johnsaxon

Lives in United States Dallas, TX, United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at johnsaxonphoto.com
Joined on Jan 22, 2010

Comments

Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

In the early days of digital I used to shoot commercial stuff with a Mamiya medium-format and a Kodak 16MP digital back. You could see individual threads in the cloth of a shirt which was already overkill for the purpose of a printed catalog. Not sure why you would ever spend the money on this unless you wanted to make a really large print with very fine detail up close. This has surpassed the ability of any of the reproduction or viewing mechanisms that we have. Even with my Canon 5D I generally have to reduce the file size way down for any practical purpose.
Maybe the whole logic here is to impress the client with how state-of-the-art your gear is, regardless of any practical purpose.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 03:59 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies

In the old days Hasselblad made a cool filter called the Softar. It had a whole bunch of little bumps or "lenses" on its surface and had a beautiful effect. Your photo would have random areas of softness almost as if some raindrops had fallen on your lens.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2015 at 23:51 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
On article Studio tests and samples: Leica SL (beta) (753 comments in total)

Well, I don't think I'm going to run out and trade in my 5D just yet.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 02:57 UTC as 80th comment
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1512 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: Why on earth would anyone buy this pos over say the a7rII? I am confused.

I agree. The sample photos certainly don't look any better than those from my Canon 5D Mk II. I guess some people just haven't quite gotten the gist of the digital paradigm. I used to shoot with a Leica M4 when you could get some amazing sharpness by shooting Pan X. So far I have yet to see anything significantly outperform the 5D, and it would have to outperform it by a big margin to justify costing $12,000.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2015 at 02:43 UTC
On article Panasonic confirms Lumix G 25mm F1.7 (206 comments in total)

How exciting. Panasonic manages to produce the same lens that I had on my Pentax Spotmatic back in 1969, and it's only a zillion dollars. Except mine was actually f 1.4. Woo hoo.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2015 at 23:50 UTC as 12th comment

Looks like that $150 lens hood absorbed the impact. I guess it ought to since it cost more than my camera.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2015 at 01:52 UTC as 8th comment
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1609 comments in total)

Won't fit in the pocket so it might as well be larger. I just bought a Canon S110 refurb on their website for $129 that does 90% of what this camera does, all while fitting very easily and comfortably in my jeans pocket.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2015 at 06:24 UTC as 316th comment | 3 replies
On article Canon Powershot S110 hands-on preview (107 comments in total)

Your saying that the Sony RX100 somehow knocked this camera out of it's top spot is completely wrong. First of all the cameras are not at all similar in price, the Sony costing up to $500 more. (I just bought a factory refurb S110 for $125). Secondly the RX100 is much bigger and fatter and does not slip into a jeans pocket easily at all which the S110 most certainly does; I have carried my S95 around in my front pocket for years and never even realize that it's there, which you could not say about the RX100. Thirdly the RX100 does not do macro focusing at anything other than its most wide-angle setting whereas the S110 will macro focus at any focal length. What a ridiculous comparison of apples and oranges.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2015 at 01:45 UTC as 5th comment

Hey, I agree that just about anybody could have taken this shot but you have to give the guy credit for an amazing marketing job. And it is a pretty decent photo after all.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 00:55 UTC as 53rd comment
On article High-end pocketable compacts roundup (2013) (266 comments in total)

I've been shooting with a Canon S90 (earlier version of S120) for many years. This camera fits very easily in the front pocket of my jeans or shorts and it's small and light enough that I don't even realize that it's there. The lens doesn't stick out much and the corners are rounded so it's very easy to slip in and out of the pocket. You just can't beat this camera for portability. It takes great sharp pictures and focuses close at all focal lengths. I think the RX-100 is too chunky to be carried constantly in my pocket, so the extra pixels don't really matter to me. I can just shoot with my Canon 5D if I'm needing a large file.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2014 at 03:13 UTC as 54th comment | 1 reply

Just goes to show you.... it ain't the camera, it's the eye. This guy could take great pictures with a Brownie.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2013 at 17:32 UTC as 20th comment
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsaxon: Here I go again. Is anyone listening? This camera will not focus close up except at the widest focal length of 28mm. When you zoom to 35mm or 50mm ALL CLOSE UP FOCUSING IS GONE. The minimum focus distance at 50mm is 15.5" whereas my Canon S95 will focus down to about 3.5 inches at 50mm. The Sony will only focus down to 19.5 inches at 100mm, the Canon S95 focuses to 9 inches at 105mm.
I bought a Sony RX100 and had to return it when I discovered that it had virtually no close focusing ability. I use this type of close focusing every day with my Canon and cannot live without it.
OK, everyone enjoy your new RX100! just don't try to focus on anything too close to the camera. And remember that nobody else but you is having this problem, even people who paid about $75 for their little point and shoot.

Jens_G- I don't think that's right about the sensor size. The RX100 will focus to under 2" at 28mm. If the sensor size were the problem it wouldn't be able to do that. My objection is that it ONLY focuses close at the 28mm setting. When you zoom to 35mm the close focus distance jumps way up. This seems more like a lens design problem.
Also note that the RX100 only focuses to 15.5" at 50mm. That's almost 5 times farther away than the S95 which focuses to 3" or so. The Sony sensor is not 5 times larger than the Canon's.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 19:04 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsaxon: Here I go again. Is anyone listening? This camera will not focus close up except at the widest focal length of 28mm. When you zoom to 35mm or 50mm ALL CLOSE UP FOCUSING IS GONE. The minimum focus distance at 50mm is 15.5" whereas my Canon S95 will focus down to about 3.5 inches at 50mm. The Sony will only focus down to 19.5 inches at 100mm, the Canon S95 focuses to 9 inches at 105mm.
I bought a Sony RX100 and had to return it when I discovered that it had virtually no close focusing ability. I use this type of close focusing every day with my Canon and cannot live without it.
OK, everyone enjoy your new RX100! just don't try to focus on anything too close to the camera. And remember that nobody else but you is having this problem, even people who paid about $75 for their little point and shoot.

Yes, of course the closest focusing distance is always at the widest focal length, but I'm talking about a huge jump from closeup to totally not closeup with the slightest zooming of the lens. Very bizarre if you ask me, and makes the camera completely unusable for me. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the excellence of the Canon S95, but for $650 I certainly expected the RX100 to at least match the focusing performance of much less expensive cameras.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 02:59 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)

Here I go again. Is anyone listening? This camera will not focus close up except at the widest focal length of 28mm. When you zoom to 35mm or 50mm ALL CLOSE UP FOCUSING IS GONE. The minimum focus distance at 50mm is 15.5" whereas my Canon S95 will focus down to about 3.5 inches at 50mm. The Sony will only focus down to 19.5 inches at 100mm, the Canon S95 focuses to 9 inches at 105mm.
I bought a Sony RX100 and had to return it when I discovered that it had virtually no close focusing ability. I use this type of close focusing every day with my Canon and cannot live without it.
OK, everyone enjoy your new RX100! just don't try to focus on anything too close to the camera. And remember that nobody else but you is having this problem, even people who paid about $75 for their little point and shoot.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 23:56 UTC as 89th comment | 5 replies

I had to return the Sony RX100 that I bought because the close-focus figure of 2" was very deceptive. once you zoom the lens from its 28mm wide-angle setting the close-focusing completely disappears and the camera has absolutely no macro capability. (how about 15.5" at 50mm?) My point here is that now I'm paranoid and will not consider any camera until I can find out detailed info about the macro focusing AT ALL FOCAL LENGTHS. I doubt that Nikon would pull something as weird as what Sony did, but I'm just sayin'.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 22:50 UTC as 26th comment | 3 replies
On photo New York in the Look Up High challenge (3 comments in total)

Really cool photo. Very nice.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 22:39 UTC as 1st comment
On article Just Posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III review (706 comments in total)

I've been a professional photographer for 35 years, but have now retired from commercial work. When looking to buy a camera I would only look at image quality versus cost. The Mark II set a very high standard for quality and was about $2700 for the body if I remember correctly. So far I have never looked at one of the images from my 5D Mark II and felt any need for increased resolution or any other improvement.

Regarding the fancy metering, what are you doing other than averaging the light in the scene and then choosing an exposure value that will either blow the highlights or block up the shadows? I remember the old days when the film came with a little paper that said "open shade - 125th @ f8" - and by god it worked.

It's aggravating that Canon has jacked up the price of the 5D by almost a thousand dollars. Unless this model has a far superior sensor, which is likely not the case, just buy yourself a Mark II while you still can.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 22:36 UTC as 51st comment | 5 replies

Let me just run right out and buy this lens for $900. Oh wait, I forgot that I'm not one of the group of Serious Amateur Photographers With Unlimited Money.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 22:07 UTC as 27th comment | 8 replies
On photo PT3C9836 in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (3 comments in total)

I've been a pro photographer for the last 35 years. I don't care how many zones the metering system has, you still are only choosing a shutter speed and f-stop. I stopped even using meters after several years of shooting because I pretty much knew what the exposure was going to be. If I was wrong I would just adjust it up or down a little. You still have to use your brain to decide whether to expose for shadows or highlights depending on how you want to interpret the scene, etc. Frankly, it annoys the hell out of me that Canon would arbitrarily jack the price of the camera way up. My advice would be to buy a Mark II while you still can. Anything that surpasses the image quality of the Mark II is either way too expensive for the small quality improvement, or total overkill unless you're planning on viewing your photos at billboard size.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 01:56 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »