inevitable crafts studio

inevitable crafts studio

Lives in Austria vienna, Austria
Works as a 3d
Joined on Jun 24, 2011
About me:

iam building an analog drummachine right now

http://inevitablecraftslab.wordpress.com

Comments

Total: 607, showing: 481 – 500
« First‹ Previous2324252627Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)
In reply to:

Brandon Feinberg: I can add this to my dream list. FUJI X-PRO1 -Leica M9-Leica MP (Yes I still shoot with film along with digital)

no i shoot film too on an f3 and shoot digital on a d700, i would love to love the fuji, but focus by wire? not in this live, i allready had the x100, which i thought could replace the d700 most of the time, but the next thing i will buy is a used m8 for portability and a zeiss 50 or probably 35.

the fuji looks pro and sturdy, but i bet it has a polycarbonate screen like the x100, together with all the other flaws which made me to sell the x100

also i need manual focus and i rather use a used m8 then another "rangefinder toy" .. the camera that fuji tries to compy is still available, for less then the fuji. 4 years ago, when the m8 prizes where sky high, i would have taken the fuji ... now ? it will be an m8 or 8.2 FOR SURE

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2012 at 11:10 UTC
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)
In reply to:

mashimisha: I have been using the X100 for some time now. The image quality is great and the viewfinder is a pleasure to use when there is adequate light. Unfortunately, the manual focus is completely useless and the auto-focus is FAR too slow for serious candid photography. Unless these issues can be dealt with, it will never be a professional instrument.

Too bad Fuji engineers have been unable to incorporate an actual range finder into the hybrid. This focus by wire idea is crap. It is slow, non-intuitive, and prevents the user from enjoying the big bright viewer.

totally agree, i sold my x100 after 2 month because of the manual focus, and some other stuff

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2012 at 11:03 UTC
In reply to:

Karl Gnter Wnsch: Unless they manage to produce sensors that can convey the *full* dynamic range of the scene (not just 6-7 EV in video mode like today, which is at least 20 stops short of the required range) and the EVF would manage to show the same dynamic range (the OLED is limited to about 5-6 EV) and that without lag and without heating up the sensor and without draining the battery... EVF is a solution to a non existing problem, OVF is and always will be superior, it's just hapless NOOBs which crave for the EVF solution as they lack the knowledge (and with an EVF they will never acquire this knowledge) to judge a scene.
EVF are incapable of showing the vital aspects in any high contrast scene - so they are a deal breaker for many!

wysiwyg is nice if you dont know the camera or shoot jpeg, but as soon as you become familiar with photography and your camera you will learn how your camera behaves, and wont need this feature anymore, and thats the time where you wish the ovf back :)

this feature is demanded by people that arent really interested in photography at all, they just want the picture and thats it

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2012 at 00:39 UTC
In reply to:

DFPanno: No EVF is going to be superior to the human eye and that is what an OVF is (in essence).

Of course an excellent EVF stands to be better than a poor OVF but that goes without saying.

The substitution of one for the other may create the opportunity for other design advantages but that is a tangential conversation.

exactly .. you get the chance of viewing DIRECTLY through the lens with your eye ... and there are people that prefer looking on a tiny monitor ? who cares how much megapixel it has if you could watch right through the lens with your own eye ^^

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 23:07 UTC
In reply to:

JohnHoppy: Bad news for all who insist OVFs will always beat EVFs and DSLRs with mirrors and OVFs will last forever – Sorry, they won’t. The good news is, EVFs will keep getting better. When a mirror box/pentaprism camera costs 30% (or more) above the electronic solution, no prizes for guessing which way the makers will go. But be patient, and positive – tomorrow’s cameras will be better than today’s in every way, and guess what – eventually you won’t notice they’re all-electronic!

ok but you mixing stuff ...
evfs keep getting better, but ovfs are expensive ?

are we talking about whats the better viewfinder or are we talking about money ? because: YES an ovf is more expensive, and people pay that because its better and faster/realtime

even with 10 MP you need a SUPER fast internal image pipeline .. and the more megapixel you want in the viewfinder, the more CPU power you will need, the more batteries you need and the slower the viewfinder gets

with ovf, you dont need power while you compose, at the moment you hit the shutter, the sensor gets read out picture through pipeline and saved on the card and then it doesnt consume power again until you hit the shutter again. and its optical!

man that people in a photography forum are even discussing wether optical or electronical vieafinders are better, shows us where it took us that everyone has cameras nowadays even people that dont care if the viewfinder in an optical instrument is optical haha ... thats funny

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 23:03 UTC
In reply to:

kff: What would be so awesome for a good detail in time taking photos?

... minimum 10" tablet with cca 2600x1500 pixels ... Appple/Android/W8/etc. device with sensor and lens module like Ricoh GXR ... when I am thinking how to get someting for better using and really to see all deatils and of course with zoom view for more details !!!

max.800g without module ... for daily using and possibilty to load module from small sensor like compact camera to MF (of course mirrorless)

what exactly are you talking about ?^^

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 22:56 UTC
In reply to:

T3: I've been using the Olympus VF2 electronic viewfinder with my E-PM1 for the last month or so. I used to hate EVF's (I had one on my Panasonic FX-28 which I didn't like every much), but I don't have any problems with the VF2. It's not bad at all, and I've had no problem adapting to it. Now, I can go between a DSLR's optical viewfinder and the VF2 electronic viewfinder, and it makes no difference to me. And the VF2 is hardly the best electronic viewfinder out there. Plus, future electronic viewfinder will be so much better. So I think the future looks really good for EVF.

come on ^^which camera/ovf are you using ?

did you ever used an analog slr or a rangefinder ? nothing is superior to an optical viewfinder ... only cheao dslrs probably

i use a d3 and a d700 both with the 1.2x magnifier and no evf comes even close to that ..

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 22:55 UTC
In reply to:

wil13jak: Reading the posts on this forum and in general on most of the forums on this site one should never be surprised as to why humans will never be able to live in an "agreeable" world. There are but a small few who have posted here that have made statements that are remotely logical and intelligent. Most of the others (foreign posters forgiven) really need first to learn how to express themselves using proper language/spelling skills. If how you write is reflective of your photo skills then brides beware!!! Three thousand dollars for a typical "all day" wedding in many U.S. markets is very acceptable. I'm tired of having to explain why I charge what I do. I am reasonable, fair and as has been said here if a client is not happy with my range of charges capitalism allows you to seek another photographer.

iam foreign so, sorry for my writing skills, but at least my posting wasnt about the fact that you/she charges what she charges, its about this list she made ^^

i think everyone should charge what he/she wants ... if theres a customer in that pricerange ... why not?!

THIS bride obviously doesnt want to spend that much, or her dad told her not to do or whatever, but to write down a list of expenses ... i mean THAT list ... i think thats too much

if a grown up doesnt understand that he/she has to pay for material AND labour .. why write down that list?

2500 internet provider per year HA ! HA !
600 for a loaned car ?!
her private residence ?!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 23:07 UTC
In reply to:

thrill2k: One question I have is what did wedding photographers make in 70's, 80's, 90's, etc. I think if you are good you should charge whatever you can get, but has digital increased the amount you can charge, because you can deliver so much more?

i think it should be cheaper in digital, beside the filmstock, the risk of analog photos is WAY mbigger

thats the reason why everyone is a photographer nowadays, because if you shoot 100 frames at a subject, there will be (probably) one excellent shot in those 100

with film, only the skilled photographer could deliver this 1 good shot without shooting 100

i mean you can still deliver that as a good photographer, but to get better with analog photography you had to make lists, handwrite exifs, to somehow learn from your mistakes ... now if you halfwhat clever you shoot two pictures and figure out the problem instantly

also darkroom/repro ... way more risk and timeconsuming then digital

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 23:01 UTC
In reply to:

CanonPhotog: And I'm sorry, but counting your home rental (unless you would normally live in a cardboard box) as part of your wedding photography "expenses" simply because you're too cheap (or poor) to rent a separate space for your studio work is not exactly being very realistic (or honest) about the "true" costs of being a wedding photographer. Nobody cares what your personal expenses are - not your employer, and certainly not your client.

And what's that about high speed internet costs? $2500? Presumably per year? Well then, cut out the high speed internet throughout the rest of the year (8 months) when you aren't shooting weddings! That would save you over $1600/year.

2500 for internet can only be a typo^^

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 21:42 UTC

i just watched the portfolio of her
she is definitly a pro, you can see that on the blown-out sky in every photo

except one^^

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 21:40 UTC as 109th comment
In reply to:

Stan LS: He shoots 20 weddings a year and claim that he spends 28-35 hours on each one (8-10 hours shooting, 20-25 post processing). Come on! That's at the very most 35 hours. If we are to be generous and assume that he spends 35 hours on every single job, that means that he only works 700 hours a year. In terms of a 40 hour work week - that's 4 months and one week. Give me a break!

As for him listing his expenses as far as the equipment goes - it's not as if he's buying new camera bodies and lenses every year. 5DMII is what? 4-5 years old? Same goes for his workstation.

guys .. you are better then her .. if i have to heavily post process every photo its for sure lot of work

i would like a portfolio of this photographer btw

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

Navmark77: Emotions are running high here. Strip away the histrionics and she has a reasonable question: why does she have to pay what some people make in a month for a day of photography.

IMHO, instead of addressing the question on an annualized basis, it would have been best to keep it simple and say that it's actually more like 3-4 days' work plus expenses and list the prorated expenses.

Or, like a lot of people stated, point out that a free market seeks its own level, or range of levels.

no its easier, a normal person works 8hours, and a photographer on a wedding probably 18, and editing is also not 8h per day
,
i work in 3d animation, and when i say i worked 5 days on a project, it means i worked 5 complete days, and probably slept 8 hours during that period.
thats just the business, but the 112 hours i worked in this 5 days are worth 14 normal work days thats around 2.5 weeks mo-fr 8h a day.

and obviously, if i work without pause for days, you can be sure i wont charge you a normal price for that, but at least double the normal price. that live. you want i fast and perfect, then you have to pay ...

that the photographer that answered the bride only works 4 month and only has 20 jobs ~ 1-2 jobs a week is a different story ...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 21:19 UTC

hmhmmm .. i dont know, i mean a guy works for 4month only, and he does 20 jobs ... a year^^

and he charges his customers, so that he can live on that money for a whole year ... i dont know ..

i mean i run one man company myself, with everything the guy explaned, but i live in europe, and to be honest, i have way more expenses and taxes and insurance to pay than this guy ... but you know what? i just work the whole year, not 20 jobs a year.

thats like i start to be a christmas photographer. what? 30grands for christmas photos? yeah, you know i have to live for a whole year, and you know, christmas is only once, but i just want to be christmas photographer ... otherwise i would have to take pictures of old people or portraits, you know ... i jsut dont like that ..

also he buys a car on loan and pays 600 per month?
i only buy what i can afford :)

she was too harsh, but when i read his answer i probably know why she was so pi**ed :)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 21:05 UTC as 116th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Deleted-pending: WOW it looks like a computer from the 80's !!! :)

@cy cheze, but you got that his comment was just a joke ^^

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

Mssimo: 4k is for big screen theater. Some movies were make in 1080 but it does not look very good.
4/3 sensors are the same size of 35mm movie film (or half frame) The orientation is different. I believe someone adapted 35mm film to be used for stills. They turned it sideways so achieve a larger image circle.
In other words, 4/3 is the closest format to old 35mm film (correct me if I'm wrong)
Since its the same size, it has the same feel as far as DOF and Bokeh.
The u4/3 mount also has the flexibility to mount almost any lens mount format used for movie and still. Up till now, broadcast digital industry has been stuck with very small sensors. 1/3" broadcasting cameras still sell for about 10k

"i believe someone adapted 35mm film to be used for stills"

are you fu**ing KIDDING ME??? ^^

i cant take any of your post serious now, sorry hehe

btw that someone was oskar barnack with the leitz camera (leica) 1

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 20:41 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon 1 V1 and J1 review article (442 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Last in, first out.
Nikon J1 and V1, announced just recently and well after many other cameras and systems merely previewed here, now reviewed in full by DPR.
Long live Nikon!

Gosh, it's good to be the king.
— Mel Brooks [from History of the World]

if the q is a toy camera the nikon 1 system is less then a toy system.

i mean even if they are both toys the q is still the cooler one.

i think both nikon 1s are ugly cameras because the only things that can make a camera beautiful are features, and this camera has none at all.

and iam talking about photographic features, i mean even the last cameracompany gets it now that we want manual controlls and a decent layout, people holding the nikon d3 etc menu up when it comes to this discussion.
i know there will be a more manual like camera, but why does nikon have to give us two cameras like those for the start?^^

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2012 at 10:38 UTC
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)
In reply to:

Heru Anggono: The lenses are cheap by Fujinon standard. I wonder if Fuji will raise the price once they have large customer base using the X-mount lenses.

for sure, they wont raise the price, just making a classic lens line with aluminium housing and direct manual focus for double the price, choose yourself hehe

good news is, that cv will release exactly that for a price hopefully cheaper as the original fuji af lenses :)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2012 at 16:55 UTC
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nerkdergler: From a purely aesthetic perspective, Fuji seem to have targeted folks who take themselves too seriously to be seen holding a Sony. Interestingly, it looks like this has flowed through into the functional design too. It would not surprise me if there is some truth to the rumor that they 'made it big on purpose'. And yet they can't find room for a flash, tilt/touch screen, proper movie mode, etc - all useful features, but not consistent with its retro-chic "real camera for real photographers" aesthetic appeal. Not suggesting for an instant that it won't be a fantastic camera - I just dream of a day when manufacturers spend more time designing the best and most flexible tools they can, rather than deliberately hobbling them to segment the market. Yeah, I know. :)

they dont take themself too serious, but for some folks, like me, photography is too emotional as to spend money on cameras built by tv companies and walkman companies ^^

also if some guys, like me, want classic styled minimalistic cameras with prime lenses, is not because they want to be hip, its because thats what people allways used even before everyone posts mtf charts around the inernet

and of course they made it big on purpose, because first its aimed on western male photographers, and second the best manual control layout is wacked if there is not enough space to place the controls ... easy as that ..

there was always a big group of photographers that wanted to go back to the basics. i used an fm2 until i bought the d700 even if it didnt had af it was still everything i needed, why should i want a touchscreen and 100 submenus if i can use a leica m8 or fuji x100? ^^

its not the new hip poser that demands those features its the guys that didi it long before the hip poser :)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2012 at 17:53 UTC
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)
In reply to:

sockie: I would like to know if the X mount lenses project an image circle large enough to cover a full frame sensor? Certainly, for me, that would explain the slightly odd focal legnths and maximum apertuers of the three proposed lenses that we have heard about so far! And has already been hinted at by Fujifilm, this camera is just the first in a line of such Xpro cameras.

Fujifilm certainly recognised the importance of a fast lens and depth of field control with the X100, so for me, I find the current X-pro lens line up a bit odd. Perhaps it is wishfull thinking, but with the aparant iminent demise of Kodak's sensor division, will we see a Leica branded version of the X-pro 1 with an M mount at the Photokina show? Or even better, a full frame version? Will this be the start of a new Leica + Fujifilm tie up? Will a Leica M10 and equivalent Fuji camera be borne from this? Yes, perhaps wishfull thinking, but I have my fingers tightly crossed!!!

i thought about that to, but 17mm away from the sensor, and ff coverage for a system that trys to be as small as possible? ^^

dont think so

remember the sensor/lens distance has to stay the same if they want to introduce a ff body

and please, dont pair up with leica, thats the worst that could happen

pair up with ricoh, or pair up with zeiss/cosina voigtländer, thats cool

but leica? then its gone the good cheap leica-like camera

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2012 at 14:52 UTC
Total: 607, showing: 481 – 500
« First‹ Previous2324252627Next ›Last »