Later I switched to Sony to use my old Maxxum lenses. For very long lenses I only us one rear cap.

I want to add, I put the camera body cap on the open rear lens cap to reduce the dust collection.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 20:24 UTC

About 25 years ago, I got tired of so many lens caps in my bag of Minolta Maxxum lenses I decided to do something about it. I took double sided form tape and stuck two rear caps together and wrapped them together with black electrical tape. This way, I have two lenses stacked together and it reduces lenses rolling around in the bag and misplacing caps . My first digital cameras were Canon and I did it with them too. Later I switched to Sony to use my old Maxxum lenses. For very long lenses I only us one rear cap.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 03:51 UTC as 22nd comment | 2 replies

I've had a few Lensbabys over the years and overall I thought they were over priced and a pain to use. So I made my own from a rack and pinion steering boot, magnifying lenses from the dollar store and a T adapter. Total cost less than $20 for each lens, an F1.4 55mm, and F2 100mm and I get the results I wanted. There is no way I would pay 500 bucks for a Lensbaby!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 02:11 UTC as 34th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony A3000 First Impressions Review (681 comments in total)

On Thursday, I bought a Sony a3000 with the 18-55 kit lens for $159. It was on sale in one of the big box stores and this was the last one and was a display model. I'm actually impressed with it, it's not as bad as some of the people here say it is. I'll be playing around with it it the next few days and I'll report bak here.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2015 at 08:08 UTC as 14th comment
On article 3,200 megapixel LSST camera gets construction approval (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

jwkphoto: It's only 3.2 gigapixel, a little better than the Hubble at 1MP, but what wonderful images that 1MP has given us!

The great thing about orbiting telescopes is there is no atmosphere to get in the way and they can work 24 hours a day. The last I heard is the Hubble will be replaced in the next few years.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2015 at 20:43 UTC
Total: 46, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »