micahmedia

micahmedia

Lives in United States Portland, United States
Works as a Photographic industry
Has a website at micahmedia.com
Joined on Jan 25, 2010

Comments

Total: 651, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: Now try grabbing the focus ring.

Who's talking about macro? You think this is for macro? LOL!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 23:28 UTC
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: Now try grabbing the focus ring.

...and then try using the AF. Unless you're shooting with AF-D Nikon lenses, AF will work just fine.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 07:35 UTC
In reply to:

Rooru S: How much does Optical Fiber cost? Maybe I can put some cables and wrap them around a lens with aluminum foil behind to direct the light to the front...Or maybe try this...MMMMM

There is no optical fiber. It's all plastic. Optical fiber, I might consider the price justified. This is just injection molded and glued plastic. Even so, it performs pretty well. Just not for $200 and crappy customer support!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 07:34 UTC
In reply to:

Potemkin_Photo: Give it 3 months and every Chinese me-too shop will have this for $19.99 with free shipping from Shenzhen. Just wait, you know it's going to happen.

They are. But this design is slightly tweaked. I'm sure the tweaks will make it into the Chinese ones soon too.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 07:32 UTC
In reply to:

rayflash: Hello,
your information is inaccurate, chinese fake for 20 USD does not function,light loss minus 4-5 EV, compared to the RAY FLASH original.Llight output power of chinese fakes is insufficient for serious shooting.therefore the choice of every customer,what light quality will be use for photo shooting.

new universal adapter for all types of DSLR cameras

The comment by "rayflash" is an utter lie. I've used both and the knock off branded "Coco" is spot on for 1/4 the price (less then $50). There is no more loss of light with the Coco than the "Ray" branded version.

There are other versions that do not so closely resemble the Ray, and they are indeed not as good. But there is at least one that fully replicates the form and function for much less money.

Had the makers of the Ray Flash branded unit actually stood by their product and gotten me a working unit when I bought one, I'd have never learned about the knock off brand.

Also, the Ray Flash is anything but original in design. So there is no RAY FLASH "original".

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 07:29 UTC

Great! I can wait for the knock off version!

Seriously though, I would prefer the legit one, regardless of price, if only they supported their product better. I bought one of their original Ray Flash units that had internal elements fall apart and rattle around. When I called, they told me to go swap for a new one at the brick and mortar store I'd bought it at. So I did, but that one gave uneven illumination, and they didn't have any more that fit my flash in stock.

So I returned it.

A year later I bought a knockoff version. Same quality of light. Not perfectly symmetrical, but for under $50, I'm not going to complain. Unlike the Ray Flash which cost me $200. Not falling for that again. No, I'll just wait for the knockoff again.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 07:23 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply

There's no advantage for Nikon shooters, since a D3 is more advanced than any film body they ever made. And they've continued to raise the bar on newer models.

In Canonland however, there was the EOS/Elan 7 and EOS 3. Where the hell is eye controlled AF today?! Way to drop the ball down a well Canon. The one feature working is the only thing that would ever make me switch brands. Everything else is the same.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 19:08 UTC as 58th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Sdaniella: pp for film prints
done quite well

to call it fake

is liken to calling all digital images fake that have been pp for colors, saturation, wb, etc

if anyone can do a better job putting realistic colors into THE OUTRIGHT FAKERY OF B&W photos, only then can one claim these colorized ones look fake

The world is a) not still and b) not black and white!

It's a breath of fresh air to see someone else recognize it. (the commenter, not the "artist" in the OP)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

GeorgeD200: This, I hate. The fact that these photos would be printed in B&W was a central compositional factor to most of the photographers at the time. Adding color is disingenuous to their original work. It cheapens the photo and the artist that colorized them.

Many of these photos were designed to document a particular event, and color composition wasn't part of the equation. To add color to photos like "Migrant Mother" suggests information that is artificial. We don't know what color blouse she wore, and to suggest a color would be dishonest, unless properly identified as an artists interpretation, like colorized drawings of dinosaurs.

Your "central compositional factor" was a "technical limitation" in many of these images.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 17:24 UTC
On Pentax Q7 Review preview (240 comments in total)
In reply to:

pinholecam01: The CATEGORY placement is wrong!

DPR -please rethink and revert.

While other cameras are allowed as a unique offering by itself, the Q is thrown to the sharks by placing it with entry level ILCs.
It should be in its own category or with high end pns.

The Q was not meant to compete with entry ILCs.
And doing so has given the Q7 a 70% wrt wrong competition.
Its as good as placing FZ200 and even GX15 with entry ILCs because they look like DSLRs or RF and have the focal length range of a complete system.

THIS is what the Q7 is able to cover in real life/ real world shooting :
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/reviews/1292695-tokyo-story-pentax-q7-real-world-review-new-post.html

Huh? In the real world, these are the options that the camera is compared to. And it's not all that much smaller than my GX1. That's my opinion having handled the original Q and owning two GX1s. There's actually a smaller zoom option of m43, and there aren't any ultra wide angle options for the Q series. (I know, I tried some CCTV lenses, but it turns out they have odd apertures and none wider than 5mm are rectilinear.)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 17, 2013 at 03:54 UTC
On Pentax Q7 Review preview (240 comments in total)

If there were no GX7, this might have been interesting. The only way I'd lean back towards this is if they'd seen fit to build in an EVF.

Since they don't even offer one as an option (on any mirrorless camera they make in fact), it's a dead horse that they appear to continue beating.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 17, 2013 at 03:49 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)
In reply to:

chj: The high iso night shots look promising. Glad to hear the dual pixel AF works in low light. It's still looking like the dream camera for (night) street photography.

I'm impressed that it's 99.99% of the noise performance of my D7100. Of course, in the end, there's still more detail with a few extra pixels, but it's real damn close. That's quite a feat! Even with this dual pixel stuff.

Posted on Aug 16, 2013 at 06:37 UTC
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)
In reply to:

DVT80111: Live view AF is still useless for still picture until Canon add a EVF.
The screen is too small and my arm is not long enough.

...yes, a very large, awkward EVF. Unless you're used to 'blads.

Posted on Aug 16, 2013 at 06:34 UTC
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: "In the default Face-detection + tracking mode, pointing the camera at 'faceless' scenes can take about a second to focus on just about anything you point it at. " ... "What's sure is that live view and video phase-detect autofocus has a new champion in Canon's new Dual Pixel AF."

Really? I mean, it's not like anybody else has been making cameras with fast(er) PDAF live view... well, Sony's had it since 2008 (in the A350 and every DSLR and SLT since then) and Nikon has had a fast on-sensor PDAF since 2011 (in the Nikon 1 line), but hey, they're not Canon. Amazon sell a lot of Canons, do they? ;-)

Yeah, it's not like Panasonic was ever known for having the fastest LV AF either.

However, the SLT Sony models are bit different, since the PD sensors are not on the imaging sensor. If Sony didn't cheap out on processor oomf, it would be the fastest game in town.

Posted on Aug 16, 2013 at 06:33 UTC
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)
In reply to:

keithrj: I have just been looking at some RAW files from the 70D and noticed that the embedded JPG is the full 20mp size! So who needs to shoot RAW+JPG when RAW gives you everything - a full-size JPG for quick viewing, emailing etc. and RAW for serious work? A number of programs I use will extract the JPG straight from the RAW file :-)

Canon and Nikon have done that for quite a while. I'm not sure why Sony, Panasonic, and Fuji don't. Raw speed is faster for me on the C and N, so that doesn't seem to be the reason.

Oly appears to do an odd medium size.

Posted on Aug 16, 2013 at 06:30 UTC
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)

How come all y'alls test shots are at different EV? I could maybe see doing APSC at different aperture than full frame, but you aren't even at the same exposure.

What gives?

Posted on Aug 16, 2013 at 06:24 UTC as 242nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I predict that a few people that really know how to work "magic" with this camera will love it. Everyone else who buys it expecting it to work like a Panasonic or Olympus m4/3s camera will be VERY disappointed

This camera is for die hard video fans only. The autofocus is not what you would call speedy and the controls are not what you would call intuitive. However, the Dynamic Range is to die for and the RAW format is the Holy Grail.

You must not remember the original "home" video cameras. They were even more expensive in yesterday or even today's dollars and they were absolutely dad cams.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2013 at 16:53 UTC
In reply to:

utihomes: So,does this price reduction come about due to the 5D Mark iii now being able to shoot RAW?

The BM products still have the advantage the m43 products have: lens options! Especially when you factor in something like the Speed Booster. The mirror isn't doing any favors for video.

Also, that shallow DOF that everyone is talking about isn't the greatest thing for every production. Tracking focus can be a challenge and it can be distracting. No, there is absolutely a market for these smaller sensors on the video front.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2013 at 16:52 UTC
In reply to:

NeilJones: 4k is so silly. Just no market for it. 720p still the way to go for now.

To the OP: Go ahead and keep driving your diesel Rabbit. Let the rest of us appreciate the last 20 years of innovations in technology, mmkay?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2013 at 16:45 UTC
In reply to:

Photomonkey: A great achievement that will truly set the cat among the pigeons in higher end video. The biggest barrier to entry is the post processing workflow for the neophyte.

And with powerful multi-core chips and prices of GFX cards, the hardware for post is cheap/available too! You can build a great video editing rig for cheap, and even some of today's laptops are good enough for post.

We live in exciting times! At least for the creative types...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2013 at 16:42 UTC
Total: 651, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »