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: 86, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (774 comments in total)
In reply to:

AmateurSnaps: I love the idea of a bridge camera but at this price what are the advantages of this camera over a Canon/Nikon/Sony with for example the Tamron 16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro?

Mirror lockup. The more difficult issue to get around is shutter induced vibration. This is why Nikon redesigned shutter on D810.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2014 at 07:15 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (774 comments in total)
In reply to:

AmateurSnaps: I love the idea of a bridge camera but at this price what are the advantages of this camera over a Canon/Nikon/Sony with for example the Tamron 16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro?

A little size. Also, potentially lens sharpness. I'm not sure about that Tamron 16-300, but most superzooms are pretty bad at the long end, and I know at least the RX10 is suppose to be pretty sharp out at 200 corner to corner. I know I had a Nikon 18-200 on a D7000 for a few months as a travel kit when on motorcycle rides and it was so bad I sold the lens. Useless beyond 150 or so. And while the APC sensor has much better high ISO, the 2 stops of lens speed will make up for that.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2014 at 21:48 UTC
On Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 article (310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Evgb: I just can't understand Panasonic:
12-32 kit is fine,
but if you want some portrait focal lengs -
to snap the kids,
you have to buy Panasonic's 14-140 superzoom lens -
or to have 2 lenses with you, and swap them all the time.
Thus, only the lens is more expensive - and not compact anyway - then Canon 700D with 18-135 STM kit.

Very dissapointing. It seems that if you have a family - it's a a point-and-shoot or a DSLR.

40 would make a lot of difference. You are correct that 64 equiv is a little short on for great portrait work, though not significantly so compared to 24-70 2.8 FF lenses that, while not ideal for portrait work, are the typical lens on a good dlsr if you are only carrying one lens. Though that's only from a feature compression standpoint, not depth of field, where obviously the 24-70 FF has a tremendous advantage.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 22:22 UTC
In reply to:

Mirrorless Crusader: #1: Not a wildlife photo and the horizon is tilted - terrible technique. Not to mention the choice for black and white is baseless.
#2: Should be horizontally inverted in post and the photo lacks detail
#3: Not a wildlife photo
#4: Way overprocessed and photoshopped
#5. Terribly framed. A bunch of negative space on the right and the bird chopped off on the left
#6: Not enough detail, poor composition, should be horizontally inverted, and impossible to tell what's going on.
#7: Not a wildlife photo
#8: Not a wildlife photo, that animal is domestic as you'll ever see.

@Digitail, what in the world does your post have to do with my comment? Makes no sense at all. I didn't say it wasn't a mistake, or should have won. I said the only possible excuse I would cut slack for was IF the contest rules (not artistic "rules") forbid ANY form of post processing, including straightening and cropping, which I admit is unlikely. Your response made it sound like I was saying it was cool he "broke the rules". Read what you are replying to next time so you don't waste your breath. Honestly, I think if the truth be known, he probably noticed the horizon, but decided that straightening it would crop in too tightly on the feet of the lion in the lower left, so he left it alone. I good example of why it's better to lose a little resolution and not crop in too tight with the camera.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 04:22 UTC
In reply to:

Mirrorless Crusader: #1: Not a wildlife photo and the horizon is tilted - terrible technique. Not to mention the choice for black and white is baseless.
#2: Should be horizontally inverted in post and the photo lacks detail
#3: Not a wildlife photo
#4: Way overprocessed and photoshopped
#5. Terribly framed. A bunch of negative space on the right and the bird chopped off on the left
#6: Not enough detail, poor composition, should be horizontally inverted, and impossible to tell what's going on.
#7: Not a wildlife photo
#8: Not a wildlife photo, that animal is domestic as you'll ever see.

I see a lot of complaints about the tilted horizon. It's possible that the photographer intended it that way I supposed, but since I don't want to waste the time looking up the rules, I'm wondering if there is something in the contest that prevents post processing manipulation? I would think cropping and straightening would be allowed, but I don't know.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2014 at 14:04 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: They're only clarifying the language, not the original intent. If you read the directives, it's pretty clear that they're not restricting us from photographing the wilderness.

The proposed language for the amended directive was put up and comments invited. They have comments and are going to adjust accordingly. This is nothing more than a step in the process and nothing to worry about.

"And those same workers could have been the employees of the private companies running the same parks if there were no government grab of the land. They would have also earned more, because they wouldn't need to support the huge inefficient bureaucratic pyramid above them."

Because there are so many large tracts of privately held land that owners have decided to open up to the public as parks... Clearly you do not live in a state where there are very little public lands but large private tracts, like Texas. There is virtually ZERO public access, even for daily fees. It's locked up by large ranchers who restrict access strictly to leasers who pay thousands a year for access to hunt and fish. If there weren't little pockets of govt owned land we'd have no place to go at all.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2014 at 17:04 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1869 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mais78: How does this camera compare vs a M43 in terms of sensor size and (theoretical) IQ? I am a bit confused.

It isn't really a theoretical, it's pretty exact actually. It is the same sensor in Panasonic's 16mp M43 cameras with the outside 25% or so cropped out. So, if lens quality were equal, you are going to get exactly the same IQ per pixel, only in a slightly lower resolution image.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 01:00 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (646 comments in total)

What I have trouble reconciling is the physical lens size versus max aperture. The lenses on the 1 series, take the 10-30 kit for example, are much larger than the equivalent fixed lenses on 1" cameras like the new GX7, RX100, etc. I get the extra length is largely due to the fact they are not collapsable, but are larger in diameter as well, so why are they so terribly slow too? 5.6 at the long end vs. 2.8?? Those 2 stops, in limited light, result in losing most of the benefits of the 1" sensor compared to smaller compact sensors. If Nikon would re-engineer a compact, affordable, quality 24-70 or so equivalent 2.8 lens as a kit lens for the 1 series (including WP version), I'd buy a AW1 today.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 14:57 UTC as 7th comment
On Canon PowerShot G7 X real-world samples gallery posted article (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

tarsus: Of course the LCD on the Canon GX7 does not tilt for anything other than selfies, that will be in version 2. Of course there is no EVF, that will be in version 3. After which you will have spent $2,100 on a compact camera. Note the progression of the RX series. You will have spent $2,400 to get the camera you want. The Canon G1X series is now at $1600 and counting. The next version with an EVF will put buyers at $2400. Of course the LCD on the Panasonic LX100 doesn't tilt because, well, you get the idea. I know they have to make money to stay in business, but my goodness we are seriously manipulated into spending a lot of money that I feel does not justify what you ultimately get. Smart marketing,? yes. Good for consumers,? no. By the time you get the LX100 you want, you will have spent $2700 for the tilt screen and a slightly longer lens. My only concession is the G1X bought used to shoot silently on quiet venues. Not one more step up from me.

I think the replies are a little harsh...I see OP's point, but the argument isn't very well made. First, you don't just throw away a camera if you upgrade, an RX100 I is still worth over half what it was new. Also, you have to take development cycle time into account. Clearly the Rx100 was the target during development, but the clever pop up EVF on the III wasn't around when specs on this camera were likely locked in. It's not like Canon execs are going to put development on hold and start over before release just because a competitor came out with something new. I'm sure size was at a design premium over EVF and tilting LCD.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 14:38 UTC
On Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review preview (453 comments in total)
In reply to:

arqomx: X30 or LX100.. considering that :
1. extra optical zoom reach is more favorable
2. on-sensor phase detection AF vs contrast-detect AF
3. favorable skin color rendering
4. cool-looking silver body
5. cheaper :D

I'll opt for X30..

I want to love the X30, It's got a great retro rangefinder appeal, solid ergonomics, Fuji image processing (which I still miss after years of moving away from their discontinued professional DSLR line). I'm just stuck on the fact that given that X30 is larger than the LX100, and considerably larger than the G7 or RX100, yet has similar aperture range (albeit with slightly longer zoom range), and only manages to have a fraction of the sensor surface of either. I think Fuji is going to have to develop something in between their 2/3" and APS-C sensors, and figure out how to squeeze it into a X30 size body without slowing down the lens if they want to stay relevant in the new high end compact market.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2014 at 18:33 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1869 comments in total)

If only it were ruggedized and environmentally sealed well... If I could breed this and the Nikon AW1 together the sibling would be the perfect outdoor, carry everywhere camera.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 15:04 UTC as 133rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

stevo23: They're only clarifying the language, not the original intent. If you read the directives, it's pretty clear that they're not restricting us from photographing the wilderness.

The proposed language for the amended directive was put up and comments invited. They have comments and are going to adjust accordingly. This is nothing more than a step in the process and nothing to worry about.

I'm certainly for for added layers of bureaucracy or red tape. Reminds of of the hoops I have to go through to shoot in Navajo Nation parks, but I wouldn't discredit the valuable work many federal park workers do to keep things clean, safe and available for us to enjoy.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 04:08 UTC
On Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lab Test Review preview (233 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 (1869 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 (2709 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 (453 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 31st 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 (233 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
Total: 86, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »