JDThomas

JDThomas

Lives in United States Austin, TX, United States
Works as a photographer / author
Has a website at NikonDFG.com
Joined on Jul 2, 2012
About me:

Entertainment photographer for Corbis Images / AP Images, Nikon Digital Field Guide & Concert and Live Music Photography author, Gretsch guitar strangler.

Comments

Total: 458, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul P K: The discussion on this lens is a bit like those on the Nikon DF.

Instead of looking what it can do in it's own right, people are (without having used or handled it) judging and condemning it on what they think it should be, cost or perform like, and only can see what it looks like.Similar to eg a car it should besides its looks also be judged upon what's under the hood/ how it performs for what it's intended for.

And no, its characteristics can not be imitated with a 1.4/85 (I have one and tried to do so without success), nor can a similar effect be achieved by a cheaper lens with a different design (yes, it can be achieved with eg Helios lenses, but where I live there just as expensive as a Petzval), or a Lensbaby (only the Edge would qualify based on its focal length, had one as well and no it doesn't)

And like JDThomas says, no, once you bought it, you're not condemned to use it as your only lens for the rest of your life, it's part of a system with interchangeable lenses !

That's beside the point. Can you tell whether a camera is magnesium framed or polycabonate framed from the picture?

Probably not, but if you dropped it you'd know for sure.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2014 at 10:12 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1717 comments in total)
In reply to:

bartjeej: Good article, I'm sure the issue will become clearer for a lot of folks.

One request though; could you PLEASE not contribute to the already much too pervasive myth that the word 'bokeh' only refers to the quality of the blur and not the quantity? It simply means blur, and you can have lots or little blur/bokeh just like you can have pleasant or unpleasant blur/bokeh. 'The quality of the blur' would be 'boke(h)-aji'. Just a little pet pieve of mine :)

To most people's thinking "bokeh" = pro.

They should make special lenses for bokeh addicts. No aperture settings. Wide open all the time.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 00:28 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

JDThomas: Summary of the comments:

"This lens isn't ultra sharp and the bokeh is ugly. I hate it, therefore it should not exist. Damn people who want to try different things upset me. Everything should look the same. Lumpy black cameras and completely out of focus images with smooth bokeh is the ONLY way to shoot otherwise you're a poseur or a hipster."

Guess what? Spend YOUR money on what YOU like and stop worrying about what other people are spending their money on. At the end of the day I don't care what other photographers think anymore (especially the angry nerds on the forums). I shoot for me and my clients. They don't know the difference between "good" or "bad" bokeh (and that in and of itself is subjective). My clients know what they like. And some think the swirly bokeh is interesting.I think the swirly bokeh is great for some things. I have an early Leica Summar that's quite swirly and the results are different than every cookie-cutter "perfect portrait" that you see on flickr.

You're equating buying a camera lens with spending money on child prostitutes and other ILLEGAL activities?

That makes NO sense at all. What's wrong with supporting a lens manufacturer? NOTHING. Lens manufacturers aren't in the same class as pimps, drug dealers, and crooks.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 22:30 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul P K: The discussion on this lens is a bit like those on the Nikon DF.

Instead of looking what it can do in it's own right, people are (without having used or handled it) judging and condemning it on what they think it should be, cost or perform like, and only can see what it looks like.Similar to eg a car it should besides its looks also be judged upon what's under the hood/ how it performs for what it's intended for.

And no, its characteristics can not be imitated with a 1.4/85 (I have one and tried to do so without success), nor can a similar effect be achieved by a cheaper lens with a different design (yes, it can be achieved with eg Helios lenses, but where I live there just as expensive as a Petzval), or a Lensbaby (only the Edge would qualify based on its focal length, had one as well and no it doesn't)

And like JDThomas says, no, once you bought it, you're not condemned to use it as your only lens for the rest of your life, it's part of a system with interchangeable lenses !

@Paul P K: There's almost no point in trying to have a coherent discussion on camera websites anymore. No matter what the subject someone will go off on a tangent.

I kinda wish the comment sections would be hidden away with the forums so I could just read the reviews and move on, but like a car wreck, I can't look away and I always get drawn into it. It's my own fault, but damn, there are some truly ignorant people on here.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2014 at 01:25 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevens37y: In that time this lens was revolutionary. Petzval József used a kind of neurological computer (10 members of the Austrian army) to calculate the lens parameters.

http://antiquecameras.net/petzvallens.html

Of course I would never buy such a thing now it would be pretty boring if all my pictures had the same kind of distorsion.

Brilliant.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 20:39 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul P K: The discussion on this lens is a bit like those on the Nikon DF.

Instead of looking what it can do in it's own right, people are (without having used or handled it) judging and condemning it on what they think it should be, cost or perform like, and only can see what it looks like.Similar to eg a car it should besides its looks also be judged upon what's under the hood/ how it performs for what it's intended for.

And no, its characteristics can not be imitated with a 1.4/85 (I have one and tried to do so without success), nor can a similar effect be achieved by a cheaper lens with a different design (yes, it can be achieved with eg Helios lenses, but where I live there just as expensive as a Petzval), or a Lensbaby (only the Edge would qualify based on its focal length, had one as well and no it doesn't)

And like JDThomas says, no, once you bought it, you're not condemned to use it as your only lens for the rest of your life, it's part of a system with interchangeable lenses !

How many toy lenses made out of brass did you find?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 20:38 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

JDThomas: Summary of the comments:

"This lens isn't ultra sharp and the bokeh is ugly. I hate it, therefore it should not exist. Damn people who want to try different things upset me. Everything should look the same. Lumpy black cameras and completely out of focus images with smooth bokeh is the ONLY way to shoot otherwise you're a poseur or a hipster."

Guess what? Spend YOUR money on what YOU like and stop worrying about what other people are spending their money on. At the end of the day I don't care what other photographers think anymore (especially the angry nerds on the forums). I shoot for me and my clients. They don't know the difference between "good" or "bad" bokeh (and that in and of itself is subjective). My clients know what they like. And some think the swirly bokeh is interesting.I think the swirly bokeh is great for some things. I have an early Leica Summar that's quite swirly and the results are different than every cookie-cutter "perfect portrait" that you see on flickr.

SO WHAT? It's not the same lens. The images may look the same, but some people are quite content spending the extra money. The real point is, WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT PEOPLE SPEND THEIR MONEY ON?!?

Get it?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 20:33 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevens37y: In that time this lens was revolutionary. Petzval József used a kind of neurological computer (10 members of the Austrian army) to calculate the lens parameters.

http://antiquecameras.net/petzvallens.html

Of course I would never buy such a thing now it would be pretty boring if all my pictures had the same kind of distorsion.

"Of course I would never buy such a thing now it would be pretty boring if all my pictures had the same kind of distorsion (sic)"

You do know that if you bought this lens you wouldn't have to use it for every picture to took, right?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 18:14 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

JDThomas: Summary of the comments:

"This lens isn't ultra sharp and the bokeh is ugly. I hate it, therefore it should not exist. Damn people who want to try different things upset me. Everything should look the same. Lumpy black cameras and completely out of focus images with smooth bokeh is the ONLY way to shoot otherwise you're a poseur or a hipster."

Guess what? Spend YOUR money on what YOU like and stop worrying about what other people are spending their money on. At the end of the day I don't care what other photographers think anymore (especially the angry nerds on the forums). I shoot for me and my clients. They don't know the difference between "good" or "bad" bokeh (and that in and of itself is subjective). My clients know what they like. And some think the swirly bokeh is interesting.I think the swirly bokeh is great for some things. I have an early Leica Summar that's quite swirly and the results are different than every cookie-cutter "perfect portrait" that you see on flickr.

What exactly is your point? I made no mention of buying cheaper alternatives. I'm just talking about the stupid knee-jerk reactions that all of the cookie-cutter "photographers" have to this lens.

For what it's worth, I go out of my way NOT to purchase cheap Chinese garbage if I have any choice. Not to mention the fact the the lens you mention isn't the same focal length nor is it usable on full-frame. So really, it isn't an alternative. It's a completely different lens.

And I'll say it again, if someone wants to buy this Petzval because they like the images and the styling, what business is it of yours? It's not YOUR money.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 18:10 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)

Summary of the comments:

"This lens isn't ultra sharp and the bokeh is ugly. I hate it, therefore it should not exist. Damn people who want to try different things upset me. Everything should look the same. Lumpy black cameras and completely out of focus images with smooth bokeh is the ONLY way to shoot otherwise you're a poseur or a hipster."

Guess what? Spend YOUR money on what YOU like and stop worrying about what other people are spending their money on. At the end of the day I don't care what other photographers think anymore (especially the angry nerds on the forums). I shoot for me and my clients. They don't know the difference between "good" or "bad" bokeh (and that in and of itself is subjective). My clients know what they like. And some think the swirly bokeh is interesting.I think the swirly bokeh is great for some things. I have an early Leica Summar that's quite swirly and the results are different than every cookie-cutter "perfect portrait" that you see on flickr.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 03:22 UTC as 17th comment | 7 replies
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

wherearemyshorts: The problem of getting the lens in black, if it ever gets scratched the brass will show through.

It's called brassing. Some people like it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 03:05 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: Curious as to why a comparison wasn't run with a D3s. By all accounts the best low-light sensor out there with the added bonus that it has the same resolution. And probably the same sensor with nothing more than processing tweaks.

OK dude, whatever you say...

I'm really not interested in doing this stupid back and forth with you. It's boring.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2014 at 00:28 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: Curious as to why a comparison wasn't run with a D3s. By all accounts the best low-light sensor out there with the added bonus that it has the same resolution. And probably the same sensor with nothing more than processing tweaks.

@ET2 Why, are you name-calling like a 12 year old?

Whether it's a Sony sensor or not, really isn't the issue.

30fps is controlled by firmware and processor using a global shutter. The mechanical shutter couldn't do 30fps and the data readout to capture 30fps is a function of the imaging processor. None of this has to do with sensor development.

The low-light sensitivity at this point has a lot to do with the imaging processor as well as the sensor. Getting a clean high ISO file at 12MP is not a huge leap forward in technology.
But, I guess this is what you want to hear: The Sony A7s is the bestest most fastest and awesomest camera EVER made. Nothing will ever top it.

Satisfied?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2014 at 16:15 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrMojo: I wouldn't touch this new camera until the sacrificial early adopters discover whatever design problems Nikon gives us this time...

@HowaboutRAW: I never said it was a BIG failure. You asked if there were any failures known to the D800 and I just mentioned a problem that many people had.

For what it's worth, my D800 was from the first batch to hit the stores and my focusing worked fine.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 04:44 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: Curious as to why a comparison wasn't run with a D3s. By all accounts the best low-light sensor out there with the added bonus that it has the same resolution. And probably the same sensor with nothing more than processing tweaks.

@ET2 As far as the sensor goes for taking still photos it is 2007 tech It'd the same ol' 12MP Sony sensor with processor and firmware tweaks.

Once again, this discussion was not referring to video, it was about STILL photos. Did you not read the last sentence of my previous comment?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 04:36 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrMojo: I wouldn't touch this new camera until the sacrificial early adopters discover whatever design problems Nikon gives us this time...

There was the AF left focus points issue that some people experienced with the D800.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 16:15 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: Curious as to why a comparison wasn't run with a D3s. By all accounts the best low-light sensor out there with the added bonus that it has the same resolution. And probably the same sensor with nothing more than processing tweaks.

I'm a photographer, not a videographer. I have no interest in what the A7s offers in video.
Nowhere in this thread is video mentioned. Try to stay on track.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 16:10 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: Curious as to why a comparison wasn't run with a D3s. By all accounts the best low-light sensor out there with the added bonus that it has the same resolution. And probably the same sensor with nothing more than processing tweaks.

A 12MP full-frame sensor? 2007 technology. This Sony is only 1/6 of a stop better than the Df according to DxO. That's not progress.

Cameras don't make better images. Photographers do.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2014 at 06:08 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: Curious as to why a comparison wasn't run with a D3s. By all accounts the best low-light sensor out there with the added bonus that it has the same resolution. And probably the same sensor with nothing more than processing tweaks.

Yes, it's very impractical to compare it with a camera that has the same sensor specs and is easily available new, just because it's not on Nikon's sales sheet doesn't mean you can't get one.

Then again who really cares? I shoot in the dark for most of my work and I never go beyond 6400. At that ISO just about every current full-frame camera can produce usable images.

"High ISO performance" is the new "MegaPixel war". It's basically meaningless at a certain point. Who is shooting at ISO 12,800 and beyond anyway? It all looks like a Seurat painting at that point.

I get great images in the dark with an M9-P, which is supposedly the most abysmal high ISO camera currently on the market (under the guise of the M-E). This Sony isn't going to magically make my photos any better.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2014 at 05:40 UTC

Curious as to why a comparison wasn't run with a D3s. By all accounts the best low-light sensor out there with the added bonus that it has the same resolution. And probably the same sensor with nothing more than processing tweaks.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 19:36 UTC as 83rd comment | 18 replies
Total: 458, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »