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: 506, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tieu Ngao: I'm still waiting for a camera (with or without mirror) with at least APS-C sensor, fast AF tracking, and a zoom lens 200-600mm f/4, total weight of less than 3 lbs, and costs $2000 or less, for birds, wildlife and sports.
I already have Nikon D750 and several lenses for everything else.

With some difficulty, the manufacturers manage to make cameras like that with a 1" sensor (roughly a 4th of an APS-C), and they weight about two pounds. Possibly possible to insert a APS-C in a similar camera, but then digital zooming would be part of the solution. As getting compact with an APS-C-sized sensor at 600mm, that will never become a reality!

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 11:33 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

M W B G: You know dpreview put this article on here just for s@#ts and giggles. I think they like reading the two different types of camera users go at it. Kind of immature really. It isn't constructive at all.

Your comment is the most immature yet, but you might be right!

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 11:27 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

showmeyourpics: Right now DSLR's, especially full format, still do some things better while mirrorless are catching up quickly and are a God-send when maximum portability is paramount. With the enormous evolutionary capabilities of digital, in time everything that is mechanical will probably be replaced by digital and get smaller and lighter. Last year, I went back to Olympus by buying two EM10's and then an EM5II. After some inner struggle, I decided to keep my Pentax K5 with its pro grade lenses. Two Oly bodies with the minuscule short and medium zooms disappear in my jacket pockets. Even with pro lenses, they are still very small and light. I love all the info that's visible on the EVF. The Pentax on the other end has perfect ergonomics for me. The body is larger and I can reach the controls comfortably and with no indecision. The older sensor is still great for low light/noise photography. The pentaprism is simply superb. It is heavier but in my hands that makes it more stable than the Oly's.

I'd love the menu system, and the body, of the K5 mixed with a m43 mount, and naturally an EVF, but I'd prefer a bigger one than the ones you find in most mirrorless cameras. that would really be a Pro camera!

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 11:24 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

dynaxx: Shoddy article.

M'less advantages omitted ; fewer moving parts making simpler, cheaper construction giving better reliability. Shorter registration distance to sensor allows lens adapters to work for almost any lens ever made. No mention anywhere of the absence of a heavy and expensive prism.

The statement that M'less are "generally" smaller bodied cameras than DSLR's is something of a fudge. Comparing sensor size to sensor size, is there any DSLR body that is smaller than any M'less camera ( OK the Leica SL is a teutonic freak ) ?

Why would anyone want to play down the differences that are huge ? Smacks of the "what did the Romans ever do for us" attitude.

Sony's FX mirrorless cameras, which consists of very few parts, have no mechanical problems what-so-ever, so arguing that mirrorless is bad because Olympus occasionally skips on button design (I agree on that) is pretty lame.

The smallest FX DSLR is the D600/D610, which still is heavier than Sony's a7 series, far bulkier, and according to all the disassembly guys on the net, not really repairable, as so many parts are fused, glued, or soldered, together. The a7 series are eminently repairable, and have very few parts indeed, thus cheap to repair.

I own a D600, and enjoy it a lot, but I treat it with kid gloves as I know it will not take knocks lightly, and will be very expensive to repair.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 10:41 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

otto k: Future DSLR camera will have hybrid OVF/EVF and will function as MILC with mirror up and like a SLR with mirror down. They will have all the benefits of MILC except for body size and wide lens size. But as soon as you go longer than ~35mm there really is no lens size difference between the two. Some mythical compact FF 70-200/2.8 will never exist unless there are serious basic changes in lens design and that would have nothing to do with mirror.

MILC advantages are the possiblity to have very compact (jacket pocket-able) camera with prime or collapsible normal zoom. Just like Sony a5100/6000 with 20/2.8 (or 16-50 pz) or Samsung NX500 with 30/2 (or 16-50 pz) or Panasonic GM5 with 20/1.7 (or 12-32). You get the picture.

As soon as a lens focal length is shorter than the distance from the mount to the sensor optical design becomes complicated. Therefore the gigantic Sigma 35/1.4, not because it is fast or sharp.

You can compare the Nikon 70-200/4.0G with the Nikon 70-300CX, the latter designed for a mirrorless system, but otherwise fairly comparable.

The 70-300CX weighs, with camera attached, less than the 70-200/4.0G!

I feel pretty convinced that Nikon will invest in a mirrorless FX system pretty soon, as they have filed a number of patents pertaining FX mirrorless lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 10:32 UTC
On article Real-world test: Going pro with the Samsung NX1 (370 comments in total)

Samsung's camera division has been bought lock, stock, and barrel, by Nikon, at a friendly price, one persumes, while Nikon in turn has promised it will henceforth depend on Samsung sensor chips.

So what will happen to the NX line?! Samsung has stopped manufacturing, that's already known, but will Nikon sell the Samsung NX1 as Nikon NX1, or what?!

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2015 at 13:59 UTC as 14th comment
On article Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Review (15 comments in total)
In reply to:

KKramer: One of my favorite cameras ever and I use it to this day. It is built like a tank. Slow by today's standards, it was way ahead of its time with a ⅔ sensor.

I use mine as well, although not as often as I used to do! Daylight (not backlighting!), and flash works very well, indeed!

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 12:55 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: It looks like a nice little travel pod, but it would be nice if Manfrotto gave up its proprietary camera plate design and adopted the more universal Arca Swiss design. They might sell a few more tripods that way to people who have already invested in the Arca Swiss plates. As one of those people, I would never buy a Manfrotto tripod for that very reason.

I like the big Manfrotto plates (and their quick-lock system), I have to confess, but I do not use their tripods, as I've pinched my fingers just a few times too often!

I do use Arca-Swiss plates as well, especially the really long ones, with my Wimberley, and Fotopro!

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2015 at 10:20 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: It looks like a nice little travel pod, but it would be nice if Manfrotto gave up its proprietary camera plate design and adopted the more universal Arca Swiss design. They might sell a few more tripods that way to people who have already invested in the Arca Swiss plates. As one of those people, I would never buy a Manfrotto tripod for that very reason.

Somy tripods are better than other, even from the same manufacturer. A neat, small, and light, one is the Berlebach Mini with levelling plate, that B&H used to sell:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/655100-REG/Berlebach_BE50032_2_Section_Mini_Tripod_With.html

You can still buy direct, works well;

https://www.berlebach.de/?bereich=details&id=98&sprache=english

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2015 at 21:49 UTC
In reply to:

dmi: I never used Aperture, so I can't compare, but a couple of years ago when I bought my first DSLR and started shooting RAW files, I went with Lightroom. Even though I'm a Mac user and have been happy with iPhoto, I did some research and decided that Lightroom was a better choice (I may have even come across someone who suspected at the time that Apple was going to stop developing Aperture -- I don't remember the specifics now). I like Lightroom and I don't feel like it's difficult to learn. I also like that you can point Lightroom at an existing folder structure and have it import photos without moving them. Apple's method of concealing file management beneath the surface of its applications is fine, but this way I can create and manage the structure for myself. Do a trial of Lightroom and see what you think.

I find the brushes so much better in Aperture than in LR, they're miles apart.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2015 at 13:17 UTC
In reply to:

Gmon750: Apple concentrates on the masses, not the 1%. For that, Photos is a great application to have included as part of OSX.

It's unfortunate that Aperture went the way of vine-rot. I was about to purchase it last year, then heard the rumor that Apple was going to axe it. I went with Lightroom and never looked back. Apple announced the discontinuation of Aperture a week later.

Lightroom is not perfect by far, however like Photoshop, it is the standard for RAW photography.

To begin I will declare that I'm an amateur, but with a lot of photo editing under my belt (even been a professional editor).

Secondly, I shoot RAW, with camera NR off.

I agree that DxO Optics Pro 10 has a weird interface, so I only use it when I have noise issues with my RAW images, as I primarily use it for its fantastic PRIME nose-cancelling (its lens correction is pretty awesome, too).

When I am finished with my DxO editing, I let my old iMac move them over to the Aperture catalog, a seriously slow process, but normally I have time to let it work overnight!

Then I do the rest in Aperture, and if I feel there is need for more noise-cancelling, I do it with Noiseware, the fastest noise-cancelling plug-in I know of. Finally, I might do some select sharping in Aperture, and I'm done.

I only use Photos in conjunction with iCloud, as little as possible! After the latest upgrade of the OS X I find no way to delete Photos (up to El Capitan Clear MyMac3 could delete it totally!).

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2015 at 12:53 UTC
On article Adobe issues Lightroom 6.2 apology and update (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: This is what makes me worry about big companies, that they prefer to launch a product they know is faulty, rather than waiting till the new version is bulletproof.

The sales department at VW wanted newer, better, engines, and when they realised that the new versions had issues, they simply fiddled with the software to make the problem as non-existing!

And here comes Adobe and does a VW, too!

I am off Lightroom for good, staying with Aperture (Photos is OK, but not for editing photos, which I thought was the basic reason for photo editing programs, but evidently not).

I'm an old fart, and nobody cares any more about people enjoying old tools, that has been honed to perfection through the years.

So, to be on the safe side, my iMac computer will no longer be updated. It is over half a decade old, thus very, very, ancient.

Bought in the first decade of this millennium, dear me, when men were men, and women women!

I have a good firewall, I tnink, and don't read unsolicited mail, but the risk is always there, specially if you use your phone connected to your computer system, as not many apps are infection-proof.

Hackers have shown that it is possible to take over a car's basic functions, like steering and throttle, through the car manufacturer's phone app, so phones and cameras with connectivity are very liable to be a source of infection.

------------

Haven't been around for a few days, a good friend died Friday, the day before his wife's 60th anniversary. Sigh!

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2015 at 21:11 UTC
On article Adobe issues Lightroom 6.2 apology and update (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: This is what makes me worry about big companies, that they prefer to launch a product they know is faulty, rather than waiting till the new version is bulletproof.

The sales department at VW wanted newer, better, engines, and when they realised that the new versions had issues, they simply fiddled with the software to make the problem as non-existing!

And here comes Adobe and does a VW, too!

I am off Lightroom for good, staying with Aperture (Photos is OK, but not for editing photos, which I thought was the basic reason for photo editing programs, but evidently not).

I'm an old fart, and nobody cares any more about people enjoying old tools, that has been honed to perfection through the years.

So, to be on the safe side, my iMac computer will no longer be updated. It is over half a decade old, thus very, very, ancient.

Bought in the first decade of this millennium, dear me, when men were men, and women women!

Dear Alexandr,

Sorry for blowing my vents, but it happens on the net that people tell you to disappear, and it has happened to be before (a long time ago, though).

I simply googled your nom de guerre, once, that's all, and found it fun that the dates coincided!

I happen to live in a country that has been invaded by Russia, several times (we lost half our territory to Russia, not that long ago, historically, but still long before Soviet Union was created).

My step-son is in computer security for a US company, and my OS X is definitely the latest, but eventually the OS will not support my old Aperture, which I find eons better than Photos, if one's interest is to actually edit images, not just spreading them over all your Apple-branded machines.

Hopefully there will be an OS X emulator that will allow me to carry on with Aperture in the future.

Already I have software that no longer works, like Toast 10, but I rarely used it, so I really can't complain!

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 08:53 UTC
On article Adobe issues Lightroom 6.2 apology and update (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: This is what makes me worry about big companies, that they prefer to launch a product they know is faulty, rather than waiting till the new version is bulletproof.

The sales department at VW wanted newer, better, engines, and when they realised that the new versions had issues, they simply fiddled with the software to make the problem as non-existing!

And here comes Adobe and does a VW, too!

I am off Lightroom for good, staying with Aperture (Photos is OK, but not for editing photos, which I thought was the basic reason for photo editing programs, but evidently not).

I'm an old fart, and nobody cares any more about people enjoying old tools, that has been honed to perfection through the years.

So, to be on the safe side, my iMac computer will no longer be updated. It is over half a decade old, thus very, very, ancient.

Bought in the first decade of this millennium, dear me, when men were men, and women women!

OK, OK!

But it is an attitude we older often gets from younger know-it-alls, that we should bury ourself somewhere away, as not to bother them in any way.

Alas, I was once a young know-it-all myself. Enthusiastic, and ignorant, in most walks of life, but my special interests, where I did actually know a bit.

Long past that now, happy to say. Proud of being honorary member of various organisations, including a photografic society, and a aircraft design group, where I was the junior member. All the others were retired pros: squadron leaders, test pilots, and aircraft designers, and I was just a young know-it-all, that I bet amused them a lot!

Very happy with my non-upgraded LR, by the way, although I prefer Aperture and DxO Optics Pro (used together, normally).

I might switch to Irident Developer soon, but haven't yet decided.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 09:10 UTC
On article Adobe issues Lightroom 6.2 apology and update (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: This is what makes me worry about big companies, that they prefer to launch a product they know is faulty, rather than waiting till the new version is bulletproof.

The sales department at VW wanted newer, better, engines, and when they realised that the new versions had issues, they simply fiddled with the software to make the problem as non-existing!

And here comes Adobe and does a VW, too!

I am off Lightroom for good, staying with Aperture (Photos is OK, but not for editing photos, which I thought was the basic reason for photo editing programs, but evidently not).

I'm an old fart, and nobody cares any more about people enjoying old tools, that has been honed to perfection through the years.

So, to be on the safe side, my iMac computer will no longer be updated. It is over half a decade old, thus very, very, ancient.

Bought in the first decade of this millennium, dear me, when men were men, and women women!

Krylovsk,

I have 100/100 fibre, at home, while you got dial up on the taiga, is that it?! You're envious of me, a mere low income pensioner, poor kid!

Alexandr Krylovskiy, you're a pure, proud, Russsian, I believe, who joined GitHub when I bought my present iMac, that's, oh, ages ago! So you're pretty old, too!

Should you be off the net, too, being so darn old, that's the big question! Us old farts don't belong on the net, as you so friendly pointed out!

Da svidanya!

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 12:33 UTC
On article Adobe issues Lightroom 6.2 apology and update (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: This is what makes me worry about big companies, that they prefer to launch a product they know is faulty, rather than waiting till the new version is bulletproof.

The sales department at VW wanted newer, better, engines, and when they realised that the new versions had issues, they simply fiddled with the software to make the problem as non-existing!

And here comes Adobe and does a VW, too!

I am off Lightroom for good, staying with Aperture (Photos is OK, but not for editing photos, which I thought was the basic reason for photo editing programs, but evidently not).

I'm an old fart, and nobody cares any more about people enjoying old tools, that has been honed to perfection through the years.

So, to be on the safe side, my iMac computer will no longer be updated. It is over half a decade old, thus very, very, ancient.

Bought in the first decade of this millennium, dear me, when men were men, and women women!

So I shouldn't be here, disturbing your circles?!

Why should I take my iMac off the internet, please tell me, sir?!

I am older than you, that must be the reason why!

My old iMac works excellently on the internet, uses the very latest browser software, but with photo editing software, it is quite another thing.

It runs the penultimate version of Aperture, the newest version of DxO Pro, alas, not he latest LR (thank god for that), and I use the current version of Final Cut Pro, and FRV (latest version). And it has three HDs, and a SSD, but naturally is a bit slower than the latest iMac.

I have numerous plug-ins for my version of Aperture, about five just concerning noise cancelling, which will be totally useless if I stop using Aperture, and only use LR 5.7.1, or Photos.

So tell me, dear sir, how would I do myself a favour by leaving the internet, but avoiding to be forced to listen to your utter disdain to people with a different background than you own?!

You hate us old, eh?

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 12:20 UTC
On article Adobe issues Lightroom 6.2 apology and update (230 comments in total)

This is what makes me worry about big companies, that they prefer to launch a product they know is faulty, rather than waiting till the new version is bulletproof.

The sales department at VW wanted newer, better, engines, and when they realised that the new versions had issues, they simply fiddled with the software to make the problem as non-existing!

And here comes Adobe and does a VW, too!

I am off Lightroom for good, staying with Aperture (Photos is OK, but not for editing photos, which I thought was the basic reason for photo editing programs, but evidently not).

I'm an old fart, and nobody cares any more about people enjoying old tools, that has been honed to perfection through the years.

So, to be on the safe side, my iMac computer will no longer be updated. It is over half a decade old, thus very, very, ancient.

Bought in the first decade of this millennium, dear me, when men were men, and women women!

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 08:39 UTC as 47th comment | 10 replies

Utterly boring video, that's for sure! For tilt you probably have to buy a second one!

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 20:32 UTC as 19th comment
In reply to:

sunjester: Thinking this may be one of those lenses that fall off the em10II. Good thing it's semi cheap.

As dulynoted pointed out, there is no other mirrorless system that is so diverse, and as encompassing as the m43.

My wife uses this system with excellent results, as complement to her Nikon 1, and her Pentax K, systems.

As with any system, the size of the sensors sets the limits in low light, not the fact that a camera is a mirrorless, a digital rangefinder, or a DSLR.

I no longer use DX (my Ricoh GR being the exception, but I couldn't afford a RX1R II), but use FX, and CX cameras, having found DX not good enough in low light, and the CX cameras more than good enough at long focal lengths!

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2015 at 07:50 UTC

Fantastic shot! Love it!

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2015 at 08:08 UTC as 4th comment
Total: 506, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »