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: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X-T1 First Impressions Review preview (1656 comments in total)

The design flaws on the Olympus and the Nikon seem better addressed on this camera. Nikon is almost square, and Olympus EVF housing is too small. Nikon looks like a chubby military lady and Olympus looks not enough not toy-like. Fujifilm got right on on the design. The EVF house is very well-matched with the body. I commented about these design flaws when DPR first announced about them. Congrats, Fujifilm!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2014 at 23:22 UTC as 269th comment | 3 replies
On Pictures emerge showing widely-leaked Fujfilm 'X-T1' article (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: Wow-wow-wow!, but... More fullframes, pleeeeease! The more APSs, the less expensive FFs are kept from being, and I'm tired of that. I can't stand the fact 20 years ago the poorest of the poor could have an FF and nowadays is this funny situation. And yet, some people, not the poor of the poorest nor even the poor, but the middle-class, debate over and get proud of their 8-mm to 16-mm (equiv) sized-sensor cams. Pff! What a heck!

It's not only about the DoF. There are other interesting things about FF. For example, substancial body and natural toy effect. Once again, I'm not against smaller sensors. They have their merits and they'll always be the majority (they—M4/3s, for instance—are obviously much more convenient and versaltile). I just don't understand makers making FF cams to be sitting in the premium price range. Though smaller are preferred, I bet with you that if they sold FF cams starting at, let's say, 750 bucks, man, believe me, the sales would be huge. Maybe never surpass smaller sensor cams, but they would be enough to justify lower prices. And that Leica S2?, with that—wow!—56 % larger sensor than FF?, but still TWO TIMES SMALLER than the widely used (and quite accessible; compared) 645 format? Ha! What a joke. Only Santa can buy that.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2014 at 11:54 UTC
On Pictures emerge showing widely-leaked Fujfilm 'X-T1' article (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: Wow-wow-wow!, but... More fullframes, pleeeeease! The more APSs, the less expensive FFs are kept from being, and I'm tired of that. I can't stand the fact 20 years ago the poorest of the poor could have an FF and nowadays is this funny situation. And yet, some people, not the poor of the poorest nor even the poor, but the middle-class, debate over and get proud of their 8-mm to 16-mm (equiv) sized-sensor cams. Pff! What a heck!

If any of us were living in that time, some of the now old lenses would look as goog as some of today's ones do. We tend to think we didn't do our best in the past, but look, makers were impressing people the same way they're doing now!

I'm not against or don't like smaller sensor cams, I only think that 15 years are a quite good time to make FF cams more popular. I wonder if Sony hasn't been launching many and varied FF cams. Imagine if we still continued depending only on Canon and Nikon?

I still wonder why 20 years ago there were FFs for everybody (look, not saying should be the same way now) and 645s (and larger) for a quite lot of people. OK-OK, lenses are much better now and we can acheive the same (or even better) IQ on lower sensors, but, come on!, is that all? Where's the shallow DOF thing?

By the way, they say everything is bigger in Texas. Are FFs selling more in Texas? Wish I lived there. Guess I would get one used quick and way cheaper.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2014 at 01:16 UTC
On Pictures emerge showing widely-leaked Fujfilm 'X-T1' article (373 comments in total)

Wow-wow-wow!, but... More fullframes, pleeeeease! The more APSs, the less expensive FFs are kept from being, and I'm tired of that. I can't stand the fact 20 years ago the poorest of the poor could have an FF and nowadays is this funny situation. And yet, some people, not the poor of the poorest nor even the poor, but the middle-class, debate over and get proud of their 8-mm to 16-mm (equiv) sized-sensor cams. Pff! What a heck!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2014 at 22:57 UTC as 70th comment | 8 replies
On Wyoming's stunning weather and landscapes in time-lapse article (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I've seen many great time-lapse videos, but that's the first time I see one moving the camera and the focal length of the lens together, in perfect sinchronization.

They might have used an electronically controlled zooming system, but I wonder what lens allows hundreds of focal length microadjustments so precisely like that.

Simply awesome. Congratulations!

Aw, man, tsk-tsk-tsk (to myself). No dwarfs and no gremlins... Well, there's always someone lagging behind, right? Actually, I practically don't shoot videos. Just love this kind of work, but do nothing related to it. Thanks a lot for the explanation!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2014 at 00:08 UTC
On Wyoming's stunning weather and landscapes in time-lapse article (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I've seen many great time-lapse videos, but that's the first time I see one moving the camera and the focal length of the lens together, in perfect sinchronization.

They might have used an electronically controlled zooming system, but I wonder what lens allows hundreds of focal length microadjustments so precisely like that.

Simply awesome. Congratulations!

And how do you explain the last 3 or 5 frames of that scene where the zooming stops but the "camera" is still moving in? This kind of failure doesn't look digital. But, look, I do believe the camera moviment is digital, but not the zooming, unless you worked with the scene twice, superimposed or something, but shadows don't denounce that. But, man if you say there was no focal length change, I might be stubborn and say you're not telling the whole trick.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2014 at 12:37 UTC
On Wyoming's stunning weather and landscapes in time-lapse article (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I've seen many great time-lapse videos, but that's the first time I see one moving the camera and the focal length of the lens together, in perfect sinchronization.

They might have used an electronically controlled zooming system, but I wonder what lens allows hundreds of focal length microadjustments so precisely like that.

Simply awesome. Congratulations!

So, by saying false vertigo effect, you're implying there isn't any mechanical focal length change (zooming) in this scene? Or there is, but it was created digitally?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2014 at 12:10 UTC
On Wyoming's stunning weather and landscapes in time-lapse article (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I've seen many great time-lapse videos, but that's the first time I see one moving the camera and the focal length of the lens together, in perfect sinchronization.

They might have used an electronically controlled zooming system, but I wonder what lens allows hundreds of focal length microadjustments so precisely like that.

Simply awesome. Congratulations!

At 2:23 there is, sir. It started with a less short focal length and zoomed out a little. You can see the close subject moving outwards and the far one inwards. But, I'm not sure this is the effect they really wanted, because the most common is the closest subject not to move. Well, maybe that's what they really wanted.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2014 at 02:37 UTC
On Wyoming's stunning weather and landscapes in time-lapse article (231 comments in total)

I've seen many great time-lapse videos, but that's the first time I see one moving the camera and the focal length of the lens together, in perfect sinchronization.

They might have used an electronically controlled zooming system, but I wonder what lens allows hundreds of focal length microadjustments so precisely like that.

Simply awesome. Congratulations!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2014 at 21:02 UTC as 64th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I don't understand why some guys here don't like the idea of a modular camera. They offer lens interchangeability, the sensor is not ridiculously small, you can have them mounted on your phone (whenever you want), you can achieve far better image quality, can have easier software updates/upgrades, and even pay a lower price. Some guys are even complaining this news should be anywhere else! What is wrong with you, guys?

I love the idea! I have a Nokia 701. Imagine they have its software compatible with Symbian OS and I could buy a mount for, let's say, 200-300 bucks, and then a lens. Awesome! They can even offer handgrips!

The only problem I see with this kind of product is if they ask the same price as an equivalent camera.

It seems to me you are comparing it with a regular camera when you talk about being dedicated and more photography-firendly ergonomics and controls when it is, actually, a category of its own. Let's say, modular phone camera. What's wrong? 'phone' in there? Think about the better IQ it can produce for less money and the fact you are already saving the images to where some people prefer to have them stored, and not still having to transfer anything.

I've read some reviews on Sony's attemps and some folks saying there's not this port nor that button nor adequate ergonomics, etc, but they forget the purpose of the product, and buy it expecting it to become a transformer and turn itself into a heck of a camera. Not at all! Someone even complained there was no HDMI port. What?!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2014 at 02:33 UTC

I don't understand why some guys here don't like the idea of a modular camera. They offer lens interchangeability, the sensor is not ridiculously small, you can have them mounted on your phone (whenever you want), you can achieve far better image quality, can have easier software updates/upgrades, and even pay a lower price. Some guys are even complaining this news should be anywhere else! What is wrong with you, guys?

I love the idea! I have a Nokia 701. Imagine they have its software compatible with Symbian OS and I could buy a mount for, let's say, 200-300 bucks, and then a lens. Awesome! They can even offer handgrips!

The only problem I see with this kind of product is if they ask the same price as an equivalent camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2014 at 00:58 UTC as 10th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

utomo99: Come on Samsung. Try to make camera to beat Sony Rx 100.
With big sensor, fast lens and small body.
And people will be happy

Legit my... They're just holding themselves to the era when larger sensors were an issue. That is not the case anymore. Man, the most (common) compact cameras in the film era were 110, frame similar to 1-inch sensors! Even camcorders. The sensors were that small (as still are today) to allow the quick reading and processing of the signals. That's not the case today either. Smaller sensors than 1-inch are just profitwise components nowadays. Camera makers are perfectly able to abandon these 1/1.7 and smaller in regular cameras (except phones and internal movement zoom cameras).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 23:00 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: They should have taken the advantage of being able to make an even more compact 18-55 to make it any brighter with the same size and close to the same price. For instance, an ƒ/2.8-4.8. Or the same aperture but wider zoom range (but still the same size and close price). For instance, an 18-65 or an 16-55. Those alternatives would sound much more interesting. Better investing in such compactness for a mirroless system, because even with a pancake lens, an SLR will always be quite bulky.

OK, then. That seems too difficult for Nikon. Let's leave it to Sony.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 17:39 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: They should have taken the advantage of being able to make an even more compact 18-55 to make it any brighter with the same size and close to the same price. For instance, an ƒ/2.8-4.8. Or the same aperture but wider zoom range (but still the same size and close price). For instance, an 18-65 or an 16-55. Those alternatives would sound much more interesting. Better investing in such compactness for a mirroless system, because even with a pancake lens, an SLR will always be quite bulky.

You didn't get my point. Why are they looking for extra compactness in an SLR? Trying that on lenses for the mirroless system makes all sense, because they have a very compact body to match. But, is there anything much to match on an SLR body in terms of compactness? I don't see that, but perhaps you do. And the 18-105 is way too much of a difference in zoom range and price. I talk about little improvements. From 18mm to 17 or 16 at one end or from 55 to 60 or 65 at the other end, or from 3.5-5.6 to 2.8-5.6 or 3.5-4.8,... Little, bits of, improvement that would not let the size be any larger or the price any higher (well, at least not any higher than the usual little increasing that comes every little while).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 13:32 UTC

They should have taken the advantage of being able to make an even more compact 18-55 to make it any brighter with the same size and close to the same price. For instance, an ƒ/2.8-4.8. Or the same aperture but wider zoom range (but still the same size and close price). For instance, an 18-65 or an 16-55. Those alternatives would sound much more interesting. Better investing in such compactness for a mirroless system, because even with a pancake lens, an SLR will always be quite bulky.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 12:43 UTC as 31st comment | 6 replies
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

The Df looks like a big toy next to the F3. The same case happens with the OM-D. Nikon and Olympus still couldn't make them live up to a retro design that could inspire so much in terms of design and solidity. One of the factors is clear. Both the OM-D and the Df are less rectangular. More rectangular looks better when it comes to that specific design.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2013 at 21:02 UTC as 90th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Kurt_K: I think people are forgetting (or simply never knew) how good 1/1.7 sensors can be at ISO 100-400, which is usually all you need anyway due to the fast, high quality lenses that these types of cameras come with. Frankly, I think it's comical how quickly everyone jumped on the 1" sensor bandwagon after the release of the RX100.

It's not comical, just rational (or reasonable). I guess a good portion of the consumers of 1/1.7" sensor cameras (most of them for enthusiasts) were already sort of wondering if the sensor were somewhat bigger but still smaller than 4/3 (or m4/3). That's my case. I don't have a 1" (yet), but I had an LX3 (died of salt water) and many times I wondered how even greater it would be if it had a little bigger sensor (a size close to 110 film format, for instance).

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2013 at 14:27 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

The problem with the retro designs reproducing slrs is the proportion. Not only this one but also the Olympuses. They should've been wider, more rectangular, in order to look best.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 21:33 UTC as 472nd comment
On Fujifilm XQ1 Preview preview (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

DouglasGottlieb: The 2/3 sensor in a compact makes a lot of sense to me. That’s a pretty appealing little camera. But with the RX100ii coming with hotshoe, tilting screen and more capable video, it might be a tough sell. And I much prefer the XF’s style. But to me, this really exposes the X20. That camera should have gotten a bigger sensor in this round. Gorgeous and ergonomic as it is, the compact sensor in that relatively large X20 form factor no longer feels competitive. The Xtrans makes up some quality distance, but at some point, sensor size and IQ start to align. I’m eager to see a FF Fuji.

IMO, I can't see any sense about a sensor smaller than a 1" one, unless we're talking about built-in zoom compacts and phone cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2013 at 14:03 UTC
On Sony Alpha A7 / A7R preview (2372 comments in total)

This launch is undoubtly a bold move, and also bold is Sony's solution to keep from adding up to the price: assign half of the design team.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 05:54 UTC as 390th comment
Total: 167, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »