PIX 2015
SMPhoto

SMPhoto

Lives in United States Austin US, United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at http://scottmonroephoto.com
Joined on Jun 26, 2007

Comments

Total: 117, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

Arkienkeli,
I get what you are saying about Petka's comment, and I get that in film days, emulsion was emulsion and now bigger may not necessarily mean better, especially if "better" is narrowly defined as higher resolution. But it certainly SHOULD mean better. ie Assuming a manufacturer has access to solid sensor technology, and cost isn't an overriding factor, if they are choosing to create a larger, lower density sensor, it should be because they feel they are gaining IQ advantages with larger sensor sites, (such as higher DR, lower noise, etc.) that offer more advantage to their target market than increased resolution would. There's no reason that Leica couldn't put a 70 or 80 mp sensor in this camera with the same per pixel image quality as a FF DSLR. The same advantage that MF had in film.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 14:42 UTC
In reply to:

Lassoni: I'm sorry but this thing look rather ugly

Well...true to an extent, but looks matters at least a little to everyone. That said, I think it looks clean, serious and not bad looking at all. Perfect for target audience. Better looking than my D810. There was a reason MF cameras with interchangable backs look the way they do, but I can't say I ever really liked the way they looked or handled.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 14:26 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

guydr: A lot of whiners here over the VF, and why should you mention it one time if you can mention it 40 times. You're right it is a stupid decision to leave an small VF out (like in SX60) ,but it is not the end of the world because not everybody feels the need to hold the camera at arms lenght. If you're not have intrest in the camera iust for that, move on to the next.
Something else here in my country it is 949€ for the camera and 1149€ for camera + EVF. 1149€ is the same price of RX100m4 here. The RX10m2 cost 1599€, so 450€ more is not a bit more expencive, it's huge.
I'm gone buy one for the 600mm reach and the water resistant, but the price has to drop.

"not everybody feels the need to hold the camera at arms lenght" is the whole point of people wanting an EVF...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 14:13 UTC
On Nikon D810A: An astrophotographer's perspective article (113 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Wonderful images but this is not the right application for this camera. Those are more landscape than they are astrophotography. Those pictures did not benefit from the “a” in the 810A at all and it is wrong to claim that these pictures demonstrate the cameras full capabilities.

You need to photograph objects with Hydrogen Alpha reflections like the Horse Head Nebula, M16, The Rosette Nebula, and M42 through a telescope to show why the 810A costs so much more than its non-astrophotography counterparts.

This article was nothing more than one guy showing off his night time landscape pictures and masquerading them as astrophotography. That is a disservice to the 810a which is truly a quite capable astro camera when placed in the right hands and in the right location.

mpgxsvcd, post some astro shots in your gallery, I'd love to see what can be achieved without spending a fortune

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2015 at 13:53 UTC
On Nikon D810A: An astrophotographer's perspective article (113 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Wonderful images but this is not the right application for this camera. Those are more landscape than they are astrophotography. Those pictures did not benefit from the “a” in the 810A at all and it is wrong to claim that these pictures demonstrate the cameras full capabilities.

You need to photograph objects with Hydrogen Alpha reflections like the Horse Head Nebula, M16, The Rosette Nebula, and M42 through a telescope to show why the 810A costs so much more than its non-astrophotography counterparts.

This article was nothing more than one guy showing off his night time landscape pictures and masquerading them as astrophotography. That is a disservice to the 810a which is truly a quite capable astro camera when placed in the right hands and in the right location.

True, this isn't true astrophotography in the sense of deep space objects through a telescope, but I think to refer to the photographer sharing his experiences as a "guy showing off his night time landscape pictures and masquerading them as astrophotography" is unwarranted. I don't see anywhere that he refers to himself as an "Astrophotographer" or calls his work "astrophotography". He refers to the camera as being designed for astrophotography, then goes on to describe how these features have impacted his night sky landscape work. This is meaningful information to landscape photographers.

While this article may not be useful to pure astrophotographers, I think your complaint should be directed at the editors who titled the article "an Astrophotographers Perspective", not with Adam Woodworth. Had the article been pitched as "Is the 810A worth it for nighttime landscape photography?" or something like that, it would have been better received I feel.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 13:54 UTC
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (579 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: Cool camera, but it seems like it fits such a small niche market of wealthy hobbyists that I'm curious what sales numbers will ultimately look like. I would think very low volume, which unfortunately is probably a cost driver in itself.

Little known fact: CP/M was created by "Digital Research" but the company was actually incorporated as "Intergalactic Digital Research"...tell me that guy wasn't a Trekie lol.

We may have gotten off topic slightly..

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 17:15 UTC
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (579 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: Cool camera, but it seems like it fits such a small niche market of wealthy hobbyists that I'm curious what sales numbers will ultimately look like. I would think very low volume, which unfortunately is probably a cost driver in itself.

Yeah, in the late 80s I worked in a repair shop during college doing board level repair on the PC and PC XTs, Kaypros, Compaq portables, Apples... the old Compaq and Kaypro portables that were the size of a big suitcase and had a 6" screen are the most hillarious by today's standards.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 15:42 UTC
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (579 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: Cool camera, but it seems like it fits such a small niche market of wealthy hobbyists that I'm curious what sales numbers will ultimately look like. I would think very low volume, which unfortunately is probably a cost driver in itself.

Yeah, 64 was 1982, first one I had, however in 1980 the Commodore VIC20 was the TRS80's main competition, and was the first computer to sell over 1 million units. I almost got the venerable Timex Sinclair in 1981 that sold for $99 but parent's got me a 64 the next year instead. Big gap in the price between these type computers and the Apple/IBM machines of the day, which were generally limited to those who were pretty serious about it, and had some money, much like the Q.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 20:57 UTC
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (579 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: Cool camera, but it seems like it fits such a small niche market of wealthy hobbyists that I'm curious what sales numbers will ultimately look like. I would think very low volume, which unfortunately is probably a cost driver in itself.

Wealthy is likely too strong of a word. I'll settle for "well off". I wasn't, which is why I had a Commadore 64...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 20:44 UTC
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (579 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: Cool camera, but it seems like it fits such a small niche market of wealthy hobbyists that I'm curious what sales numbers will ultimately look like. I would think very low volume, which unfortunately is probably a cost driver in itself.

HowaboutRAW,
Actually I think we are probably saying the same thing from different perspectives. I'm actually not assuming ppl will buy for paying work, exactly the opposite, it's simply not versatile enough to justify cost. I agree that a non-pro with very high interest in extremely high image quality (at 28mm only) in a small package, who has enough income to justify the purchase to themselves will be interested, but that's exactly who I called "wealthy hobbyists" in the original post. I just don't think there are that many of them out there, so I expect sales to be very low. That said, those that fit that description and buy will probably be very happy.

While no doubt some of the Leica and Zeiss prime glass is spectacular, I do disagree that lack/expense of available high quality glass would drive someone to the Q over a high end DSLR. That's like buying a 911 over a 7 Series because it has better tires. Completely different purposes.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 15:50 UTC
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (579 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: Cool camera, but it seems like it fits such a small niche market of wealthy hobbyists that I'm curious what sales numbers will ultimately look like. I would think very low volume, which unfortunately is probably a cost driver in itself.

Who else would the market be then? Certainly the definition of "wealthy" may vary, but my point is, it's clearly not a tool for most professionals, where equipment about return on investment. Therefore, at over $4K it's a pretty expensive plaything for anyone else. For the average person, it won't accomplish anything a much less expensive camera can't do well enough, and for a professional, there are far more capable things to spend $4250 on, such as D810, 5DSR, etc. I supposed as a carry-around camera for a well funded professional, it would be a neat thing to have, but not justifiable for most.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2015 at 16:55 UTC
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (579 comments in total)

Cool camera, but it seems like it fits such a small niche market of wealthy hobbyists that I'm curious what sales numbers will ultimately look like. I would think very low volume, which unfortunately is probably a cost driver in itself.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 17:50 UTC as 85th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

Tom Nokin: The importance of this release will be decided by the correctness of Tamrons first point in their press release. If it is on par or close to the quality of Nikon 14-24 it will be a bestseller.

True, and since the coma performance looks respectable, it will probably hold some allure to astros.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 17:10 UTC
In reply to:

SMPhoto: 150-450 seems like an interesting choice to get one of the first 2 development spots, when you don't have the necessities covered yet, like a 24-70 2.8, 16-35 2.8, etc.

Points well made. I suppose I wasn't giving enough consideration to the fact that they have time to introduce those before or with their first FF body, and therefore lauched ones more attractive to current customers first.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 19, 2015 at 03:22 UTC
In reply to:

Diablorini: Will be interesting to see how these perform compared to fixed density screw in filters from the likes of B+W, Hoya, Formatt Hightech, Tiffen and so on.

I wonder if that ND 100.000 filter is strong enough to image the sun in full?

Very well. Based on lab tests of other filter types, such as Cir Pol and UV, Marumi is consistently ranked near or at the top along with B+W (and Hoya's best for UV). I like B+W's rings a little better, but in terms of optical quality, Marumi are among the best on the market.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 19, 2015 at 03:20 UTC

150-450 seems like an interesting choice to get one of the first 2 development spots, when you don't have the necessities covered yet, like a 24-70 2.8, 16-35 2.8, etc.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 19:59 UTC as 6th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Hey Tokina! 1987 called, and it wants its lenses back!

Really, could they have made these lenses look any more cheap and generic? If the lenses turn out to be great performers (which would not surprise me), then the horribly dated looks will be even more unfortunate!

To me it's not even the finish that makes the 24-70 look cheap, it's the "trombone" external extension. Screams kit lens. I much prefer the design of the Canon, Nikon, and Tamron 24-70 2.8 that have very little extension. Or for that matter, my old Tokina 28-80 2.8 FROM about 1987 (ok, more like 2000) that's sitting in the closet that didn't extend at all and was a great looking lens that was built like a tank. Unfortunately not so great autofocus and not real sharp or I might still use.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 02:45 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Nokin: The importance of this release will be decided by the correctness of Tamrons first point in their press release. If it is on par or close to the quality of Nikon 14-24 it will be a bestseller.

True. Like most other photography tools, it's really about fitness for a particular purpose. For landscape work, the 16-35 f4 is probably a better option do to the ability to use filters and unlikely need for f2.8. For low light indoor shots, the Tamron probably would be a better choice.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2015 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Nokin: The importance of this release will be decided by the correctness of Tamrons first point in their press release. If it is on par or close to the quality of Nikon 14-24 it will be a bestseller.

The ability to take filters is definitely a big plus. Or, anyone on a tight budget willing to give up another 1mm could go for the older 17-35 2.8-4.0 and save nearly $1000. It's a quite solid performing little lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2015 at 02:28 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Review preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: I don't understand why manufacturers (other than increasing gross sales I suppose) come out with ILCs then don't offer them as body only.

Well if that's the case, then I guess I'm mistaken. The article only mentioned the kit for $899 and when I search a few retail sites like amazon, i also only saw kit.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 20:54 UTC
Total: 117, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »