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: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 (489 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 (63 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
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?

Oh dear, oh dear!

So how come some guys get paid a few hundred millions a year in salary, if capitalism is dead?!

In a non-capitalistic society, like Mao's China, that would never happen (Mao had a train filled with over 80 mistresses instead, and his wife had free access to the most expensive clothing available in the world, not just the average Dior stuff).

But Mao and wife didn't pay for any of that, of course not. They lived in an egalitarian society, where all were forced to wear the same uniform (mysteriously Mao's was better fitting than anybody else's, and made of silk).

Considering the amount of phones with cameras it is odd to say that nobody cares about photography, as in that case everyone would opt for phones without cameras, as they are much cheaper!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 11:59 UTC
On Canon develops world's largest CMOS sensor article (3 comments in total)

That could be a lovely sensor for a fixed lens camera, like an old plate camera, just modified to take such a huge sensor!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2014 at 10:00 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

Edac2: Why can't a 60 x 60mm sensor be made? 43.8 x 32.9mm is nowhere near "full frame" and there will be a significant loss of focal length using this back (43.8 is 73% of 60, and 32.9 is only 55% of 60). Perhaps having the sensor plane further from the lens than a film plane compensates for this; then you would just lose some of the square image at the top and bottom of the frame. There would be other compromises, though, such as not being able to use the camera's viewfinder. Would one keep the mirror flipped up to use this back?

You don't lose equivalent focal length, you gain, just as a CX camera with a FX lens gains (as the crop factor is 2.7). It is the diagonal that is used as the yard stick, but I'm not good at maths, but say the crop factor is 1.6, or so, compared to a classic Hasselblad loaded with film.

Naturally you can use the viewfinder, but you'd normally use a Hasselblad today tethered to a computer, so viewfinders are a bit of the past!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 21:58 UTC
On Drone lighting could be coming soon to your studio article (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

tt321: Does the wind/draught/turbulence need additional management?

Wind indoors in a studio is a non-issue, of course, but getting tangled in power cords, et cetera, is a real issue!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2014 at 22:27 UTC
On Drone lighting could be coming soon to your studio article (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

Apewithacamera: Apparently, drones are great for taking landscape photos at public beaches. Who's getting theirs?

lemming2008: The drones have totally replaced helicopters in major movie making, and TV, flown by professionals. Hardly think using them over public beaches, filled with people, will be popular with law enforcement guys.

In many countries privacy laws only allows law enforcement units to fly over populated areas!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2014 at 22:24 UTC
On Drone lighting could be coming soon to your studio article (129 comments in total)

Why not make something simple, when it can be done very costly, and complex?!

A a voice-activated assistant, female, if you are a male, straight, photographer is much better in every way, as she can help carry your stuff, doesn't drone, and is great company!

A drone like these we see here are lousy conversationalists, and make a lot of noise, stressing, and distracting the model/child/dog/young couple in every possible way!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 10:23 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
On Drone lighting could be coming soon to your studio article (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

RGBCMYK: I do see this as an option but think outside the studio, think about rim light on the edge of a cliff, prow of a ship, etc., yes you could get it with a boom poll but this could make for some interesting images as long as there was minimal wind

Where is that minimal wind over the prow of a ship? Ah, Titanic! But then you'd be better off with an underwater drone, I'd say!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 22:04 UTC
On Drone lighting could be coming soon to your studio article (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stephen McDonald: Just wait until one of those blades cuts off the model's nose. Of course, that couldn't really happen. Who ever heard of an electronically-controlled device that didn't perform perfectly?

More like damaging an eye, or two. A drone powerful enough to carry all that electronics (LIDAR, strobe, flashlight, RC gear, onboard computer), will surely have high-revving propellers, and most likely carbon!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 22:03 UTC
On Drone lighting could be coming soon to your studio article (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lukino: This would be really cool for a wedding photographer! Moving lights around without having to shout to a bored faced assistant must be a dream of some guys I know.

Oh, yeah?! A potentially lethal contraption, noisy as hell, in the middle of a wedding?! I would love to see what the insurer would say about that! a million dollar in damages if the drone goes out of control easily!

Remember that all the stuff the drone carries weighs a lot (LIDAR, strobe, flashlight, control electronics), and that flying a UAV at very low level in a densely populated area need a lot of safety features to be in place (like a safety pilot), and you need permits, and an insurance that covers it all — where can you get that?!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 22:00 UTC
On Drone lighting could be coming soon to your studio article (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

ovatab: drones can also take pictures

Yes if they are big enough to lift a camera, transmitter, and ...

Probably better in this case to have the camera on the drone, and have the photographer run around with the lighting!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 21:52 UTC
On Drone lighting could be coming soon to your studio article (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): Uuuuuuuuugh I'm so sick of seeing those drones everywhere!!!
It's just a stupid fad for rich people who don't know what to do with their money!!
It's totally useless and also dangerous!!!

Wlad: Where can you get a $50 drone that can carry a LIDAR, a strobe, and a LED array (or whatever the flashlight was made of)?!

At least a kilo of gear, probably more!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 21:51 UTC
On Drone lighting could be coming soon to your studio article (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

vincent__l: Let me know when it's possible to mount a strobe, battery pack, and large soft box on the drone. That would take "voice activated light stand" to a new level.

A big drone, say a remotely controlled Ericson Skycrane!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 21:48 UTC
Total: 421, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »