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 ever used was my mom's Kodak Instamatic 177XF. In the 90's, it happened to me to work as a photographer, but I always had problems working by myself and I just couldn't find a partner. What I needed was someone to deal with the marketing thing, promoting my work.

After a long time having different unsuccessful jobs, I started teaching English. It was by chance, it worked naturally, and I moved on with it. I can say I do something I love because when you learn something naturally and it starts to be part of your life already in childhood, it never gets old. Yet, most things I learned through reading, including photography, were written in English.

Curiosity: The first contact I ever had with photography literature in English was in 1993. I was riding my bicycle and passing by a supermarket when I decided to stop at its newsstand for a quick look at the magazines. I wasn't looking for anything in particular, 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 was in awe because I had never seen such an appealing cover (uncommon to Brazilian magazines at the time). I 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 adds, cameras and lenses guides and articles, and shop catalogs, where the sections I read the most.

Comments

Total: 167, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1425 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 (1425 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 (1425 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 (1425 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 103rd 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 (94 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 (94 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 (94 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 6th comment | 8 replies
On Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? article (305 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 (305 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 (305 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 (305 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 (305 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 428th comment | 1 reply
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (362 comments in total)

I... I... I don't know what to say.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 01:50 UTC as 63rd comment | 3 replies
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)

When it comes the aperure, I don't see the big deal here yet. Its lens has a very uninteresting range equivalent to ƒ/5.2-8.1 compared to FF, and still quite uninteresting to ƒ/3.4-5.3 compared to FT. OK, in its category it's quite a deal, specially considering how well this lens may perform overall, its compactness and beacuse it's taking the lead when it comes to aperture.

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2014 at 23:04 UTC as 505th comment | 3 replies
On 1991 Nikon-Kodak hack was first DSLR in space article (67 comments in total)

A correction: "...used 'an' RS-232..."

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2014 at 14:43 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: Haha! Come on! A normal lens is 55mm?! I remember that used to be wideangle and normal 70mm. Alright, the digital doesn't need to be bind to film era sizes, but do you really consider a decent step up going from 43mm to 55mm? That's ridiculous to me. Alright, the camera is awesome, the system too, it's a size other brands use in their digital-era "medium" format, and I can't afford one, it's just that it's even a smaller step than from an APS to an FF!

My point is that a normal lens in the 645 format was 70mm in the film era, a normal one in the 135FF is a 43mm, and a normal one in the APS (1.55 x) format is 28mm, while the normal lens for the digital 645 is 55mm. I'm just trying to say the difference between the APS and 135FF is much more than between 135FF and this Pentax's 645 (and others) sensor size.

Just saying it's a small difference (compared). If at least it were the Kodak KAF 39000's size (50.7 x 39), it would mean a reasonable difference (a normal lens now being 64mm).

I might be complaining too much about that because I love the natural miniature effect of a large sensor (without the need of a digital edit or TS lens) when the lens aperture is wide open.

And, Petka, I thought before posting. It didn't make sense and a point to you and others, but I did. It's a concept based on facts. Perhaps not facts or a concept contextually important.

Just speaking my mind.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 13:18 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 article (246 comments in total)

This will allow for more natural scenes that are trying to reproduce actions in the darkness, since the actors could play their roles with very little extra light or no light at all, making them to act even closer to real.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 12:11 UTC as 8th comment
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (660 comments in total)

Haha! Come on! A normal lens is 55mm?! I remember that used to be wideangle and normal 70mm. Alright, the digital doesn't need to be bind to film era sizes, but do you really consider a decent step up going from 43mm to 55mm? That's ridiculous to me. Alright, the camera is awesome, the system too, it's a size other brands use in their digital-era "medium" format, and I can't afford one, it's just that it's even a smaller step than from an APS to an FF!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 02:33 UTC as 108th comment | 5 replies
Total: 167, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »