photohounds

photohounds

Lives in Australia ACT, Australia
Works as a z/OS IT, freelance
Joined on Jun 28, 2009
About me:

Someone gave me a second hand Minolta range-finder at age 11. No manual, no shop nearby and no Google, I learned DOF, shutter speed, motion, flare, film speeds by myself at a time when you had to WAIT a week for your Black and White photos.

Since then, I've always had trouble putting a camera down and have had well over a hundred cameras:)

I have been semi-pro for decades and see micro four thirds as a great compromise. Pro results without much bulk and weight means rarely I leave my cameras behind.

I find that people react better to a smaller setup but love the results.

Comments

Total: 222, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Cormorant taking off in the It flies!!! challenge (31 comments in total)
In reply to:

InTheMist: Who gave this a 1 star and why?

A bricks 'n' Bazookas legacy camera adherent?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 12:43 UTC
On Cormorant taking off in the It flies!!! challenge (31 comments in total)

Love it ... a shag but not on a rock ...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 12:42 UTC as 15th comment
On Sea Mirror in the Done With Reflective Surface challenge (9 comments in total)

It's gorgeous work!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2014 at 09:19 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

jhinkey: We'll see how well it matches up to the PL 42.5/1.2 - it will be tough I'm sure as mine is an excellent lens. Remember you do get AF and OIS for that $1.5K PL though.

You can get the zuiko for 300 here and there... it is sharp at all apertures wider than f/16 ... and AF

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 11:03 UTC
On Li'l Mama Spider in the Reverse Lens Macro: Close Up Photography challenge (12 comments in total)

I love this ..

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2014 at 09:11 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kjeld Olesen: Just a word of warning :-)

People got banned from the forums in the past for teaching the true words of equivalence :-)

Rgds/Kjeld

Nah, probably were banned more for being crazed zealots who just "have to educate everybody" and make them conform.

MFT gives high quality results without lugging an extra 6kg of junk. It is an EXCELLENT compromise (as are all formats). The MFT compromise works well for a great many "light artists" who prefer to take pictures rather than obsess over technical minutiae.

The "my camera format is better than yours becasue it is HUGE" chant is pure idiocy, and frequently shouted by insecure "bull artists" sometimes do.

FMF (full Marketing frame) is nothing more than: "we must do it this way because that's the way it has always been done". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0344qRfAOtA

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 04:06 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

cm71td: Micro 4/3rds Users: "We demand that our cameras are treated as equal to full frame in every way!"

Manufacturers: "We've been price gouging the full frame users for years. We'll be happy to oblige."

The ultimate camera is one that is good enough to serve your needs, but is priced lower because the market is obsessed with something newer or bigger.

Yes .. smaller "Stuff" of equal quality is often harder to cast/machine/grind whatever.
Possible exception: completely electronic items.

Therefore such gear is sometimes MORE expensive. That flaccid "more materials = more value" thinking, pushed by some is a joke.
It is simplistic Neanderthal "logic" that implies an F150 is a "better car" than a Porsche.

I certainly don't want my MFT gear to be just equal. I want/get performance AND portability.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2014 at 13:13 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

photohounds: Fast lenses became needed because film was rubbish if it was fast.

Also MANY (not all) "full" frame fast lenses are soft wide open - especially the affordable ones. Corner sharpness? Pay a mozza!

Canon's 85/1,2 is really a 2.8 if you want a sharp result. Let's not even talk about how UNsalable pictures of people with disappearing ears are...

For many of these wafer thin DOF crackpots the aperture of the lens is THE point of the photo.

http://photohounds.smugmug.com/browse

Some lovely soft pics thre...
I call:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1443/cat/14 sharp wide open, inexpensive, featherweight, tiny. (enough left over for the 75/1.8 AS WELL)
..
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/354/cat/10
None of the above, but good 2+ stops down

"Crackpots" means those who insist you MUST have wafer thin DOF to have good images - NOT the strawman you have tried to extrapolate from what I wrote.

One can get good OOF areas with the Olympous fast glass

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2014 at 13:05 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

photohounds: This discussion obsesses on the fact that you get more (but not excessive) depth of field. Yes it IS an obsession that neatly avoids some facts.
.
Using the 50mm/f2 vs 100mm/f4 example above ..
You ALSO get TWO STOPS BETTER shutter speed (4 times as fast).
(better sharpness)
You get QUADRUPLE the flash range (faster recycle or More range)
I once shot a Canon FF PRO user with the 50mm f2. She remarked: "I've never SEEN so much detail".
.
Further - you also get (mostly) MUCH smaller, lighter lenses and faster zooms.
.
You also get typically 1/2 to 1/3 the VIGNETTING that full Marketing Frame (FMF) lenses can manage. This is excellent if you like to shoot images with the main subject OUTSIDE the centre third of the image but still want it sharp. Generally (with few exceptions) APS-C lenses fall halfway between for good vignetting resistance.
.
Examples .. http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/Eurobeat-by-Supa/

Ah, a strawman ... Yes the restricted DOF effect can be fun. Over use of the "look I've got a fast lens" can get old pretty fast.
.
The most hilarious shot I ever saw was taken with that soft C.85/1,2 - NO EARS! In portraits a little environmental information is more often than not desirable.
.
What I object to is the constant insinuation that you cannot have shallow enough DOF unless you are using FMF. Bollox.
.
Here, http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/Eurobeat-by-Supa/ The portability of my gear meant that I was able to get just the right DOF - AND a good range of angles. Shot during ONE performance and I only had one body at that stage: 45, 75 and 12mm. The local photo society was also present as I shot handheld in the murky light. Their large, cumbersome gear, tripod bound, my keepers outnumbered their total sum tenfold.
.
Less BG? Easily be done in a studio or "gasp" choosing one's shooting position carefully. What is it they say about a bad workman?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 17:07 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

Charlie boots: The only people who this is really relevant to are those that used 35mm film when the only interchangeable lens cameras were 35mm and we all knew what a 50mm or other focal length lens was.

Most of the new SLR and other smaller sensor camera users have no idea of the relationship between 35mm lenses and their sensors, and why should they care. A wide angle is a wide andgle and a tele is just that. Most people use zooms anyway.

Yes it is good to refer to a common standard for an apples to apples comparison and for those that want to dig deeper all this info is useful in making better photos. The huge majority however simply want to take snap shots for viewing in electronic media and it should be a fun activity without having to bother about focal lengths etc.

Not quite ..
.
There were half frame and even smaller 110 interchangeable lens cameras at one end.
.
At the other, larger formats 6x4.5 6x6 6x7 6x9 and that's before we get to CUT FILM.
.
All had interchangeable.lenses - 35mm was the CONSUMER camera and good for (relatively) compact sports use

35mm was UNACCEPTABLE until the sensor (film) was good enough, I used a Mamiya BB67 for wedding formals into the nineties
.
... It completely outclassed 35mm, which I used for the rest of the shoot.
That was then.
Fact is: The OMD out-resolves the RB67 (with about 20 TIMES the negative area) by a VERY LARGE margin.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 10:42 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

Oleg Vinokurov: Plain logic, nothing difficult here. I think why so many fights appear about equivalence is that some people simply protect format that they chose to use, often focusing only on one point.

But nice examples, could help some people adjust better if they move to different format.

I like panos .. Vignetting makes this harder to stitch.
This Full Marketing Frame (FMF) lens would make it a NIGHTMARE less than 3 stops from wide open.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare?lensId=sony_35_1p4_g&cameraId=sony_dslra900&version=0&fl=35&av=1.4&view=falloff
It would LOOK like a patchwork quilt.
Many FMF lenses have ~ 2 stops falloff from centre to wedge. NO THANKS.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 10:09 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

photohounds: This discussion obsesses on the fact that you get more (but not excessive) depth of field. Yes it IS an obsession that neatly avoids some facts.
.
Using the 50mm/f2 vs 100mm/f4 example above ..
You ALSO get TWO STOPS BETTER shutter speed (4 times as fast).
(better sharpness)
You get QUADRUPLE the flash range (faster recycle or More range)
I once shot a Canon FF PRO user with the 50mm f2. She remarked: "I've never SEEN so much detail".
.
Further - you also get (mostly) MUCH smaller, lighter lenses and faster zooms.
.
You also get typically 1/2 to 1/3 the VIGNETTING that full Marketing Frame (FMF) lenses can manage. This is excellent if you like to shoot images with the main subject OUTSIDE the centre third of the image but still want it sharp. Generally (with few exceptions) APS-C lenses fall halfway between for good vignetting resistance.
.
Examples .. http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/Eurobeat-by-Supa/

True Bobn2 - the MFT user will also have 2 STOPS of shutter speed up his/her sleeve to console him/her :)
.
Up to a point .. MOST of the time people can use MORE DOF - it is an age old photographers lament and WHY RAIL CAMERAS have MOVEMENTS to compensate.

Those fast and often tiny MFT lenses give great OOF bokeh, by the way. I have several such lenses. I had a Mamiya RB67 when you needed large cameras to make a decent picture. Sold it and all the other legacy formats. No problem.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 05:31 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

photohounds: Further ...
.
"That's the way we've always done it" is not enough to fool everyone into thinking large equipment is needed for quality pictures. It is FUD - there are many articles like the one below, from PROs who have switched and never looked back.
.
http://www.smallcamerabigpicture.com/how-to-overcome-fears-using-micro-43rds-cameras-in-a-professional-environment/

The "big" advantage mostly isn't. _ Both my EM-1 and my EM-5 trounce my 6x7 camera in every sharpness/grain/noise measure I can muster. The MARGIN by which these small Olympus EM cameras defeat this great (but huge) camera (Mamiya RB-67 Professional S), astonished me.
.
Large is NO longer needed except for SOME extreme technical photography.
.
Most of the larger format adherents use maths to support their quasi-religious belief that a faster lens is "needed" to compensate for photographers who have no skill or inclination to watch the background.
.
see .. http://photohounds.smugmug.com/6x7-early-80s/

Pseudo logic.
.
Most people "need a truck, bus or an aircraft" at times. The intelligent ones do NOT usually buy one. NOR do they tell others their sedans are "inferior".
.
The Equivalence Police Terr0rists and their religion indeed DO imply inferiority because some wiser people choose NOT to OWN trucks (FMF) and prefer more compact gear in their baggage that produces "equivalent" results.
.
Legacy adherents ... The mere "need" of them to spruik this misuse of maths displays the religious aspect of their pedantry. I SOLD my Mamiya RB67 - the old EM-5 left it in the DUST. http://photohounds.smugmug.com/6x7-early-80s/
.
Four Thirds produces results
I shot against half a dozen FMF users at this and the other shoots in the gallery - a level or two up.
.
There were - many record shots (I have to please everyone). MY numerous keepers SOLD more than the rest PUT TOGETHER.
.
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/Eurobeat-by-Supa/
.
RESULTS, not pining for legacy formats.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 05:25 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)

Further ...
.
"That's the way we've always done it" is not enough to fool everyone into thinking large equipment is needed for quality pictures. It is FUD - there are many articles like the one below, from PROs who have switched and never looked back.
.
http://www.smallcamerabigpicture.com/how-to-overcome-fears-using-micro-43rds-cameras-in-a-professional-environment/

The "big" advantage mostly isn't. _ Both my EM-1 and my EM-5 trounce my 6x7 camera in every sharpness/grain/noise measure I can muster. The MARGIN by which these small Olympus EM cameras defeat this great (but huge) camera (Mamiya RB-67 Professional S), astonished me.
.
Large is NO longer needed except for SOME extreme technical photography.
.
Most of the larger format adherents use maths to support their quasi-religious belief that a faster lens is "needed" to compensate for photographers who have no skill or inclination to watch the background.
.
see .. http://photohounds.smugmug.com/6x7-early-80s/

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 08:03 UTC as 42nd comment | 5 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)

This discussion obsesses on the fact that you get more (but not excessive) depth of field. Yes it IS an obsession that neatly avoids some facts.
.
Using the 50mm/f2 vs 100mm/f4 example above ..
You ALSO get TWO STOPS BETTER shutter speed (4 times as fast).
(better sharpness)
You get QUADRUPLE the flash range (faster recycle or More range)
I once shot a Canon FF PRO user with the 50mm f2. She remarked: "I've never SEEN so much detail".
.
Further - you also get (mostly) MUCH smaller, lighter lenses and faster zooms.
.
You also get typically 1/2 to 1/3 the VIGNETTING that full Marketing Frame (FMF) lenses can manage. This is excellent if you like to shoot images with the main subject OUTSIDE the centre third of the image but still want it sharp. Generally (with few exceptions) APS-C lenses fall halfway between for good vignetting resistance.
.
Examples .. http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/Eurobeat-by-Supa/

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 08:02 UTC as 43rd comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Michael_13: To all the 'equivalence guys':
Go and buy your equivalent lens and keep quiet here in the forum.
:-)

Same with the "cost of materials" idiots.
.
This system can be used to make fine pictures in MORE ways than any other compact systems and in most respects it equals the bricks 'n' bazookas brigade.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 13:04 UTC
In reply to:

Poweruser: I expect a price drop for Panasonics 35-100/2.8...

I've used the panny 35-200
.
It is nice but not stellar and it certainly IS overpriced.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 13:01 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: We have an 80-300mm F5.6 (35mm equiv.) at 880gr at $1500 (yes, yes, it still has the brightness of F2.8 but *not* that DoF)

I'm not sure that the point made here is very strong. The FF Tamron VC USD 70-300 F4-5.6, 765g, for instance, costs $450. Not WR but at 1/3 of the price one can afford to water damage at least couple before equating the cost. Different system, yes, but exactly because m4/3 is compact, the lens should reflect that.

The typical hotch potch of "illogic"
Full MARKETING Frame one line re: a TWO stops slower lens, Tamrons that WILL be way less sharp on the next.
.
It's a puerile argument pair, Here's why:
.
A: It is not the COST OF MATERIALS, it is the design and construction.
.
B: Would YOU pay more for a pickup truck than a Bugatti Veyron?
.
Why not? After all the truck has more metal and glass.
.
By your "COMPACT SHOULD BE CHEAPER" illogical "argument", the truck MUST be worth more. No?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 12:59 UTC
In reply to:

letsgofishing: According to the Get Olympus site, the lens hood is another $60???
Get real Olympus!
http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/new/lh-76-lens-hood-black-for-40-150mm-f2-8-pro-lens.html

ACTUALLY your LINK (above) states:
.
"The LH-76 ships with the m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 PRO lens.
.
This is for those that need a replacement of the item."
.
What? You could not even read a WHOLE paragraph??

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 12:36 UTC
In reply to:

iudex: Man it´s huge: http://www.43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/E-M1_SLV_leftside_M4015F28_BLK_LH76_BLK_HLD7.jpg
But I guess it is not possible to make a 300mm eq. lens with f2,8 any smaller and it is perfectly within the competition of fast CSC telezooms:
Fuji 50-140/2,8: 995g 72mm filter thread
Oly 40-150/2,8: 880g, 72 mm filter
Samsung 50-150/2,8: 920g, 72mm filtee.

The fuji is 2.8x zoom and is vapourware, heavier, no clutch either.
.
The zuiko is 3.75x zoom, and is nearly here ...
Samsung are trying really hard. OIS is ancient technology.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 12:03 UTC
Total: 222, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »