ManuelVilardeMacedo

ManuelVilardeMacedo

Lives in Portugal Portugal
Joined on Mar 1, 2012

Comments

Total: 1031, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (461 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnimo: If this camera had a 50mm equiv. lens I'd be far more likely to buy it.

I guess I'm an old-fashioned, outdated oddball.

Alexis, you win. 35mm have no distortion and are the perfect tool for street photography. Are you happy now?
(I keep forgetting I should never counter a troll...)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 19:32 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (461 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnimo: If this camera had a 50mm equiv. lens I'd be far more likely to buy it.

I guess I'm an old-fashioned, outdated oddball.

Alexis, I was talking about street photography, not portraits. I have done lots of 'street photography' (or rather 'photography in the streets') with a 34mm efl lens and with standard lenses, so I think I know what I'm talking about.
I cited HC-B not because I'm trying to emulate his photography - that'd be pretentious at best - but because he'd feel uncomfortable imposing himself on people - which would be mandatory if he'd used a 35mm lens. Some people don't enjoy having a lens pointed at their nose, that's all. Sometimes it's better not to get too close.
The Fuji X100's ethos was to be the perfect tool for street photography, but I think otherwise. Of course you are free to disagree with me, but I believe I'm entitled to an opinion.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 10:36 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (461 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnimo: If this camera had a 50mm equiv. lens I'd be far more likely to buy it.

I guess I'm an old-fashioned, outdated oddball.

I'm with maxnimo. I never understood the myth that you need a 35mm lens - or equivalent - for street photography. You have to get uncomfortably close to people, which may cause the distortion inherent to wide-angle lenses to settle in. Besides, objects in the background can appear too small. And - not that I'm a 'bokeh' fanatic, but it's a factor - you get too much depth of field. I'd say 35mm is terrible for street photography. Curiously, Cartier-Bresson thought that too: he used standard lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 00:16 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: Not really my thing. Of course the picture of the fat guy and the seagulls is hilarious, but the digital manipulation in some pictures reminds me of the appallingly kitsch pictures (if we can call them that) by Dave Hill.
It is far to say, however, that the samples chosen for this article are far from being the best pictures Mr Bradshaw ever made. The 'Venice' and 'Navajo' series, as shown on his website, say much more about his mastery than the pictures on display here.
I understand 99% of DPR readers are curious about gear, but I find it unnecessary to post a picture of the photographer's equipment everytime an article of this kind is published. For professionals like Dean Bradshaw the cameras and lenses are nothing more than tools that help them accomplish their job the way they want.
Anyway, it's always a great thing to expand one's knowledge about the state of today's photography and its masters, so I think a thank you to DPR is called for.

(*) It is FAIR to say. Sorry for the typo.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 14:32 UTC

Not really my thing. Of course the picture of the fat guy and the seagulls is hilarious, but the digital manipulation in some pictures reminds me of the appallingly kitsch pictures (if we can call them that) by Dave Hill.
It is far to say, however, that the samples chosen for this article are far from being the best pictures Mr Bradshaw ever made. The 'Venice' and 'Navajo' series, as shown on his website, say much more about his mastery than the pictures on display here.
I understand 99% of DPR readers are curious about gear, but I find it unnecessary to post a picture of the photographer's equipment everytime an article of this kind is published. For professionals like Dean Bradshaw the cameras and lenses are nothing more than tools that help them accomplish their job the way they want.
Anyway, it's always a great thing to expand one's knowledge about the state of today's photography and its masters, so I think a thank you to DPR is called for.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 12:56 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Would this lens be good for photographing birds in flight? I'm thinking the wider angle will enable me to photograph birds with a larger wing span?

Hi, Boss of Sony. This is me, the president of the Silliest Comment Of The Year (SCOTY) award committee. I am honoured do announce you this comment is now no. 1 in our ranks. Congratulations.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 23:12 UTC

I like the fact that these bags are rikishi-proof. You see, I keep bumping into those guys everyday. Some of them are nice people; others aren't. Especially when you call them 'fatso'. They are absolutely committed to destroying every camera bag they see. Trust me - you don't want to mess with an angry rikishi. Not when you're carrying a camera bag. Well done, Tenba.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 12, 2015 at 23:23 UTC as 10th comment
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1393 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alexis D: Looking at the picture of the On-Off switch above, I am really disappointed with it. I thought it would turn 90 degrees from the On position to the Off position, like how it was in the old OM camera. This switch is turning like a lever AROUND the dial and only for about 30 degrees, which is why it can misleading. Good point, Dan. Most reviewers would just criticise the position of this switch (which is not a problem, but actually a cute touch for those who are familiar with OM cameras), and not this misleading design.

Actually, you move the switch 22,5º to turn an OM-2 film camera on and off. With the older OM-1 you move the switch 45º. Unlike this OM-D E-M5 Mark II (couldn't they have made it any longer?), you could read the position the switch was on.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2015 at 11:44 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I like the fact that Pentax was able to extend its penchant for garish colour schemes to the 70-200 zoom. A yellow, a green and an orange ring! (Though, unfortunately, the latter can't be seen when the lens is mounted on a body.) I expect no less than a full-frame body in gold and pink to match.
Hopefully image quality will compensate for this chromatic exuberance...

Gold! Now I see why the lens is so expensive. Thank you, Petroglyph.
...On second thought, that makes it a perfect match for a gold and pink body.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 16:07 UTC

I like the fact that Pentax was able to extend its penchant for garish colour schemes to the 70-200 zoom. A yellow, a green and an orange ring! (Though, unfortunately, the latter can't be seen when the lens is mounted on a body.) I expect no less than a full-frame body in gold and pink to match.
Hopefully image quality will compensate for this chromatic exuberance...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 10:37 UTC as 7th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: It's big, and some aspects of its design could be improved, but it still looks better than any DSLR by Canikon. It reminds me of Pentax's medium format cameras previous to the 645.

@jpino, Richard: why do you think I'm a Pentax fanboy? Why do you think I'm a fanboy at all?
You won't convince me DSLR cameras are beautiful, no matter how hard you try. They aren't. The single exception is the Nikon Df, of course, but all others look like molten tar blocks. This Pentax mock-up delves into the brand's history and is, in my opinion, particularly successful at that. It's an aesthetic appreciation, it was never meant to be an offence...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 10:18 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: It's big, and some aspects of its design could be improved, but it still looks better than any DSLR by Canikon. It reminds me of Pentax's medium format cameras previous to the 645.

Yeah, right. Take the red ornament off a Nikon DSLR and it will be virtually undistinguishable from a Canon counterpart. You have to look pretty close to tell the difference.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 00:37 UTC

It's big, and some aspects of its design could be improved, but it still looks better than any DSLR by Canikon. It reminds me of Pentax's medium format cameras previous to the 645.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 19:45 UTC as 73rd comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Horshack: This is all fine and good except that a MFT drone @ f/2.8 is really equivalent to a full-frame drone @ f/5.6. I like the shallowest DOF possible when my drone is invading the privacy of my neighbor's yard.

The inability of people to understand a sarcasm never ceases to amaze me.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 11:13 UTC

I've always said Micro 4/3 would fly high, but I didn't mean to be so literal...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 11:11 UTC as 10th comment
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: Why on earth does a camera review (Canon 5D R) get ten times more comments than a lens' review? Bodies come and go, lenses stay (even more so in this digital age); that's why lenses are the heart of a phogorphic system. It should be the other way round, but I guess cameras have more gizmos and fancy figures... oh well.

What's there to read about a camera? It's just a tool. In two years it will be obsolete. Anyway, I think you missed the point. It was about the relative importance of bodies compared to lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2015 at 21:46 UTC
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (224 comments in total)

(Wrongly placed reply. Sorry...)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2015 at 21:41 UTC as 15th comment
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: Why on earth does a camera review (Canon 5D R) get ten times more comments than a lens' review? Bodies come and go, lenses stay (even more so in this digital age); that's why lenses are the heart of a phogorphic system. It should be the other way round, but I guess cameras have more gizmos and fancy figures... oh well.

I see your point, but... what good is a body for without a lens?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2015 at 20:56 UTC
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (224 comments in total)

Why on earth does a camera review (Canon 5D R) get ten times more comments than a lens' review? Bodies come and go, lenses stay (even more so in this digital age); that's why lenses are the heart of a phogorphic system. It should be the other way round, but I guess cameras have more gizmos and fancy figures... oh well.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2015 at 18:02 UTC as 16th comment | 8 replies
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (2340 comments in total)
In reply to:

lotuz9: This camera is such a disappointment that 10 people already had it, and only 1 still have it, according to gear numbers above:)

Time travelers, perhaps?...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 18:07 UTC
Total: 1031, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »