NZ Scott

NZ Scott

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) Malaysia, New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a Communications Consultant
Joined on Jul 29, 2011
About me:

Formerly a news reporter for three daily newspapers in New Zealand. I now train English-language teachers in Malaysia - using school holidays for traveling, writing novels/short stories, playing chess and taking photographs.
My latest work of fiction can be viewed here:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/444160

Comments

Total: 372, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Pallke: This is very useful for morons that protect their costly lenses by filters and deteriorates the optical quality...

0MitchAG: You would think so, wouldn't you? But that is not always the case. I shoot with Micro Four Thirds lenses, and one of the major manufacturers (Panasonic) does not coat its lenses to remove purple flare. A lot of people are using filters on the Panasonics to remove the flare, even using complicated mods on the 7-14, which doesn't normally take filters.

Also, I recently did a sharpness test with one of my Olympus lenses (the 75-300 II) and it was SHARPER with a B+W MCR Nano UV filter attached than it was with the filter removed!

Direct link | Posted on May 27, 2014 at 15:01 UTC
In reply to:

Ednaz: As someone who's tried to get sea spray off of a multi-coated filter, taking countless lens tissues and eclipse fluid...

...and who's had to try to clean elephant snot (or whatever it is that comes out of an elephant's nose) when it snorts a foot or two from your ultra-wide angle lens, depositing disgusting slime on the front element of a 17-35mm zoom...

I here and now demand that Nikon create a retrofitting service so I can replace the front element of the half-dozen lenses that I use the most.

I shoot a lot in bad weather, worry about the image first and gear last, and swore off UV filters long ago other than when I know I'm going to be in a lens coating risky situation, like shooting in the surf. Whatever fluorine coating adds to the cost of the lens, I'll sign up for, because it would give me back hours of time every year.

I have a friend whose 2 year old recoated one of his lenses with crayons and Sharpie marker who'd probably sign up for the coating too.

I get no artefacts or flare of any kind with the B+W MRC and nano-coated filters, even shooting into the sun - and I've tested them plenty of times.

Direct link | Posted on May 27, 2014 at 14:54 UTC
On The Seven Natural Wonders of the World challenge (10 comments in total)

Having been to Rio de Janeiro and Victoria Falls, there is no way I would consider them to be among the world's greatest natural wonders. Still, it should be an interesting challenge.

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2014 at 01:40 UTC as 1st comment | 5 replies
On Street photography tips with Zack Arias article (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

SeeRoy: Street photography in Marrakesh is one thing, they've been saturated with tourism for 50 years or more - you might get a shockingly different reaction if you tried it in Fez.

I've shot street in Marrakesh and Fez. No difference, really.

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2014 at 01:14 UTC
In reply to:

vroy: This is very useful for morons that wouldn't protect their costly lenses by filters.

I use UV filters on my expensive glass, but not on my kit lenses. A few months ago, a filter saved the front element of a $600 lens. So that's pretty much justified all the coin I've ever spent on filters, and then some. The best thing about filters is that they keep the coatings on your front element pristine - worth it when the time comes to sell.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2014 at 13:26 UTC
In reply to:

Ednaz: As someone who's tried to get sea spray off of a multi-coated filter, taking countless lens tissues and eclipse fluid...

...and who's had to try to clean elephant snot (or whatever it is that comes out of an elephant's nose) when it snorts a foot or two from your ultra-wide angle lens, depositing disgusting slime on the front element of a 17-35mm zoom...

I here and now demand that Nikon create a retrofitting service so I can replace the front element of the half-dozen lenses that I use the most.

I shoot a lot in bad weather, worry about the image first and gear last, and swore off UV filters long ago other than when I know I'm going to be in a lens coating risky situation, like shooting in the surf. Whatever fluorine coating adds to the cost of the lens, I'll sign up for, because it would give me back hours of time every year.

I have a friend whose 2 year old recoated one of his lenses with crayons and Sharpie marker who'd probably sign up for the coating too.

... oh, I see HowaboutRAW beat me to it.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2014 at 13:23 UTC
In reply to:

Ednaz: As someone who's tried to get sea spray off of a multi-coated filter, taking countless lens tissues and eclipse fluid...

...and who's had to try to clean elephant snot (or whatever it is that comes out of an elephant's nose) when it snorts a foot or two from your ultra-wide angle lens, depositing disgusting slime on the front element of a 17-35mm zoom...

I here and now demand that Nikon create a retrofitting service so I can replace the front element of the half-dozen lenses that I use the most.

I shoot a lot in bad weather, worry about the image first and gear last, and swore off UV filters long ago other than when I know I'm going to be in a lens coating risky situation, like shooting in the surf. Whatever fluorine coating adds to the cost of the lens, I'll sign up for, because it would give me back hours of time every year.

I have a friend whose 2 year old recoated one of his lenses with crayons and Sharpie marker who'd probably sign up for the coating too.

Dude, with a track history like that I think you might need to revisit the anti-filter stance. Protect your front elements with B+W MRC Nano filters and they'll repel anything nature can throw at it (Nikon's fancy-pants "fluorine" thing is no better than some filter coatings already on the market).

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2014 at 13:22 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

NZ Scott: They've really nailed the features on this - I certainly prefer 24-70 to 28-100, as I like to shoot landscapes. Managing to cram in a tilting screen and EVF is just awesome. I think the main competition for this camera is actually the interchangeable-lens Panasonic GM1, which comes with a nice little 24-64 equivalent lens, and probably offers much better image quality than the little Sony. Still, the Sony has an EVF, and the Panny doesn't.

Yeah, fair comments guys except for one thing - I did a direct comparison on DPReview's comparative rubric thingy and to my eye the GM1 produced much better images. The RX100 smeared away lots of the detail. Having said that, it was the GM1 versus RX100 I or II version. We haven't seen the results from the RX100 III yet.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 16:31 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)

They've really nailed the features on this - I certainly prefer 24-70 to 28-100, as I like to shoot landscapes. Managing to cram in a tilting screen and EVF is just awesome. I think the main competition for this camera is actually the interchangeable-lens Panasonic GM1, which comes with a nice little 24-64 equivalent lens, and probably offers much better image quality than the little Sony. Still, the Sony has an EVF, and the Panny doesn't.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 04:56 UTC as 749th comment | 4 replies
On _MG_6248 in the Bodyscape challenge (1 comment in total)

A beautiful image.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2014 at 12:54 UTC as 1st comment
On Little beauty: Nordin Seruyan's macro images article (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

NZ Scott: Great shots!

... Hmm. After reading some of the links below, I must admit that I'm a bit disturbed. Firstly, by the ethics of harming animals to make an image. Secondly, by the ethics of lying about the circumstances in which the photos were taken. I would like to add my voice to that of some other commenters - DPReview, I think you should remove these photos from your site.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2014 at 16:07 UTC
On Little beauty: Nordin Seruyan's macro images article (352 comments in total)

Great shots!

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2014 at 15:50 UTC as 42nd comment | 2 replies
On Excursion into the Mountains in the Franz Kafka (in black & white). challenge (3 comments in total)

Yes, South America - the exact place was the ruins of Macchu Pichu, in Peru.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2014 at 10:20 UTC as 1st comment
On Nikon D4s First Impressions Review preview (1047 comments in total)
In reply to:

webrunner5: What this review shows is that we are pretty much unable to see much difference between cameras anymore.

Just spend your money on a camera you feel comparable with and have a bunch of lenses with it and have a good time. End of story.

I agree, webrunner5.

I altered the graphs above to include my camera - the ageing E-P3, with its 6-year-old Micro Four Thirds sensor. According to preview, the dynamic range was almost identical to the big full-frame cameras.

S

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2014 at 10:08 UTC
On Behind the Shot: Shredded article (84 comments in total)

Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting.

I, for one, would like to see more articles like this.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 13:58 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
On Get more accurate color with camera calibration article (208 comments in total)
In reply to:

NZ Scott: .... Bloody hell. The ColourChecker Passport is USD $115. Seems like a lot for some coloured plastic squares.

Paulmorgan: I see. Thanks for the comment. T3: I'm not dissing the cost in relation to the benefits, I'm dissing it in absolute terms. I'm comparing the price of these $115 coloured plastic squares with the price of replacing my E-P3 camera body, which would be USD $99 from ebay. At the end of the day, they're colorised plastic squares. And they're $115. Which is insane.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 29, 2014 at 05:34 UTC
On Get more accurate color with camera calibration article (208 comments in total)
In reply to:

NZ Scott: .... Bloody hell. The ColourChecker Passport is USD $115. Seems like a lot for some coloured plastic squares.

That's okay if you live within free-shipping distance, but the cheapest I can find it for is $115. I have to say that USD $84 still seems like a lot.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 15:09 UTC
On Get more accurate color with camera calibration article (53 comments in total)

.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 15:07 UTC as 7th comment
On Get more accurate color with camera calibration article (208 comments in total)

.... Bloody hell. The ColourChecker Passport is USD $115. Seems like a lot for some coloured plastic squares.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 08:15 UTC as 81st comment | 6 replies
On Get more accurate color with camera calibration article (208 comments in total)

An interesting article. Colour-correction is one of those things which to me is an arcane photographic mystery (apart from simple correction with a grey card).

I know I should correct my Macbook monitor, but it ain't cheap to buy the correction units.

S

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 08:11 UTC as 82nd comment
Total: 372, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »