Tord S Eriksson

Tord S Eriksson

Lives in Sweden Gothenburg, Sweden
Works as a bus driver/retired
Joined on Jul 3, 2003
About me:

Like to draw, paint, and photograph nature, and identified
flying 'objects', like the moon, bumblebees, aircraft, and, not least, birds!

Comments

Total: 413, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ThePhilips: I think you made a disservice to GH4 by comparing to A7s. The GH4 is a mature product, while A7s is literally a Sony's first shot at a hybrid.

A7s has exclusively one thing going for it: the high ISO. That means, vice versa, comparing it to GH4 is making a disservice it too. Just watch the (sorry, have no other word for it) orgasmic review of A7s by Philip Bloom:

http://vimeo.com/102448889

The need for the "extreme" high ISO for video shooting is well explained.

Overall, I think the comparative review was worth the shot. And it is not DPR's fault that in the end it hasn't worked out.

I agree fully with the Philips! It is a unique design, made for those that need good low light performance, all other things being second.

I don't own either, but I change my camera after the lighting conditions, going from CX to FX as the light falls in the evenings, unless I have a special purpose in mind, say shooting macro.

I could easily imagine using the GH4 in good light, switching to the a7s as the light falls.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 11:58 UTC
In reply to:

Miki Nemeth: This is so meaningless comparison. A $2500 FF (semi) professional camera low-light-powerhouse vs an $1500 small-sensor (at most) enthusiast camera.

I think the idea was to show the extreme ends of the mirrorless spectrum, with two cameras optimized for video. One using a very big sensor, one using a fairly tiny one, but both aiming at the video professionals (or the enthusiasts who dream of becoming a video professional) with a tight budget.

One of them is a BIG lump (the size of a full-format DSLR) with a small sensor, the other a small, almost pocket-sized, camera with a BIG sensor.

One excels in low light, the other in high light; one is minimalistic in design, the other one is a mirco-four-thirds on steroids; and so on.

I know which one I'd prefer, that's enough for me!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 11:48 UTC
On Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review preview (447 comments in total)

It is still weird that the chart above showing the equivalent aperture for the X30, and the XZ-2 are almost totally identical, including the focal length range.

To me that says we're very closely related, as no other camera (of those shown) have anything even barely looking a bit similar.

As we know the MX-1 and the XZ-1 and the ZX-2 have the same optics, why then does Fuji show exactly the same graph (there is a tiny deviation, but that is so small that I bet the XZ-1 compared to a XZ-2 has at least that variation, too — clearly within manufacturing variation limits!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2014 at 20:30 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
On Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review preview (447 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: This camera is a clone of the XZ-1/XZ-2 and the MX-1, as they use exactly the same lens and very similar sensor type. Evidently an OEM supplies the optics and the focusing mechanism, while the brand name makes the outer casing and add their own, tweaked, firmware (possibly the electronics, too, but the similarities are scarily similar).

The two that stand out, is the X30, with built-in viewfinder, and the MX-1 with none (not even a external, mechanical/optical, option, as the X10 has)! They are also the two heaviest, by the way:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=fujifilm_x30&products=fujifilm_x10&products=fujifilm_x20&products=oly_xz1&products=oly_xz2&products=pentax_mx1&sortDir=ascending

Ocolon,

Those are big differences: Bayer, or not, and the type of anti-shake! I'd forgotten that!

But why does Fuji bother with cameras with so small sensors?!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2014 at 16:46 UTC
On Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review preview (447 comments in total)

This camera is a clone of the XZ-1/XZ-2 and the MX-1, as they use exactly the same lens and very similar sensor type. Evidently an OEM supplies the optics and the focusing mechanism, while the brand name makes the outer casing and add their own, tweaked, firmware (possibly the electronics, too, but the similarities are scarily similar).

The two that stand out, is the X30, with built-in viewfinder, and the MX-1 with none (not even a external, mechanical/optical, option, as the X10 has)! They are also the two heaviest, by the way:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=fujifilm_x30&products=fujifilm_x10&products=fujifilm_x20&products=oly_xz1&products=oly_xz2&products=pentax_mx1&sortDir=ascending

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2014 at 03:02 UTC as 16th comment | 9 replies
On Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Review preview (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: The C-8080 was my first 'serious' digital camera (had a Konica KD-500Z before that), which I bought when I got a small inheritance (UW house, flash, the works).

A superb compact, with excellent one-hand operation (most buttons within reach with your right hand still holding the camera).

Mine is still in working order, still takes lovely macros, and flash shots, but its flaws were plenty as well (a few samples):

It crashed on the third day of my vacation to the US and Canada with my wife, and had to be sent overseas to get new firmware installed (nowadays we are allowed to do such things ourselves)!

It is still lousy in any kind of back-lighting (I use to call the effect 'lilac rivers', as both the EVF, and the LCD became totally useless, due to floods of lilac color flowing over them) but the prints were not affected, bar a lot of flare problems).

Its powered zoom, that had four steps (wide, less wide, normal, and full telephoto), and nothing in between. Nice macro, though. Cont

The maximum useable ISO is 140!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 11:49 UTC
On Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Review preview (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: The C-8080 was my first 'serious' digital camera (had a Konica KD-500Z before that), which I bought when I got a small inheritance (UW house, flash, the works).

A superb compact, with excellent one-hand operation (most buttons within reach with your right hand still holding the camera).

Mine is still in working order, still takes lovely macros, and flash shots, but its flaws were plenty as well (a few samples):

It crashed on the third day of my vacation to the US and Canada with my wife, and had to be sent overseas to get new firmware installed (nowadays we are allowed to do such things ourselves)!

It is still lousy in any kind of back-lighting (I use to call the effect 'lilac rivers', as both the EVF, and the LCD became totally useless, due to floods of lilac color flowing over them) but the prints were not affected, bar a lot of flare problems).

Its powered zoom, that had four steps (wide, less wide, normal, and full telephoto), and nothing in between. Nice macro, though. Cont

The inner camera lens barrel is very wobbly, but it doesn't seem to affect the image quality one bit!

Slow, really slow, in every way. Slow update of the EVF, slow saves (about two RAWs per minute, maximum)!
But the majority of reviewers loved it, and I know pros that got one, to complement their Hasselblads, and stuff.

So, till this day, no more C-x0x0 cameras released by Olympus. The camera never earned the company the massive amount they had invested in it, and almost killed Olympus. Happily, the C-7070 was still in production, and earned the company its keep (at least the camera department).

Then came the bold move into m43 (MFT), and another crisis, requiring help from Sony (a lot of money!).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 UTC
On Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Review preview (6 comments in total)

The C-8080 was my first 'serious' digital camera (had a Konica KD-500Z before that), which I bought when I got a small inheritance (UW house, flash, the works).

A superb compact, with excellent one-hand operation (most buttons within reach with your right hand still holding the camera).

Mine is still in working order, still takes lovely macros, and flash shots, but its flaws were plenty as well (a few samples):

It crashed on the third day of my vacation to the US and Canada with my wife, and had to be sent overseas to get new firmware installed (nowadays we are allowed to do such things ourselves)!

It is still lousy in any kind of back-lighting (I use to call the effect 'lilac rivers', as both the EVF, and the LCD became totally useless, due to floods of lilac color flowing over them) but the prints were not affected, bar a lot of flare problems).

Its powered zoom, that had four steps (wide, less wide, normal, and full telephoto), and nothing in between. Nice macro, though. Cont

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 11:17 UTC as 2nd comment | 2 replies
On Photokina 2014: Olympus stand report article (75 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: "Allison was quite smitten"

That's the comment your lady coworker gets by you guys?!

In this day and age?! And naturally her head is cut off.

Seems you "boys with toys" were smitten as well, by the "old guys" syndrome, where women at the best are allowed to hold the lenses, unless they are big and hefty, when you guys take over!

I reacted to the tone of the comment, and the fact that her face never is shown, just her hands, but still mentioned by name, like she was your pet, while the men holding the lenses are not. Allison is mentioned in many of the photos from Köln, but as far as I've noticed, is still faceless.

I love women, but not just to see photos of Allison's hands, that's all!

And 'the likes of you', to use your phrase, have a deep respect of people smitten by Rollies (my dad was a Rollie enthusiast), or anything else, but why not include the lady's face, if the important thing was her being smitten by the cute camera?!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 09:43 UTC
On Photokina 2014: Olympus stand report article (75 comments in total)

"Allison was quite smitten"

That's the comment your lady coworker gets by you guys?!

In this day and age?! And naturally her head is cut off.

Seems you "boys with toys" were smitten as well, by the "old guys" syndrome, where women at the best are allowed to hold the lenses, unless they are big and hefty, when you guys take over!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 17:30 UTC as 8th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

photo nuts: Probably appeals to many, but with bulbous front element and weight of 1.1 kg, I don't care very much for it.

John, agree an all accounts, but weight is becoming a problem if you walk around with a lens like that all day, not least when you approach my age ;-)!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 08:58 UTC
In reply to:

photo nuts: Probably appeals to many, but with bulbous front element and weight of 1.1 kg, I don't care very much for it.

Just bought the Voigtlander 20, and the weight of that suits me just fine!

This offering, at over a kilogram, is way beyond my comfort zone (unless it is a telephoto lens).

Actually, a K-30 plus the excellent HD DA55-300 weighs about as much as that lens, alone!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 08:51 UTC
On _DSC5492 photo in dave's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Great shot! Taken with the much maligned 10-30! Bravo!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2014 at 11:02 UTC as 1st comment
On Fujifilm X100S Review preview (487 comments in total)
In reply to:

rsongusa: I've now had my X100S for about 2 weeks and have been rotating its use w/ my Panny GX1 and Canon 6D. So, I've been able to do some comps of similar shots. Some thoughts: 1st, I note the painfully slow AF in low light conditions. The GX1's AF does very well in low light; I've owned 2 other m4/3 cameras and they have also had a pretty fast AF.

2) the incredibly noisy images at ISO 3200 and above.

3) the images appear very soft at f2 in low light.

That said, I really enjoy the X100S. I've overcome the slow AF and soft image quality (in part) by switching to manual focus. The manual focus ring is very responsive. I feel like it's just a matter of time/use before I get better at manual focusing.

The ISO problem, however, remains. Is it for daylight/bright interiors only?

The shutter is quiet. The only thing quieter would be an e-shutter or the shutter on the Sony RX1/100. This is the best feature of the camera.

And, it is extremely low profile (fits in my bag easily).

You could always complement your kit with a V1, V2 or V3, which have lightning-fast focusing, and some brilliant lenses!

In really low light nothing replaces a good, big, sensor, say in the form of a used D600?!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2014 at 08:50 UTC
On Week in review: Photokina is in the air... article (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

joyclick: Hope there is a DSLR with excellent finders of yester years,Build quality of Nikon FM2/Canon F1

Minimal automation,no preset programs for every damn subject and let People create photos.

Let every camera be FF and come with 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 or 1.2 kit

I'd veto the compulsory 50mm lens, but aye the rest!

And I love it to be of light weight, but sturdy as a tank!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2014 at 08:28 UTC
On DSC_0751 photo in jack scholl's photo gallery (3 comments in total)

Indeed a lovely lens, that we own, hopefully a second one, soon!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2014 at 23:37 UTC as 1st comment
On DSC_0751 photo in jack scholl's photo gallery (3 comments in total)

A fantastic shot! As sharp can be! Very, very impressive! Thanks, Jack!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2014 at 08:07 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

SushiEater: Monkey did not post the photo, human did. How he obtained the photo is irrelevant because it was his camera after all. Wikimedia posted the photo knowing that it was copyrighted and yet posted it anyway.

This is a popular misconception by bloggers: they think that they have the right to copy anyone's art, just because they found it on the internet, which is very far from the truth. The copyright stays with the creator, no matter who published it on the net, unless the copyright owner has sold the rights outright.

Did Slater offer a banana in exchange of the camera, one wonders?!

Evidently, copyright law isn't totally up-to-date when it comes to pictures taken by machines (like a camera onboard a RC plane), animals, or whatever.

There have been many cases of animals, like gulls carrying off GoPros, that unknown to the thief have recorded the event. Who owns the copyright of such an image?!

In the case of the monkey, it is evident that he/she has an understanding what he's doing, thus is the photographer. An elephant, triggering a trail camera, can hardly be called a photographer, but who owns the copyright?!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 11:36 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: TWO REASONS WHY CAMERA COMPANIES ARE LOSING MONEY: 1. Capitalism is dying (finally), because it is based on faulty mathematics, so it has to end at some point. 2. NOBODY CARES ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY ANYMORE. The only people who care are the obsessives who think looking at an inferior 2-D representation of something on a screen is better than appreciating the real thing with your eyes in real time. Now that everone has a camera, people are waking up and thinking, what the hell is the point of photography? Why don't I just look at the world with my eyes and stop wasting valuable resources and valuable time doing a pointless activity?

A agree that capitalism will be the death of us, all, one way or other. Democratic societies seems to be on the retreat, while dictatorships seems to be popular!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 09:41 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: TWO REASONS WHY CAMERA COMPANIES ARE LOSING MONEY: 1. Capitalism is dying (finally), because it is based on faulty mathematics, so it has to end at some point. 2. NOBODY CARES ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY ANYMORE. The only people who care are the obsessives who think looking at an inferior 2-D representation of something on a screen is better than appreciating the real thing with your eyes in real time. Now that everone has a camera, people are waking up and thinking, what the hell is the point of photography? Why don't I just look at the world with my eyes and stop wasting valuable resources and valuable time doing a pointless activity?

Danmar,

That's what they said when people started to learn how to read, before that you had to learn all laws by heart, and so on. Of course does our tools affect how we perceive the world, so it is hard to sit at a dinner table and carry on a conversation, if you at the same time is going to use your camera/video camera/pen and paper (I used to be an illustrator, and I've worked as a journalist, neither professions that are ideal if you want to be part of the conversation)!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 22:51 UTC
Total: 413, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »