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: 421, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1201 comments in total)

This camera seems to be an outstanding game changer for a lot of people, not least photopraphers who shoot outside studios!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2014 at 09:24 UTC as 103rd comment
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: A bit odd that some of the shots are taken with a FX camera, and some with a DX. The FX images are so much better, while the noise from the 70D is sometimes quite annoying!

Sorry about thinking the 7D was a FX camera, but it sure is an amazing difference in resolution between the images taken with the 7D and the 70D, although both are 20MP sensors.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 22:09 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarioV: A rather ordinary effort by Tamron.

I really wanted to like this lens, but the image quality is "ok" only if viewed at normal screen size (maximum pixel density) or reduced size.

Nothing compelling enough to make me want to upgrade from the Sigma 18-250 macro.

Sorry about my feeble Canon knowledge: both the 7D and the 70D are APS-C (Canon-style).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 11:35 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

rxb dc: I did a crude comparison of this lens against Canon 50, 10-18 and Tamron 150-600 at different focal lengths
Here is the link to the post http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3763737
Would be interesting to see what you all think.

To my old eyes, the 16-300 beats the 150-600 handsomely, at 150-200!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 11:34 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: A bit odd that some of the shots are taken with a FX camera, and some with a DX. The FX images are so much better, while the noise from the 70D is sometimes quite annoying!

Not being a Canon user, I thought the 7D was a FX camera. Then the difference in image quality is even more surprising, as the 70D images are not very impressive, while the 7D's are.

Sorry about that, Simon, and the rest of you folks!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 10:49 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarioV: A rather ordinary effort by Tamron.

I really wanted to like this lens, but the image quality is "ok" only if viewed at normal screen size (maximum pixel density) or reduced size.

Nothing compelling enough to make me want to upgrade from the Sigma 18-250 macro.

To me it seems OK, and more than that, on the 7D, and nothing to special on the APS-C!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 09:35 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)

The shots taken with the 7D seems quite decent, while those taken with the 70D suffers from the restrictions of the lens & the camera.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 09:32 UTC as 8th comment
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)

A bit odd that some of the shots are taken with a FX camera, and some with a DX. The FX images are so much better, while the noise from the 70D is sometimes quite annoying!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 00:17 UTC as 11th comment | 4 replies
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 (453 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 12th comment | 1 reply
On Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review preview (453 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 (453 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 17th comment | 9 replies
On Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Review preview (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 3rd 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
Total: 421, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »