iae aa eia

iae aa eia

Lives in Brazil Paulista, PE, Brazil
Works as a EFL Teacher
Joined on Jan 13, 2011
About me:

The first camera I have ever shot with was my mother's, a Kodak Instamatic 177XF. In the 90's, it happened to me to work as a photographer, but I always had problems working by myself (lazy at doing marketing) and I didn't care to find a partner. What I needed was someone to deal with the marketing thing, promoting my work.

After a long time having different and unsuccessful jobs, I started teaching English. It happened by chance, but many opportunities were showing up, and I decided to move on with it. It's not photography, but I can say I still do something I love because I always liked English, so it never gets old. Yet, most things I learned through reading, including photography, were written in English.

The first contact I had with photography literature was in '80s. The husband of a relative of my mother (I have no idea where this couple is nowadays) was gave a pack of photography guide composed of two books and other four smaller and thinner. The two books were divided in parts, like technique, equipment, lab, and others; and the other four focused on a specific subject, and there were only photos in it. One was on people, another on women, another one on nature, and one on architecture. I loved them. Later on, understanding English, I could compare them with others written in English and I can tell you they were really really good.

The first contact I had with photography literature in English was in 1993. I lived in Natal. I was riding my bicycle and, passing by a supermarket, I decided to stop at its newsstand for a quick look at the magazines. I wasn't looking for anything in particular and didn't intend to buy anything, but then I saw that beautiful red glossy cover with lots of SLRs on it. It was the December 1993 edition of Petersen's PHOTOgraphic magazine. I didn't say word, but I reacted inside as if saying, "Wow, what is this?!" I had never seen such an appealing cover (uncommon to Brazilian magazines at that time). Having bought one, I also bought a compact Collins Gem Eng-Port Port-Eng dictionary and a calculator, and spent the whole month trying to translate most of the magazine and converting feet to meters and inches to mm and cm. I continued to buy issues of that magazine for the next 6 months. At first, equipment ads, cameras and lenses guides and articles, and shopping catalogs where the sections I read the most.

In 1996, I was living in Guarabira (Paraíba's countryside), and the owners of a photo shop in Natal called me and invited me to move back there and work as a minilab operator. That was my first job. They did that because they didn't have access to such awesome magazines and I used to go there and take mine and talk about photography and stuff, and they enjoyed that. While working there, I had the chance to handle some very nice cameras like the Nikon F3, FM3, Minolta Maxxum 9xi, and some others from Pentax. Canon was rare.

Comments

Total: 173, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Nikon D5500 Review preview (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

quezra: D5500: praised for not being too small
A7ii: criticized for not being small enough

Quite a nonsense comment yours.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 03:27 UTC
On Nikon D5500 Review preview (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

quezra: D5500: praised for not being too small
A7ii: criticized for not being small enough

Do you know that the A7II is mirrorless and the D5500 isn't?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 03:24 UTC
On More things we found cut in half (CP+ 2015 edition) article (139 comments in total)

I wonder if the cut-in-halfs are products made to the regular quality standard. Perhaps are very early models, or samples that, for any reason, would return to the production for corrections, and/or the elements on those products do not pass through the whole process of finishing. Well, I don't know.

I was surprised by the Tamron 16-300. Not by its beauty or construction quality, but by the "simplicity" and economy of elements for such a long zoom range. More than 20 years after the launch of that revolutionary 28-200 and Tamron doubled the zoom range without (practically) increasing the number of elements while obtaining better IQ. Of course, if we put that into an FF version, it would be way havier and larger than 1992's version, but still amazes me how they improved the quality without adding more elements.

It was funny the way you finished this post with that sandwich cut in half. Long live cut-in-halfs!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 15:35 UTC as 50th comment

Now, Ricoh, I challenge you to make an 18-55mm ƒ/3.4-4.8 no longer than the shortest 18-55mm ƒ/4-5.6 (or 3.5-5.6) from the competition. You'll see making this lens no shorter but "just" half stop less dark will impress much more.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 02:47 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I wish all of the camera manufactures realized what Canon has already figured out. Canon knows that if you get the word out there that your cameras are the “best” then it will take a long time for the general public to figure it out if that no longer is true.

Basically Canon is still riding high on their PR campaign from more than a decade ago. They still sell some cameras simply because most people don’t even realize that Samsung, Olympus, and Panasonic even make cameras.

I hate to say it but the other camera companies better start investing more into Advertising and getting their entire line of cameras in stores like Best Buy. It doesn’t matter how good your product is. Not enough people will buy it if they don’t even know it exists.

I believe all said to be the reason are true, but Canon cameras produce great images. I never had one. I had Kodak, Panasonic, and Sony. But I can easily recognize that. The gap between Canon and others have narrowed, perhaps a lot, but Canon deserves its fame.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 23:27 UTC

A suggestion: an equally advanced 13-91mm ƒ/3.4-4.8. I guess a less long range with a max aperture half stop less dark would be possible for an equivalente price and still be very useful.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 23:09 UTC as 5th comment
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1864 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I would prefer to have seen a 1" sensor with a lens with the same aperture of the LX7 (even if the tele end was as short as the LX100). That aperture range was a trademark. At least for me, it was like, "Man, I have a 1.4 Leica lens. Wow!" I know this isn't all, but it was quite an appeal. It really was a surprise to see an even larger sensor, though, but I miss this step lighter aperture range. I think I also miss the cleaner but catchy design of the LX3/7 and that less matte metal housing. But, well, aside these sentimental issues, it's quite an update.

@Scott Birch; I give up, man, but I encourage you to read more about aperture and I'm sure you'll come to realize a given aperture lets the same quantity of brightness to be projected, regardless of the sensor size.

Try this last experiment: Take two magnifying glasses of different sizes. For instance, one of 2 1/2" and 10x and the other 5" and 5x. Now make two diafragms using paper or whatever, one 2 1/2" with a 1 1/4" opening, and another 5" with a 2 1/2" opening, and fix the diafragms onto the glasses.

With the diafragms fixed onto the glasses, the aperture will be equivalent to ƒ/5.0 on both glasses. Now try to focus a source light onto a paper or a wall with both lenses (side-by-side, but each one distanced properly) and you'll see that the brightness is the same.

Regards

Direct link | Posted on Sep 22, 2014 at 00:44 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1864 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I would prefer to have seen a 1" sensor with a lens with the same aperture of the LX7 (even if the tele end was as short as the LX100). That aperture range was a trademark. At least for me, it was like, "Man, I have a 1.4 Leica lens. Wow!" I know this isn't all, but it was quite an appeal. It really was a surprise to see an even larger sensor, though, but I miss this step lighter aperture range. I think I also miss the cleaner but catchy design of the LX3/7 and that less matte metal housing. But, well, aside these sentimental issues, it's quite an update.

@Scott Birch; I'm sorry to say that, man; you got some points right, but your whole idea of aperture and its effect is not complete.

An ƒ-stop is calculated dividing the diagonal size of the sensor by the diafragm opening. The smaller this opening is, the less light is gathered. You got this right.

But... It doesn't matter how large is this opening. The diagonal of a FF sensor is about 43mm, so if the diafragm opening is 31mm, the lens is 1.4. If the sensor is a 1" one, it is about 16mm diagonal, and if the lens is also aperture 1.4, that means the opening is about 11mm.

Based on the paragraph above, we have that 31mm does let more light to be gathered than 11mm and also the former produces more bokeh, but the light gathered through the 31mm opening needs to "burn" an equally larger sensor area, which means the rays of light are proportionally as much scattered, resulting in the same illumination.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 17:28 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1864 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I would prefer to have seen a 1" sensor with a lens with the same aperture of the LX7 (even if the tele end was as short as the LX100). That aperture range was a trademark. At least for me, it was like, "Man, I have a 1.4 Leica lens. Wow!" I know this isn't all, but it was quite an appeal. It really was a surprise to see an even larger sensor, though, but I miss this step lighter aperture range. I think I also miss the cleaner but catchy design of the LX3/7 and that less matte metal housing. But, well, aside these sentimental issues, it's quite an update.

@Scott Birch; let me teach you something else about aperture. Obviously, by directly comparing the physical size of the openings, the LX100 maximum aperture will let more light get in than the maximum aperture in the LX7. But... The sensor size the lens on the LX100 must cover is also larger than the LX7, and all that extra light you optimiscally (and correctly) pictured just won't be enough.

Try the following experiment: fill up a pan with 2 inches of water using the tap in kitchen sink and then fill up a bucket with 2 inches of water using the shower in the bathroom. You'll see that the bucket won't fill up faster, even though more water will come out from the shower. This is an analogy to what happens in the camera, where the tap and the shower would simulate the physical aperture, the water the light, and the pan and the bucket the sensor.

The big advantage the LX100 lens brings over the LX7 is the much more pronounced bokeh due to its quite larger sensor (which is very welcome).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 04:56 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1864 comments in total)

I would prefer to have seen a 1" sensor with a lens with the same aperture of the LX7 (even if the tele end was as short as the LX100). That aperture range was a trademark. At least for me, it was like, "Man, I have a 1.4 Leica lens. Wow!" I know this isn't all, but it was quite an appeal. It really was a surprise to see an even larger sensor, though, but I miss this step lighter aperture range. I think I also miss the cleaner but catchy design of the LX3/7 and that less matte metal housing. But, well, aside these sentimental issues, it's quite an update.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 01:53 UTC as 199th comment | 18 replies

They are playing the roles of the Fiat Freemont and the Dodge Journey in Brazil, with the difference being that I don't like Fiat not even a fraction I like Panasonic.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 20:28 UTC as 62nd comment
On Fujifilm X30 (beta) real-world samples article (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I hope Fujifilm feels they have proved to their consumers and to themselves they could do a heck of a corrected lens, a heck of a sensor,... a heck of a very good camera that can deliver a heck of good image quality from this stupid little sensor (not stupid in a phone, though) and launch its successor with 1" sensors. Please, Fujifilm, satisfy yourself with this 2/3" once for all, will you? Or, just get into the phone industry!

Yes, Jones R, they are used in professional, broadcast-quality video cameras, and I don't see a problem in that, either, but I think you posted your comment in the wrong place, because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 6, 2014 at 02:55 UTC
On Fujifilm X30 (beta) real-world samples article (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I hope Fujifilm feels they have proved to their consumers and to themselves they could do a heck of a corrected lens, a heck of a sensor,... a heck of a very good camera that can deliver a heck of good image quality from this stupid little sensor (not stupid in a phone, though) and launch its successor with 1" sensors. Please, Fujifilm, satisfy yourself with this 2/3" once for all, will you? Or, just get into the phone industry!

Yes, I do. It's just that it doesn't make much sense to me a decade and a half later and companies are still investing heavily in enthusiast models with sensors as small as back then. I now there's a public for that, though. Compared to 1/1.7, there is 35 % more area in the 2/3, but in the 1-in, there is 100 %! Quite a difference. So, though not necessary, Fujifilm could fit 24 mp in a 1-in sensor and the pixels would still have the same size as they have in the X30 sensor. You see? Not that much of a problem. Should they had it, they just may had to have a little less bright lens (or with shorter zoom) in order to keep similar dimensions. Even a 28(or 24)-90mm with same aperture or a 28-112mm with 2.4-3.4 would be more interesting. Imagine yet a 1-in sensor with those 12 mp only? Pixels twice as large... Don't forget there will be new 1-in models and rumors say the LX7 successor will have it.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 4, 2014 at 14:19 UTC
On Fujifilm X30 (beta) real-world samples article (95 comments in total)

I hope Fujifilm feels they have proved to their consumers and to themselves they could do a heck of a corrected lens, a heck of a sensor,... a heck of a very good camera that can deliver a heck of good image quality from this stupid little sensor (not stupid in a phone, though) and launch its successor with 1" sensors. Please, Fujifilm, satisfy yourself with this 2/3" once for all, will you? Or, just get into the phone industry!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2014 at 13:19 UTC as 7th comment | 8 replies
On Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? article (312 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The problem with this kind of cameras is that the body looks big compared with the lens (or the other way around). The front lens element would be larger if it came with a 1-inch sensor and it would look even better (or perfect), I guess. You know, from 2/3" to 1" is not that a big step upwards, even considering costs, since 1-in sensors are widely produced already.

"Do we really need the Fuji X30?" Perhaps those who missed the bandwagon, are curious to see how better such small sensors have become, or simply want something nicely retro but doesn't know or care about sensor size, yes. Others, me included, don't. In a single answer: we don't.

Yes, it is going to change how I feel about it, man. Knowing the sensor is big makes me be less exigent about seeing a smaller lens. I take the sensor size/body/lens into consideration. I do prefer a bit bigger lens, but if this camera were a 1", for instance, but having the same proportions and the lens the same zoom range (and extending outwards the same amount), I wouldn't mind the lens size the same way I mind the X30, because I know it would require more technology to the lens and maybe even less aperture.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2014 at 17:20 UTC
On Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? article (312 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The problem with this kind of cameras is that the body looks big compared with the lens (or the other way around). The front lens element would be larger if it came with a 1-inch sensor and it would look even better (or perfect), I guess. You know, from 2/3" to 1" is not that a big step upwards, even considering costs, since 1-in sensors are widely produced already.

"Do we really need the Fuji X30?" Perhaps those who missed the bandwagon, are curious to see how better such small sensors have become, or simply want something nicely retro but doesn't know or care about sensor size, yes. Others, me included, don't. In a single answer: we don't.

I forgot to mention that that Nikon and Contax you mentioned are 135 format and their lenses have to be A LOT smaller if they want such compactness. Absurd comparison.

To each his own? Sure, man. I agree. I was just expressing my opinion. You are important to Fuji.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2014 at 16:44 UTC
On Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? article (312 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The problem with this kind of cameras is that the body looks big compared with the lens (or the other way around). The front lens element would be larger if it came with a 1-inch sensor and it would look even better (or perfect), I guess. You know, from 2/3" to 1" is not that a big step upwards, even considering costs, since 1-in sensors are widely produced already.

"Do we really need the Fuji X30?" Perhaps those who missed the bandwagon, are curious to see how better such small sensors have become, or simply want something nicely retro but doesn't know or care about sensor size, yes. Others, me included, don't. In a single answer: we don't.

Weird is taking these Nikon and Contax for comparison. They are quite smaller and lighter than the X30 already, and their lenses look nice on them (and their lenses specs are different and their smaller housing design helps their lenses to look more visible). You are a little confused about my opinion. I wanted to say that these recent months we've seen a trend towards larger lenses. Not that I think bodies should be very small, because it may be bad to hold at times. I just think we have enough technology and demand to have cameras with larger sensors inside and brighter lenses. And I didn't say anything about a 'big honkin' lens on the front'. Just a little (a bit) larger.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 12:55 UTC
On Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? article (312 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The problem with this kind of cameras is that the body looks big compared with the lens (or the other way around). The front lens element would be larger if it came with a 1-inch sensor and it would look even better (or perfect), I guess. You know, from 2/3" to 1" is not that a big step upwards, even considering costs, since 1-in sensors are widely produced already.

"Do we really need the Fuji X30?" Perhaps those who missed the bandwagon, are curious to see how better such small sensors have become, or simply want something nicely retro but doesn't know or care about sensor size, yes. Others, me included, don't. In a single answer: we don't.

What about the FZ1000? If you take this one and the Sony you mentioned in another comment, it becomes quite clear to me the addition of a 1-in sensor would not make this Fuji more expensive than the two. Even if its lens came a bit less bright ƒ/2.4-3.4 aperture, it would still sound more interesting. I myself rather prefer the more background blur of a 20 MP larger sensor to a smaller 12 MP.

The 12 MP one may give better high ISO noise results, but in both cases most people don't use the images at full scale, but half of it at most, and when that happens, this pixel count difference doesn't make any difference. I recognize the benefit of a smaller file size right out of the camera, though (but this doesn't seem to be a problem these days).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 04:35 UTC
On Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? article (312 comments in total)

The problem with this kind of cameras is that the body looks big compared with the lens (or the other way around). The front lens element would be larger if it came with a 1-inch sensor and it would look even better (or perfect), I guess. You know, from 2/3" to 1" is not that a big step upwards, even considering costs, since 1-in sensors are widely produced already.

"Do we really need the Fuji X30?" Perhaps those who missed the bandwagon, are curious to see how better such small sensors have become, or simply want something nicely retro but doesn't know or care about sensor size, yes. Others, me included, don't. In a single answer: we don't.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 02:09 UTC as 59th comment | 8 replies

Welcome to the boring world of too politically correct and humanization of animals (I love animals, ok?), and bye-bye other hundreds, thousands, millions of interesting led-by-a-human animal selfies.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 03:12 UTC as 429th comment | 1 reply
Total: 173, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »