iae aa eia

iae aa eia

Lives in Brazil Recife, 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 promote 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've learned through reading, including photography, were written in English.

The first contact I had with photography literature was in the 80's. The husband of a distant relative of mine (I have no idea where this couple is today) gave me a package of a photography guide composed of two magazine-sized and four less-than-A4-sized books. Each one of the large ones were divided in many sections, like technique, cameras, lenses, flashes, framing, darkroom, techniques, pro-photographers, etc; and the other four books focused on a specific photo subject, and there were only photos and short coments on them. One was about people, another was about women, another one, about nature, and one more about architecture. I loved that package. Later on, after I was able to understand some English, I could compare them with many other guides and I can tell you that they were quite complete and were really good. It was probably the translation of an American guide. A precise and well done translation, by the way.

The first contact I had with photography literature in English was in 1993. I lived in a city called Natal. I was riding my bicycle when I decided to stop at the newsstand of a supermarket 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 a word, but my reaction inside was as if saying, "Wow, look at this!" I had never seen such an appealing cover (uncommon to Brazilian magazines at that time) and that rich content in terms of equipment. 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, inches to mm and cm, and pounds and ounces to kgs. 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 we enjoyed that a lot. 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: 177, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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
On Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 article (365 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 (2962 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 506th 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 (680 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 (244 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 (680 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 121st comment | 5 replies
On Ricoh announces medium-format Pentax 645Z article (161 comments in total)

I think it was supposed to be already mirroless, with a nice EVF, and its sensor 56 x 41.5mm, as it was the 645 film frame area. 33 x 44mm looks like what the APS format is to the 135 full-frame, a cropped sensor to cut their investment some slack. Not a true medium-medium. Just medium.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2014 at 02:49 UTC as 43rd comment | 13 replies
On Windows XP is dead. Long live Windows XP 'Bliss' article (119 comments in total)

Not my favorite background, but I really thought it was photoshopped. The color rendition and the latitude of the film were enough trick.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2014 at 00:00 UTC as 41st comment | 1 reply
On Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 article (244 comments in total)

Jaw dropped

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 23:11 UTC as 51st comment
On Canon PowerShot G1X Mark II real-world gallery article (132 comments in total)

In my opinion no brand beats Canon when it comes to natural color. They only need a Foveon-like sensor to complete the perfectness.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2014 at 20:39 UTC as 56th comment | 3 replies
On Sony A3000 preview (681 comments in total)

Just bought it! I wish I had a little more money to buy the A65, but... At least the sensor quality is very good. The LCD is not that bad, but I would rather prefer a 3:2 one, because I don't like 16:9 for photos.

The EVF is really really bad, but not that bad because of the resolution per se, but the eyepiece. Small opening, all plastic eyecup, short relief, and the lens quickly loses a lot of quaily if you don't look very in the center. Practically unusable for long time.

The other things (including the lens [18-55]) and qualitywise, it is exactly what to expect at this price point. Not good not bad. Acceptable and useful.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2014 at 15:52 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

Shamael: Tomorrow, Sony will officially announce the new A7S, 12 mpix FF, speedy AF like on a6000, 4k video. After that, let's see how fast Nikon will lose it's shoes with it's hyper expensive stuff when the first ISO 250000 clean shots appear on this forum.

Sony is not the same Sony, man. They incorporated K-M, didn't destroy it. May never be the best, but not respecting Sony as (now) a truly photographic and video tool is ignorance. Nikon being a respected photographic brand and letting their costumers take advantage of all their lenses for decades will always play a psychological advantage.

Sony (as Minolta was) is a brand that plays on the other side of the game, betting on innovation, pushing conservative brands like Nikon ahead. Not that Nikon development depends on brands like Sony, but I'm sure Nikon wouldn't update their products quickly without brands like Minolta, I mean, Sony.

Maybe one having a less superior impression on Sony is due to the fact it chose (for now) to play in the upper-lower (and below) category, avoiding competing directly against D4's and 1D's, but that, in my opinion, doesn't make Sony any less good. What is Nikon doing in the superzoom and mirroless premium segment? Not better than Sony is, for sure.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2014 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

digilux: I still don't get the point of this vid....

Yeah, man, me neither. It sure is worth watching, the guys are very good and that dolphing jumping really caught my attention, but there is something else.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2014 at 21:37 UTC
On Sony A3000 preview (681 comments in total)

Once, we (including DPR) wondered if a brand could launch a camera that consisted of basic features but with a big sensor and good image quality in an SLR body for people who wanted to step up but can't pay much, or simply don't need, want, or care about many features, and, well, Sony just did it!

But I understand DPR's criticism on the LCD and EVF, because 400 k LCD's and higher than 200 k EVF's were already in the market in 2010, so I guess we all were kind of not expecting anything below about 400 k in low budget DSLR's and mirroless these days.

But, there's a rumor of an A3500 coming, and its specs say it'll keep the same LCD and EVF resolution. My guess is that Sony wants to have a camera in everybody's hands but letting it clear (specially in markets in developing countries, like mine) this doesn't mess with the other cameras, because most people here wouldn't recognize the true value of a cam with a 900 k (or more) LCD and EVF over one with 400 k.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2014 at 23:51 UTC as 18th comment
On Mockups emerge of new Olympus OM-D 'OM-G' article (332 comments in total)

Hahaha, April Fools'! Even if it were true, I couldn't believe their first attempt into FF would be so ugly.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2014 at 00:57 UTC as 82nd comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review preview (495 comments in total)

Only Canon I see can deliver an alternative I would choose instead (if I could afford), even if it were 90 % of the RX10's capabilities in all aspects (for the same price), including the lens range and aperture (a 24-200mm, ƒ/3.5, or a 30-200 2.8, or 24-160 2.8). Canon's new 1.5-in sensor has an area 126 % larger than the 1-in sensor's and this latter has a crop factor of 1.47 x related to Canon's, which means that, even if Canon stick to a 24-200 3.5, this aperture would be equivalent to 2.4 if it were the RX's lens.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2014 at 13:15 UTC as 62nd comment
Total: 177, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »