Photo Pete

Lives in United Kingdom Sheffield, United Kingdom
Joined on Nov 6, 2006
About me:

Film History:-
Zenith, Praktica, Nikon F601, Nikon F90x, Nikon F100, Nikon F5

Digital History:-
Olympus E20p, Nikon D70, Nikon D200, Nikon D300, Nikon D2x, Nikon D3s, D800, Nikon 1 V1, Nikon 1 V2, Olympus OM-D E-M10

Nikon Lens History:-
20mm f2.8 AFD, 35-70mm f2.8 AFD, 80-200mm f2.8 AFD, 20-35mm f2.8 AFD, 24-120vr, 70-300 ED, 70-300vr, 80-400vr, 28-70 f2.8 AFS, 70-200 f2.8 AFS, 18-200vrII, 12-24 f4, 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 80-400 AFS, Nikon1 10-30, Nikon 1 30-110, FT-1,

Other Lens History:-
Sigma 28-70, Sigma 170-500, Tamron 28-200, Tamron 20-40, Tokina 20-35, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 50-500, Sigma 150 macro

Current:-
Olympus OM-D E-M10
Olympus OM-D E-M1
Olympus 7-14 f2.8, 12-40 f2.8, 14-150, 75-300, 60 macro, 40-150 f2.8, 1.4x t-con
Olympus FL600R Flash
Gitzo explorer, Gitzo 3 series, Arca Swiss Z1, Billingham 335

Comments

Total: 92, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article D500 owner formally accuses Nikon of false advertising (470 comments in total)

Completely justified complaint. Wi-Fi is a term which should only be used if the system adheres to standard interoperability protocols defined by the Wi-Fi Alliance (certainly if the Wi-Fi certified logo is used). Nikon has provided a bespoke WLAN and not Wi-Fi as far as I can tell.

I really don't understand why some camera manufacturers are so reluctant to offer good connectivity options... and they certainly need taking to task when they are marketing features incorrectly.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 18:03 UTC as 45th comment | 8 replies

There's nothing like viewing your holiday snaps and knowing that sizeable chunks of those memorable views have been completely invented by software
:-)

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 18:49 UTC as 44th comment | 3 replies
On article Beta: try out our new 'light' color scheme (722 comments in total)

How do you turn off this energy wasting, eye straining, illegible (light green text on white... Really?) colour scheme when in mobile view?

Link | Posted on May 16, 2016 at 17:52 UTC as 77th comment

100% waterproof?
The manufacturer website says 'waterproof, 100% cotton fabric'.
The two things are very different and I doubt this jacket is 100% waterproof.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2016 at 20:30 UTC as 64th comment
In reply to:

Timbukto: IMO commenting and testing super high ISO's is pointless and the bar set for high ISO is getting bumped higher and higher as manufacturers just put it higher without a groundbreaking technology or physics defeating breakthrough in super high ISO performance. You guys do ISO Invariance or dynamic range tests starting at ISO 100. IMO with so many dual stage architectures recently shifting gears at ISO 400, you guys should also do a dynamic range/ISO invariance test at ISO 400 all the way to these 'high ISO's'. Why on earth would anyone shoot at ISOs above 12800 instead of in an ISO invariant fashion...the risk of tossing out highlight information is massive at super high ISOs.

Perhaps so they can review the image on the camera after taking it?

Link | Posted on May 4, 2016 at 16:20 UTC
In reply to:

Photo Pete: As soon as you release a high res digital image without a watermark you might as well accept that it will become part of the public domain. No degree of legislation will prevent its unauthorised copying.

If Getty are displaying high res versions on their own site then they are as culpable as Google.

If you want to retain any chance of control then heavily watermark anything digital and only release full res versions in print form.

@Yake
Your innocence is quite charming.

I seek to prosecute unauthorised use of my images as readily as anyone and would encourage others to do the same.... But the simple fact is that it is not possible to do so effectively once your image is posted on-line without a disruptive watermark. By releasing your image you might as well be placing it in the public domain as you have no hope of controlling or enforcing its use, no matter how persistent you are.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2016 at 18:21 UTC
In reply to:

Photo Pete: As soon as you release a high res digital image without a watermark you might as well accept that it will become part of the public domain. No degree of legislation will prevent its unauthorised copying.

If Getty are displaying high res versions on their own site then they are as culpable as Google.

If you want to retain any chance of control then heavily watermark anything digital and only release full res versions in print form.

And your proposal to control unauthorised use of images which have been displayed at full resolution on the internet is?

There's a difference between believing in copyright and believing it is possible to enforce it.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2016 at 16:56 UTC
In reply to:

Photo Pete: As soon as you release a high res digital image without a watermark you might as well accept that it will become part of the public domain. No degree of legislation will prevent its unauthorised copying.

If Getty are displaying high res versions on their own site then they are as culpable as Google.

If you want to retain any chance of control then heavily watermark anything digital and only release full res versions in print form.

Yes, but they retain their ownership rights with no hope of enforcing them due to the way the internet works.

Forget the legal definition and copyright law. If you post a high res digital image without watermark it will end up in the public domain no matter how much the original author or owner objects.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2016 at 08:36 UTC

As soon as you release a high res digital image without a watermark you might as well accept that it will become part of the public domain. No degree of legislation will prevent its unauthorised copying.

If Getty are displaying high res versions on their own site then they are as culpable as Google.

If you want to retain any chance of control then heavily watermark anything digital and only release full res versions in print form.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2016 at 21:07 UTC as 40th comment | 15 replies

Hmm? A camera with no DPReview?

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 21:53 UTC as 229th comment
On article Miggo wants to 'DSLR your iPhone' with the Pictar grip (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

miggo: Hi people,

Couple of comments - as I see that we created a bit of a party here (-:

Our goal with PICTAR is to help mobile-photographers to make the best out of their iPhones. Funny thing is that all of us falls into this category - when we leave our real camera at home, and are obliged to shoot with a slim telephone.

We truly believe that any user - novice or advanced - will produce better images with his iPhone when shooting with a PICATR, and for sure will enjoy a nicer user-experience while doing so.

If you have any question, I'll be very happy to answer.
shoot!

Guy, miggo team.

Thanks for the dignified response.

The problem you have is that you're receiving comments from the wrong userbase here. When a photographer leaves the house and chooses only to take their smartphone rather than their camera it is because they don't have any specific plans to take photos and so don't want to carry anything bulkier than a smartphone. Your grip is defeating the object of that.

However, a different userbase, one in which the users only have a smartphone and not a camera, would probably view your grip far more positively. It then becomes something they can add and take with them when they plan to take photos and would be a significant improvement for them.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2016 at 22:01 UTC
On article Miggo wants to 'DSLR your iPhone' with the Pictar grip (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Franiec: Majority of people with negative comments are confined into a "thinking inside box" category, I think.
Just wondering what they do have to offer to put someone else's innovation to shame in terms of ideas or execution?
Don't want it, don't buy it. Simple as that.
Other than that shut your mouth (fingers) ...up.

The problem is that they have thought outside the box when the beauty of a smartphone is that it is all inside it.

Richard, you do yourself a disservice by responding in the way you did.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2016 at 20:26 UTC
On article Miggo wants to 'DSLR your iPhone' with the Pictar grip (135 comments in total)

Works with the microphone?
Can't wait for a couple of suckers to be using these next to each other.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2016 at 17:48 UTC as 45th comment
In reply to:

Konstantin Mineev: Just imagine how these beautiful models would look on 135mm lens, instead on these big nose portraits.

Why imagine? Just look at any of the other formulaic 135mm portrait shots that are all over the web. Good to see people thinking about their images rather than copying the most common approach.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2016 at 18:39 UTC
In reply to:

Photo Pete: Shhh! Don't tell the Full Frame fanboys that their Full Frame is a cropped sensor.

Woosh. Josh152. Relax.
Have a browse through my gallery and look at the FF, APSC, m4/3 and 1" sensor images.
I poke fun at the assumption of FF being the ultimate in image quality and you assume I am defending m4/3s? The insecurity is not mine.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2016 at 01:41 UTC

Shhh! Don't tell the Full Frame fanboys that their Full Frame is a cropped sensor.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 00:10 UTC as 20th comment | 11 replies
On article Pride and joy: shooting the Olympus PEN-F in Austin (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digimat: a beatiful camera...but i dont know...i often even find aps-c somehow lacking against fullframe. i only once tried an older pen and even with a fast lens the images lack "depth". but when you often shoot with the aperture closed down anyways, or just dont care for that thin DOF look this looks to be a very nice camera, especially with thoose smal f1.8 prime lenses. quite expensive though.

@108 wrote
"the question is do these images lack "depth" because one can't achieve thin DOF like in FF or because FF allows for a more "3D" rendering even if everything is in focus ? Or is it the lenses ? How come a small pancake like the pentax 21 mm f3.2 that is not even really fast can produce images with that feeling of "volume" ?"

It is because FF gives that magic feeling of volume. Nothing larger or smaller, even by 1mm, will give that same magic FF look. How fortunate that this effect was stumbled upon as a result of digital camera manufacturers trying to match the size of an old film format. It would have taken years to discover that FF magic otherwise.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 21:27 UTC
On article Pride and joy: shooting the Olympus PEN-F in Austin (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardf12: Olympus dials are so nice to use, you turn them even when the camera is off - sad but true.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one disliking the fully articulated screens. It's a deal breaker for me.

Weather sealing is expected on all cameras nowadays, as is dual AF (PDAF/CDAF).

We are making progress, new cameras have only about 2-3 serious omissions nowadays, unless it's a Sony :-)

I had a Nikon 1 on which the dials turned even when it was in your bag... Now that is sad but true, but I guess not in the way you meant!

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 21:16 UTC
On article Pride and joy: shooting the Olympus PEN-F in Austin (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

malabito: I really dont understand m43. I used to have an em5, and yes it was small, with really nice lenses, but image quality let a lot to desire. Files deteriorate fast if pushed in PS, and high iso was far worst then apsc. If you wanted thin DOF you needed a huge voigltander, which I had for some time as well, which make the camera very uncomfortable and unbalance to carry around. I had during the same time a X100, (first version) and smoke the em5 in image quality.

This PEN even thou very nice looking, its extremely pricey, who will be wanting to pay so much for so so image quality? Its about the experience but these are over 1.2 K euros....

I got call a Troll in Steve forum for posting something similar, and then he actually moderated my reply and didn't allow it on his website.... A bit discouraging since i used to be a follower of his blog.

I'm sure Steve will be mortified that someone who posts replies in his forum which are deemed unacceptable has stopped following his blog.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 21:11 UTC
On article Nikon's New D5 and D500 Push the Boundaries of DSLR (737 comments in total)

The D500 seems more exciting as a sports and action camera than the D5 due to its wider spread of AF points. I really don't know why Nikon don't offer it with a built in vertical grip as an option. If it's anything like my D800 was, the add on grip is bulkier and doesn't handle as well as the dedicated built in grip (at least compared to my old D3s).

Look like cracking cameras though (subject to the focus points actually focussing correctly)

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 19:47 UTC as 52nd comment
Total: 92, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »