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: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lab Test Review preview (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

father fisch: I have been using mine for about 6 weeks now on a Nikon D7100. Mostly, I have been using it for photographing soccer games but have had the opportunity to shoot some wildlife. I hadn't realized just how poor the sharpness would be at 600mm. I kept thinking I was doing something wrong on my end! Still, on a well-lit day, I have much greater reach than my 70-300 on most areas of the pitch. I am very happy with this lens!

I get that part, my comment was the part about risking losing AF by stopping down to gain sharpness. Stopping a lens down to a smaller aperture for whatever reason has no effect on a camera's ability to autofocus. Only adding a teleconverter that reduced the maximum aperture would do that.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 04:24 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1178 comments in total)
In reply to:

zoranT: Please explain the reasoning behind wanting to buy this, provided that 'pocketability' is not the main criterium (which it isn't, as mentioned in the review). Why wouldn t you go for Fujis or Sony NEXes mirrorless etc. that also are not pocketable? Certainly bigger lenses etc., but remember, pocketability is not the criterium. Yet, much bigger sensors and thus better IQ. I simply fail to understand why someone wouldn t prefer bigger sensors including a comparable price range, when size is not the main sales point.

To me, a lot of the answer to that question will come down to lens optical quality. The size/price combination puts it more in competition with mirrorless with kit collapsable zooms, which tend to be a stop or two slower, and in my experience pretty bad optically. It the specifically designed lens is great, it might be worth the trade off to not be able to attach a variety of lenses for one small, good one.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 15:44 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II First Impressions Review preview (1741 comments in total)
In reply to:

Koemans: For 1799 dollars you get

-20 Megapixels, only 4 years behind its peers.
-20.2MP brand new sensor, this is the same brand new sensor as seen in the 70D. Dont believe me? Wait for other crop camera's from canon to get a 'brand new' 20.2 megapixel sensor aswell for years to come
-No touchscreen, only 4 years behind its peers.
-No Wifi, these features are pretty much mandatory for a 'pro' camera these days. People no longer want to pay hundreds of additional dollars to unlock features in an expensive camera.
-Interval timer, landscape photographers already use external devices and a fullframe for that.
-65 autofocus points,. They would stick to 19 if they could, Competition forced them!

The 7DII lacks identity to me

I bet you, Next year when a new 5d gets announced, we will get WIFI, 4K and all the other features that are missing in the 7DII, for the sake of product diversification.

Canon is like the iphone 6. Get the same specifications as the competition, pay twice the amount.

To me, it's not so much "does it have an identity?", but rather is it a widely appealing identity? the 7D has over the years became a bit of a niche camera, and I can definitely see the improvements reinforcing that. It's basically an inexpensive (relatively speaking) sports/wildlife alternative to 1D"x" series. I shoot Nikon, but a Canon pro friend of mine that shoots primarily 5DII/IIIs keeps a 7D in the bag as a backup and just for stuff where he wants extra lens reach and speed. The 7DII will be a nice upgrade for that. For the average 1 camera enthusiast, unless they are into shooting sports, would likely be better off spending a few hundred more for FF, or saving the $ and sticking with 70D/D7100 class. I think the market isn't huge, but for some it's nice feature set.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 15:31 UTC
On Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review preview (373 comments in total)

I would think Fuji might jump on the 1" bandwagon. This camera is considerably larger than the R100, yet has less than half the sensor area. I know that is one thing that allows the faster lens, but I would jump on 16-20mp 1" version of this camera, even if if the lens dropped to say 2.8-4.0.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2014 at 23:58 UTC as 17th comment

The photographer has really gotten a lot of additional exposure by the battle with Wikimedia. I suppose this may be one of those situations where everyone wins...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 21:19 UTC as 42nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

spencerda: Assuming that the monkey REALLY took it's own photo, I would agree Mr Slater has copyrights.

Why

One he owns the camera and the memory card and process the pictures.
Two We as humans do not give animals the right of ownership.
Three We as humans have ownership over animals and pets, we are held responsible for anything they might do, so there for Mr Slater has ownership of the copyright, laughing...

Maybe he should hire the monkey as an employee of his photo company...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 15:44 UTC
On Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lab Test Review preview (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

father fisch: I have been using mine for about 6 weeks now on a Nikon D7100. Mostly, I have been using it for photographing soccer games but have had the opportunity to shoot some wildlife. I hadn't realized just how poor the sharpness would be at 600mm. I kept thinking I was doing something wrong on my end! Still, on a well-lit day, I have much greater reach than my 70-300 on most areas of the pitch. I am very happy with this lens!

I'm not sure what you are talking about Lassoni, cameras always autofocus at maximum aperture (at least for still photography). It makes no difference to AF whatsoever what aperture you have set, even if you are setting it manually on a lens aperture ring.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 15:12 UTC
On Exposing sharks in a positive light article (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Claes: No wild animal is safe to be around pretty much.
Sharks are MUCH safer than other animals we do not create the same "stir" about. That is what I was trying to say. I am not taking others words for anything. I am a free diver and I have swam with sharks. Not great whites though.

But, lets say a lion grabs a not so wise person that visits the plains where lions roam, most would say, that person was a crazy dude/dudette.

In the ocean though, when someone gets grabbed by a shark, this hatred against them pours out. I find it it weird.

When you jump in to the ocean with sharks, you are on the plains with lions. So, do not get upset if you get eaten. You know what you are doing. Since it so rarely happens, should we not be more grateful to sharks? Respectful? Any shark, well almost, over say 2.5-3 meters can easily kill any person in the water. But they dont.

So, have respect for them, they are really powerful, but dont hate them for it.

It's certainly true that other large predators can be just as, if not more, dangerous. I think psychological difference stems from two things: One, the unseen. Most shark attacks come from sharks that were never seen before the attack. The hidden "lurking" danger conjures up a more sinister image for some I think. Unfair probably, but it's just "scarier". Second, because attacks are rare, I think people just don't think that they are in danger when they enter the water, with throngs of others, in places like Hawaii, California, FL, etc. Whereas if they were to go out on a safari in Africa, walking through the bush, they would be expecting the danger and more consciously "accepting" it. It's certainly true that if we let our child body board in Daytona Beach we are accepting the same risk, I just don't think people think of it that way.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2014 at 13:42 UTC
On Rare Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM goes on sale in UK article (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

steelhead3: I really would like to see some photos with that lens; I can put a 2x TC on my 600f4 and have with a crop camera and FF. Atmosphere just makes this a toy unless you enjoy wavy pictures.

I believe that the Canon 1Dx, with latest firmware, will now AF down to f8 like most higher end Nikons do.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2014 at 18:42 UTC
In reply to:

spencerda: Assuming that the monkey REALLY took it's own photo, I would agree Mr Slater has copyrights.

Why

One he owns the camera and the memory card and process the pictures.
Two We as humans do not give animals the right of ownership.
Three We as humans have ownership over animals and pets, we are held responsible for anything they might do, so there for Mr Slater has ownership of the copyright, laughing...

Who's to say Mr Slater didn't "take" the picture? He did everything except push the shutter button. He set exposure, placed the camera, etc. The only difference in this and shot taken by timer is that a monkey, with no copyright claim themselves, walked up and pushed the shutter release. To me, Slater planned and set up the shot and no other human was involved in the execution. If the law supports Wikimedia, I for one think it needs work. I'm not even entirely comfortable with it IF the monkey had been human. Imagine this scenario: You set your camera up on a tripod at a famous location, set camera settings etc., place your family and then as opposed to setting a timer, a bystander offers to push the shutter so you can pose with family, without having to rush. Now they own the photograph of you and can post or sell, even restrict your right to print it for yourself. I think it's the definition of who the photographer is that needs to be elaborated on in copyright law.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 22:35 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1531 comments in total)
In reply to:

mayurgogoi: I have gone through many reviews regarding Nikon D810--but the summery may be like this--This camera is the house of technical upgrade,but not in noise!

Am I correct?

I am not a pro-technical man to give certificate to Nikon D810--but my opinion is removal of Anti-Aliasing filter is creating a new problem--moire is seen in cloths etc--and though pics are more clear,but due to Moire Nikon is finding an solution --!

I am also noticing that Nikon D810's pics are little colourless,faded as Compared to 800E/800?My observations may not be correct!But My final words--Nikon D810 is technically best camera of Nikon,but We can not certify that it is 100% stunning--some faults are here!

http://www.pocket/-lint.com/review/129959-nikon-d810-review-says--NOISE is seen@ISO 560 in shadow areas(100% crop)

AlephNull, I'm not sure if you mean that the clothing your models wear doesn't induce moire, or that they aren't wearing any... If the latter, Chapeau! lol

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 17:41 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1531 comments in total)
In reply to:

phoman: It really is a silly thing to say that D810 is not suited for wedding photographers

I've shot plenty of weddings with D800 and I can't imagine why it's capture of detail would be an issue. Detail can easily enough be softened in Raw to JPG workflow where desired to be flattering to people, and retained where it benefits, such as venue, decorations, flowers, large groups, etc.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 17:36 UTC
On Readers' showcase: Landscape photography article (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

FMagalhaes: I found something to like in each of the photos. Congratulations to all of you who were selected.
I was wondering if anyone else noticed the peculiar artifacts in the strip of bright reflection that divides the mountain from its reflection in the water in photo #14. The part I'm referring to can be seen between the posts holding up the dock, and it's only easily noticed in the enlargement. There seems to be a discontinuity in that strip of bright reflection that doesn't look quite real. I like the image very much, but I'd like to know what's going on in that part of the water. Since it's DannH's photo maybe he can tell me what's up.

True, it's definitely a little less than elegant modification, but I'm more interested in the could phenomenon just to the left of the 2nd post on the right. It looks like a tornado on the side of the mountain. Obviously it's not, but what the heck is it??

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 14:33 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (661 comments in total)
In reply to:

SaltLakeGuy: ordered mine from a West Coast dealer today Saturday for next day delivery on Tuesday. Planning on some one on one full sized image comparisons against the Sony A77MkII just to see what this thing is made of. If it even so much as compares I'll keep it. I may be expecting too much, but I might just be surprised what it can do in stills. I won't pull punches however so we'll see.

Clearly the ISOs used will likely determine if it "so much as compares" or not. Clearly it will be much close in bright light and low ISOs.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2014 at 15:02 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)
In reply to:

cheie: I almost shot myself in the foot when i learned about the FZ1000, being an owner of the RX-10, but then i remembered how pleased i was with the RX-10, then i moved my foot before pulling the trigger. Honestly I would probably be happy with using either camera, as i have other cameras which can cater for other situations. The zoom range is surely a plus point for panasonic regardless of the aperture size decrease, but then that's no worse than my Canon 7D + 70-200 F/2.8 IS II + 1.4x extender III which maxes out at F4 too... (ignore the relative aperture size when considering sensor size).

Anyway, well done Sony for starting this battle, and well done to Panasonic for creating a very commendable contender. As for price, yes the Panasonic is cheaper by $100, but then i bought my RX-10 for $990 with 12 months interest free installments. That doesn't sound like a bad proposition either now, right?

Actually it's quite a bit different than 1.4x that reduces aperture 1 stop. The lens on the panasonic is essentially one full stop "bigger" than the Sony lens in that to double the focal length (with say a 2x) you typically reduce the maximum aperture by 2 stops. A 400mm f4 typically requires considerably more "glass" than a 200 f2.8. 300 f4 would have been more equivalent. I find it a pretty interesting Panasonic could achieve 400 f4 in a camera roughly the same size and weight as the RX10.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 16:42 UTC
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Higuel: PLEASE PLEASE! PREATTYPLEASE Dpreview: we are still waiting for a review!!! ;D

At the very least a studio test shot for comparison

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 22:02 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

jkoch2: A wider 24mm equivalent focal length. Otherwise, resembles its two baggy pant pocket predecessors. For the near $800 price, couldn't they have added time lapse, or how about 4k video? The latter is being offered on phones, so why not?

The <$300 coat pocket LX7 is more bang for buck: smaller 1/1.7" sensor, yes, but as many or more controls, 24mm wide end, longer optical zoom, and time lapse too.

Any as-good-as-new RX100i models priced below $400 might also be viable options. I seriously suspect that many are as-good-as-new, since not many buyers of a (originally) $650 camera will want to bang it around much.

I disagree. While the LX7 isn't exactly a cutting edge design, or a camera I would want to purchase, to say it's a joke because of it's body size for 1/1.7" sensor is ridiculous. Certainly the RX100 is a standout camera (at a standout high price) in squeezing a relatively large 1" sensor into an amazingly small body, but unless you are going to consider every other compact a joke, why single out the LX7? It is smaller than the GX15 or P7800 (albeit missing their optical viewfinders), has a MUCH faster lens than S120, which is what Canon sacrifices to make it so small. Clearly Panasonic's focus is in the m4/3 mirrorless arena, so I doubt a 1" the sensor is in their future, but the LX7 isn't a bad 1/1.7" camera.

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 17:12 UTC
In reply to:

GPW: One good reason to buy OME is because they are BETTER. I hear a lot of "my images are not sharp", must be something wrong with my camera. When I ask what lens they are using I almost always get a third party lens response. THE CAMERA IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE GLASS IT IS ATTACHED TO.

Last sentence is true, everything else is a misleading overgeneralization. Many OEM lenses are complete crap, and some 3rd party lenses are excellent. And this isn't limited to just cheap OEM vs premium 3rd party (such as the the $1000 Sigma 50mm 1.4), but also occasionally with premium OEM vs less expensive 3rd party (the Canon 24-70 2.8L IS mk I for example, with it's terrible field curvature problem was outperformed by the less expensive Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC lens). Bottom line is good glass is good glass, regardless of the name, and bad is bad. Certainly OEM professional grade lenses as a whole are a pretty safe bet, but it pays to do your homework with an open mind before investing.

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2014 at 21:23 UTC
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

dosdan: In the sample images at http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/medium-format-digital/images/samples/PENTAX-645-Z.html

Photo #12 of 12. The detail in the ceiling is impressive when viewed full size.

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/f95ecf99690c704290803c82c6b35d30/forUnderA3size__IMGP0044.jpg

Dan.

I know what you are getting at, but I would rather say "a real noticeable jump in resolution". There are a lot of factors that affect IQ other than number of pixel. A lot of high end MF sensors are also known for excellent color, dynamic range, per pixel sharpness, etc.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2014 at 03:55 UTC
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

BozillaNZ: So int he end Pentax still can't produce any full-sized sensor cameras! It's either Cropped 35mm or cropped 645, Pentax is for Croppers! It's sensor is far smaller than theactual '645' model number suggests, no matter how you fans spin it.

645 doesn't refer to the lens mount. It refers to the 6mmx4.5mm size of the negatives that the film version created on 120 film. Same size as all medium format cameras that created vertical negatives on the roll. Mamiya had a 645 too, with different lens mount, there's an old one in my closet. As opposed to 6x6 square (Hasselblad, Bronica) or 6x7 horizontal (Pentax 6x7) negatives.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2014 at 03:50 UTC
Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »