vadims

vadims

Lives in Russian Federation Moscow, Russian Federation
Joined on Mar 10, 2006
About me:

Canon 5D Mk2, Sony RX100 Mk2, Tuscen TCH 5.0 ICE (cooled CCD), lots of older cameras.
Canon 16-35/2.8L II, 24-105/4L, 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 Macro, Canon 500D and lots of filters and extension tubes, SLICK Pro 400DX tripod, Canon 430EX and Metz 28AF-3C speedlights, Rekam HALO-Pro 1000 Kit MOD3.1 and other professional lighting equipment.

Comments

Total: 129, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (433 comments in total)
In reply to:

vadims: Very nice review *size*, DPR.

I have to say this tells me all I really need to know. All those charts with minute differences in dynamic range and such? Not my cup of tea.

DPR, IMHO, has developed a bit of schizophrenic nature over time (please understand I'm not using "schizophrenic" pejoratively here): on one hand, you produce so overwhelmingly detailed reviews these days that I wonder if there are any people reading all of them; on the other hand, you post more and more completely non-technical stuff.

Real issue with both is that it means lesser number of tech reviews; and, which is much worse, by the time a review do appear, it is irrelevant.

So, again, thanks for the sane approach you've taken with x100t (even though I do understand it was caused by the the fact the camera is a relatively minor upgrade more than by anything else...)

I fully understand that.

But won't shorter reviews help covering tech side of things more efficiently?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 23:49 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (433 comments in total)

Very nice review *size*, DPR.

I have to say this tells me all I really need to know. All those charts with minute differences in dynamic range and such? Not my cup of tea.

DPR, IMHO, has developed a bit of schizophrenic nature over time (please understand I'm not using "schizophrenic" pejoratively here): on one hand, you produce so overwhelmingly detailed reviews these days that I wonder if there are any people reading all of them; on the other hand, you post more and more completely non-technical stuff.

Real issue with both is that it means lesser number of tech reviews; and, which is much worse, by the time a review do appear, it is irrelevant.

So, again, thanks for the sane approach you've taken with x100t (even though I do understand it was caused by the the fact the camera is a relatively minor upgrade more than by anything else...)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 23:08 UTC as 36th comment | 4 replies
On CP+ 2015 Sigma Interview article (195 comments in total)

Yamaki-san is a truly good ambassador for his company.

Sadly, that's a very rare quality among CEOs these days...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2015 at 12:57 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

straylightrun: Who is going to pay $1000 for a superzoom?

> Who is going to pay $1000 for a superzoom?

Me.

I have Tamron 28-300 for my Canon 5D MkII (the bulk/weigh of Canon 28-300 kind of defeats the purpose of having a walkaround zoom) and Sony 18-200 for my a6000.

If I ever get a7(?), this 24-240 will be the first lens I buy for it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 07:38 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (460 comments in total)
In reply to:

D 503: There are so many A 7's that I lost track of the camera being reviewed.

@Eleson

> That is valid for both mounts.

Not true for Canon, unfortunately. You cannot use EF-S lens with EF-mount (FF) camera.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 07:07 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (460 comments in total)
In reply to:

D 503: There are so many A 7's that I lost track of the camera being reviewed.

Complaints about Sony nomenclature always fascinate me.

Somehow, people get lost in their 4 mounts, even though I think it's as clear as it gets: FF/crop for DSLRs + FF/crop for mirrorless. AND crop lenses are full compatible with FF mounts, with automatic detection and framing.

Say, Canon has "only" three mounts, but why? Because they do not have mirrorless FF yet. Plus their crop lenses are not compatible with FF, at all. And no-one is complaining. Go figure...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 08:23 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (460 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: Ergonomics means nothing, when compared to performance. People will put up with some real horrors. A sharp-edged machined aluminum cube would sell if you could have resolution like a medium format 80mp Phase camera and the noise control of this Sony 12mp.

> A sharp-edged machined aluminum cube would sell

Maybe. But why does it have to be a sharp-edged cube?

I for one am really looking forward a7s MkII with a more sane placement of the shutter button...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 08:13 UTC
In reply to:

wootpile: It's a great camera but it should be illegal to sell a camera today that lacks an audio-in jack. Shame. Shame..

> I take it you don't do much video..

You're right, but that's only part of the story.

When I was about to get 16-35/2.8 for my 5D, I almost went for MkI because it was slightly smaller, lighter and had 77mm filter. In the end, I bought MkII, because of better optics... But size/weight was definitely of importance even then.

Now that I got A6000, I can't be happier. Just few days ago I bought 10..18/4... Yes, full stop slower, but wider, with OSS, *and* it only weights roughly a third of 16-35/2.8!

What I'm trying to say, I appreciate small size and weight of A6000 and its lenses, and I simply do not want Sony to add all possible bells and whistles to them (I'm sure audio-in won't be enough, people will start complaining about lack of headphone jack right away) and break the nice balance that they achieved.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 08:14 UTC
In reply to:

vadims: You know guys, to me, this is hypocrisy at it's worst.

People get hellbent over darkened photos or removed objects... But isn't "adding/removing" (or rather "selecting") objects what photographers do when they frame AND press shutter?

Let's take BBC coverage of elections in Russia. Every freaking year I see images on bbc.co.uk with an old woman, or soldier (conscript), or both, casting their votes. For an outside observer, it would seem like no-one else votes in Russia.

To go on and say "we maintain highest standards of image taking, that old woman and the soldier were not over-darkened blah blah blah" is such a joke...

So, my dear purists, you're so funny. And sad.

> Try Fox "News".

Yeah, that would *really* put things into perspective...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 06:43 UTC
In reply to:

vadims: You know guys, to me, this is hypocrisy at it's worst.

People get hellbent over darkened photos or removed objects... But isn't "adding/removing" (or rather "selecting") objects what photographers do when they frame AND press shutter?

Let's take BBC coverage of elections in Russia. Every freaking year I see images on bbc.co.uk with an old woman, or soldier (conscript), or both, casting their votes. For an outside observer, it would seem like no-one else votes in Russia.

To go on and say "we maintain highest standards of image taking, that old woman and the soldier were not over-darkened blah blah blah" is such a joke...

So, my dear purists, you're so funny. And sad.

> Why are you watching BBC and not TASS?

Hmm, indeed, why? There's no difference these days.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 06:15 UTC

You know guys, to me, this is hypocrisy at it's worst.

People get hellbent over darkened photos or removed objects... But isn't "adding/removing" (or rather "selecting") objects what photographers do when they frame AND press shutter?

Let's take BBC coverage of elections in Russia. Every freaking year I see images on bbc.co.uk with an old woman, or soldier (conscript), or both, casting their votes. For an outside observer, it would seem like no-one else votes in Russia.

To go on and say "we maintain highest standards of image taking, that old woman and the soldier were not over-darkened blah blah blah" is such a joke...

So, my dear purists, you're so funny. And sad.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 21:42 UTC as 17th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

PeaceKeeper: For those making the ridiculous straw-man argument: The issue is not filters, the issue at hand is composite images, heavy editing of content, and/or staging of photographs outright.

There is a difference between trying to make an event look better by altering exposure, and trying to misrepresent or even manufacture an event entirely.

Relevant article and possible catalyst for this symposium can be found by searching: "Belgian Mayor Says Award-Winning Photos of His City ‘Distort Reality’"

Had to dig into it a bit and answer my own question (that NPPA link provided by DPR has enough info). For most thrown out images, yes, manipulation == adding or removing staff.

But by no means for all! Quote:

<<"It wasn't solely a matter of adding or subtracting content, Boering said. This year the jury was also looking very closing at toning.

"They looked to see if you make a photo so black that you lose information, and you don't see anything anymore," he said. "That is a line crossed."">>

So, if you dial down exposure comp and get dark image == fine. You darken it the same way in PS == heresy.

I'm not saying they can't use such restrictions; their world -- their rules ("World Press is within their rights to disqualify images as they see fit.", as they put it). But it's just so funny that you attack others for fighting straw men, and then build your own...

And BTW where did you get that "staging of photographs" part from? I didn't see a single mention of anything close.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 06:15 UTC
In reply to:

PeaceKeeper: For those making the ridiculous straw-man argument: The issue is not filters, the issue at hand is composite images, heavy editing of content, and/or staging of photographs outright.

There is a difference between trying to make an event look better by altering exposure, and trying to misrepresent or even manufacture an event entirely.

Relevant article and possible catalyst for this symposium can be found by searching: "Belgian Mayor Says Award-Winning Photos of His City ‘Distort Reality’"

> the issue at hand is composite images, heavy editing of
> content, and/or staging of photographs outright.

How do you know that? Was there any official announcement of what exactly those manipulations were?

I ask this second time, but no-one seems to care: it's just so much fun to bash each other, and not let facts get in the way...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 05:37 UTC

So, what were those "digital manipulations of some sort"?

Without knowing that, any further discussion is utterly pointless.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 04:27 UTC as 47th comment

"... in the early 1980s, electronics sales dropped and the company was forced to cut prices. Sony's profits fell sharply. "It's over for Sony," one analyst concluded. "The company's best days are behind it.""

That's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony; originally published in 1983 in New York Times. Just to put things into perspective...

Sure, one of these crises might happen to be the very last, but something tells me it's not the current one.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2015 at 22:01 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

wootpile: It's a great camera but it should be illegal to sell a camera today that lacks an audio-in jack. Shame. Shame..

> it should be illegal to sell a camera today that lacks an audio-in jack

Yeah, right. And built-in tripod.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 18, 2015 at 15:43 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (2340 comments in total)
In reply to:

ozturert: I don't need or cannot afford this camera, so it's bad.

> I don't need or cannot afford this camera, so it's bad.

Guess what, it is.

I believe you attempted sarcasm, but your statement was exactly correct. The real issue is Canon just do not have a camera in their lineup that I'd buy, and that is also true for many, many others.

So even though I still have 5DMkII, I do not see myself upgrading... I voted with my money and got a6000. Still using my Canon glass with Metabones adapter, but if there is a7s MkII with 5-axis stabilization and few things fixed (like, say, placement of shutter button), then I'll get it and all my Canon stuff will be sold.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2015 at 18:28 UTC
On Adobe to acquire Fotolia for $800 million cash article (25 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jurka: You mean "Cash"? 800 mil is tonnes of paper!!!

Here, "cash" means actual money, not its equivalent in, say, shares of buying company.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 22:15 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoBurg: Got this lens 5 months ago. Since then, didn't take it off my Canon 100D and didn't use any other lens as my all around gear. Sure, IQ is not near premium lenses, but it's Ok for me.
I try to remember that photography is about moment, composition, feelings, Light, etc. ant not about sharpness on the upper right edge in a print sizing as large as a football arena, and even not about sensor size/latest camera model.
If you can enjoy A3 size prints - this lens will be great for you and more than that.
Yet, I speak as an amateur and not as a pro.

> Yet, I speak as an amateur and not as a pro.

You speak as one who actually owns this lens.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 8, 2014 at 22:47 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.

I wonder if you guys own the lens... Most probably not.

The only drawback worth speaking of is CA at long end. Other than that, this lens is a marvel. I bought one for my daughter, she uses it with her 100D and can't be happier.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 8, 2014 at 21:45 UTC
Total: 129, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »