Guidenet

Guidenet

Lives in United States Orlando, US, FL, United States
Works as a Retired Corporate Photographer
Has a website at http://faithartsvillage.com/
Joined on Sep 27, 2007
About me:

I'm a 63 year old retired corporate photographer who has also been a software engineer. My academia is largely based on Vision and my dissertation was on Fluids. I have a small studio and gallery which I enjoy on occasion. My specialty is bird photography, and I've been lucky to have had a few attempts published over the years. For the past twenty years, I worked for a large Fortune 500 company as their in-house photographer for the communications, publicity and care departments. I’ve also done their corporate meetings and events. As the company owns several television stations, making the opportunities endless.
I had to retire because I suffered a massive right side stroke in the spring of 2013. My small portrait studio and gallery are doing better than ever.
I have a daughter who is a successful Wedding Photographer. As I’ve embraced retirement, I've taken more and more shooting contracts, but only those I enjoy like the local little league baseball teams. I occasionally act as a cruise photographer for some of the cruise lines here in Florida when requested by organizations.
I also spend more and more time teaching basic photography for several resources locally as well as out of my studio located at FAVO (Faith-based Art Village of Orlando). As well as Photography, I am also a Water Color and Acrylic painter and enjoy recreating some of my favorite work in those mediums. Learning how to create art is a lifelong passion.
I'm seriously passionate about people learning exposure and the Zone System of Photography before considering themselves sufficiently astute in this craft. I’ve held several Zone System Workshops over the years as well as one Cruise based workshop. I’m also passionate about Ansel Adams’ ideas about pre-visualization. Pressing the shutter button and the camera are just one small part of the image creation process.
I started at eight years old in 1959 when my dad and I built a darkroom, him more than me. My father taught me the Zone System at a very young age. I continued as a youthful photographer, buying glass with lawn mowing money through my high school and then into college with odd jobs. I paid most of my tuition as an undergraduate shooting weddings and baby pictures as well as for the university newspaper. Many of those years I shot 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 field cameras and sheet film. In small format, I shot Pentax until 1968 when I switched to Nikon, needing a better more professional system tool. I still shoot Nikon today as well as Nikkor lenses for some of my large format gear. I also mostly shoot digital but still maintain a darkroom for up to 5x7 format. 8x10 is stored in the attic and is only black and white. I even have a Nikkor enlarging lens. Over the years, I believe Nikon has been instrumental in the creation of truly great glass.

Comments

Total: 223, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Dpreview Users' Poll: Best Camera of 2012? article (1511 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maverick_: Hi Guys, It's a nice idea for sure. But having been around DPReview for 11 years, I think people will vote based on the brand that they like or use. So, this will be a popularity contest. not an indication of a camera's true award worthiness.

The OM-D guys will pick that and the Canon diehards will never vote for any other brand and the Nikon fans will say the survey is fixed, because Canon will most probably win anyway.

No, the Canon guys know a better camera when they see one. They'll vote D800/E this time. Just makes sense.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2012 at 01:38 UTC
On Just Posted: Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Preview Samples article (81 comments in total)

I don't know. I'm sure it's an excellent lens and will do the job, but other than 2/3rd of a stop, I'm not sure it's any better than Nikon's superb 28 f/1.8G for a couple hundred less dollars and Nano Crystal coating. In fact, it might not be quite as good. I don't know. My Nikon 28 f/1.8G performs so well, I can't really imagine needing a 3rd party 35 f/1.4 for any use.

I perfer a slightly wider field of view when I can get it. I'm completely sold on Nikon's Nano Crystal coating. I love the light weight of the new 28. So far, I've not seen any field curvature nor focus shift some have reported. What more could one ask for for $200 less USD? Why would I need a 35mm? My 35 f/2 AFD already is retired to the shelf.

Moreover, it would probably be a rare day I'd use a wide angle at under around f/4, more likely being at f/5.6 or f/8. To even consider the f/1.4 over f/1.8 seems to not be a worry in the least. Again, I'm sure it's a great lens, but..

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2012 at 12:41 UTC as 15th comment | 4 replies
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G15 review article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

tarnumf: DPR awards becoming the jokes no one laughing about...

Giving Gold to G series when removing such rare feature in P&S class as articulating screen? And dumping one control wheel too? And Canon doing this to G second time in series history?!

Huh... I wish you dump that "award" and per cent ratings altogether, before you got drowned in readers' frustration.

I think it's a bit silly to consider the overhead shooting idea as anything but a very rare occurance. I certainly wouldn't want it considered very closely as anything but a very very minor metric towards any rating. If such a thing is important, just add some goof rating of your own and buy on that account.

IQ, ease of normal controls, AF, and other factors are much more important to most of us than shooting over other's heads.

On the other hand, Two control wheels is an important everyday shooting requirement for many.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2012 at 07:51 UTC
In reply to:

Kodachrome200: do people who buy superzooms even care? why not review lenses that there is some question of the optical quality. A sigma superzoom is bound to be optically weak. maybe it will be good compared to its class. but again i ask when people buy these lenses we know are weak do they really care.

"Meanwhile", me thinks you're making up a bunch of silly poorly thought out nonsense. If you have made the tradeout for convenience over quality images, just admit it. These super ratio zooms generally cost well more than a twin lens solution. It has nothing to do with poverty. You've been given a break. Think it over and try again.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2012 at 02:48 UTC
In reply to:

Guidenet: I really don't like the term "Travel Lens" when it comes to these optically poor long ratio zoom lenses. I think this is an excuse to put convenience ahead of quality for someone who has lost some of their passion for photography and are looking for an easy way out. I know that sounds insulting and I really don't intend it to be so, but have a really hard time understanding interest in these type zoom lenses.

When we travel, it's often a special time away from the daily grind of work or maybe the boredom of retirement. Regardless, we're going somewhere we wish to visit maybe more exciting than staying at home. Why would we want to record this special time with mediocre glass? Wouldn't we want to take the extra effort to carry our best when taking once in a lifetime shots?

What do we use our "good" glass for that stays at home during these holiday events? Do we own and use good glass? I would think traveling is a special time where we can really put the good stuff to good use. :-)

One isn't getting caught up in gear over looking at things. That's completely untrue. If anything, a photographer who is interested in a great image, is probably looking at things way more clearly and deeply than any non-photographer super zoom travel lens toting user might be.

If convenience really trumps IQ, good. So be it. Get a good compact camera and have done with it. There is nothing more convenient whatsoever is there?

I really think it's a matter of passion for photography and the love of seeing what's around you and creating images of what you see rather than going on some tour with 50 people on a bus. If that passion is gone. Ok. Just admit it. Don't try to pawn off something like this lens as a reasonable tool for good photography because you're not "lugging" around a lot of weight.

I think this whole Travel Lens nonsense is just that. If you really cared about image quality, then carry two small, high quality primes. You're in for a smaller overall size and weight.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2012 at 02:40 UTC

I really don't like the term "Travel Lens" when it comes to these optically poor long ratio zoom lenses. I think this is an excuse to put convenience ahead of quality for someone who has lost some of their passion for photography and are looking for an easy way out. I know that sounds insulting and I really don't intend it to be so, but have a really hard time understanding interest in these type zoom lenses.

When we travel, it's often a special time away from the daily grind of work or maybe the boredom of retirement. Regardless, we're going somewhere we wish to visit maybe more exciting than staying at home. Why would we want to record this special time with mediocre glass? Wouldn't we want to take the extra effort to carry our best when taking once in a lifetime shots?

What do we use our "good" glass for that stays at home during these holiday events? Do we own and use good glass? I would think traveling is a special time where we can really put the good stuff to good use. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2012 at 21:18 UTC as 27th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

SunnyFlorida: Wasn't you last review of a megazoom lens also? What's next, the sigma 18-5,000mm F/5.6~F/8?

Barney, DPR's reviews are great and you guys do a good job, but like others, super ratio zooms for APS-C cameras are not really important to many people here. There are some novice photographers who shoot this type lens and even some more seasoned people who will give up IQ for convenience, but most people who love photography websites are a bit more passionate about image quality.

I agree that any zoom is somewhat of a compromise, but I think most of use would prefer to stick to 2x, 3x and maybe even to 5x ratios at the most to preserve as much quality as we can.

I'm certain I'm in the minority also because I'd like to see reviews of some prime lenses. Maybe a good roundup of 85 f/1.4 glass or primes between 24mm and 35mm would be fun. How about APS-C 35 f/1.8 to f/2.8 under $250 glass.

I'd also like to see how well Nikon's 16-35 stacks up against others of similar length.

Just a thought and you did ask. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2012 at 21:03 UTC
In reply to:

fyngyrz: I have another perspective.

I wonder how many people are like me, where I see the f/2.8 and react "just another slow lens" and never even consider purchasing?

I want to see f/1.4 or better yet, f/1.2. /Then/ I'm thinking of cracking the cookie jar.

Half of each day, on average, is spent in the dark. And just because it's dark doesn't mean subject matter will hold still. So slow lenses are not of interest.

And before someone says "f/2.8 isn't slow", you come back and tell me that after you've shot in the dark with an f/1.2 lens like Canon's 50mm or 85mm. If you do, I'll know you haven't actually used a fast lens. :)

fyngyrz, I'm sorry but you're showing a lot of ignorance as others have pointed out. Photography is about light. You have four ways to control light.. aperture, shutter speed, ISO and scene brightness (flash). When there is little of this all important light, one needs to adjust one or more of these four things. One doesn't throw up one's hands in dispair and demand a faster lens so they can choose a wider aperture. You have three other ways to go.

As others have pointed out, most f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses are not optimal at those speeds or even that close to those speeds. F/2.8 might be a better choice even when you have f/1.4 to choose from. Again, you slow the shutter, raise the ISO, or add some light; whichever is appropriate for the subject. Rarely would none of these be appropriate. Then and only then should you consider the poorer IQ aspects of widening the aperture. Use all the tools in the toolkit.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2012 at 05:56 UTC
In reply to:

Mssimo: I bet this is better than the nikon 35mm f1.4 but even the samyang is better than it.

Oh come on, Plastek. That is foolishness about the Nikon offering. Really. The Nikon 35 f/1.4 is a superb lens anyway you consider it. This new Sigma might perform as well. Who knows, but to denegrate the other without knowing a thing is fairly foolish sounding.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2012 at 10:41 UTC
On Nikon unveils 24.1MP D5200 DSLR with optional Wi-Fi article (392 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThomasSwitzerland: I am fully satisfied with my D5100, still having another D5000 as backup and second camera for telephotos in order not to change lenses. I would not buy the D5200.

I do not see a mandatory upgrade. But, for someone not having this line of cameras, the D5200 will be very interesting, worth buying.

To me, the 5000er series has excellent weight and ergonomic handling, and you get fantastic pictures. Over the many decades, from analogue to digital, Nikon seemed the right long term choice for me. I am not a Nikon fan as I use so many makes. Just a statement from an investment point of view.

Syriac, you asked for 24 and 28mm examples with faster than f/2 speed. It doesn't matter whether DX or FX as far as focal lenth. If a DX 24 is mounted on a DX camera, you still apply the crop factor. It would have the FOV of a 36mm on an FX body.

They make fast FX glass is the point and it will mount on DX bodies wtihout an issue. If you wanted a 24mm FOV on a DX camera, you'd need a 16mm and there is no f/2 and below in any lens made for Nikon I now of.

A used D700 is going to cost you well more than a new entry level of any kind, probably close to 2 or 3 tmes as much.

And that Swiss guy, I'd not pay much attention to. A Zeiss or Leica will rattle around with floating elements too, especially AF. That's how they are made. It's not a China thing. That's a race issue, I think.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2012 at 21:55 UTC
On Nikon unveils 24.1MP D5200 DSLR with optional Wi-Fi article (392 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThomasSwitzerland: I am fully satisfied with my D5100, still having another D5000 as backup and second camera for telephotos in order not to change lenses. I would not buy the D5200.

I do not see a mandatory upgrade. But, for someone not having this line of cameras, the D5200 will be very interesting, worth buying.

To me, the 5000er series has excellent weight and ergonomic handling, and you get fantastic pictures. Over the many decades, from analogue to digital, Nikon seemed the right long term choice for me. I am not a Nikon fan as I use so many makes. Just a statement from an investment point of view.

Rattle and shake is often floating elements in Nikon's close range correction invented in the 1960s. Many modern Nikon lenses out-perform Zeiss easily. Many are made in Japan. Zeiss are also made in Japan by Cosina. I think it might be better learn a bit about them first.

To Syriac, there are several great Nikon Prime lenses that with autofocus on the D5200 and have superb output if you do your part. The build is also excellent. You could look at the Nikon 24 f/1.4 AFS or the 35 f/1.4 AFS. These are expensive, but you pay for high quality fast glass.

There is also the Nikon 28 f/1.8G which came out this year. It's a notch down from the previous two but quite reasonable in pricing. It is a real gem as far as image quality is concerned and includes the latest in Nano coatings.

For a lot less money, you could look towards Sigma's wide primes. I personally do not care for their performance, but many do.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2012 at 13:16 UTC

Gotta love the lens reviews again. Thanks guys and great job.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2012 at 22:53 UTC as 57th comment
In reply to:

Simon Joinson: could someone please complain about us doing reviews?

Some moderator needs to ban this guy. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2012 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

SHood: Great Review. It would be interesting to see how this lens compares to say the FZ200 and m43 100-300 at the long end.

Apples to Oranges. The 18-300 is a fairly wide to fairly long 16x ratio, whereas the 100-300 is a 3x lens even if only considering the long end. That makes little sense. Why not compare Nikon's 300 f/2.8 AFS VRII prime to the 100-300 at the long end?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2012 at 22:49 UTC
On Just Posted: Pentax K-30 full review article (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mescalamba: Well, camera itself seems capable. RAW files are reasonable durable, tho it has quite a lot of noise in blue channel at ISO 100. Not suprising these days..

That 16-50mm f2.8 lens is obviously for something else than landscapes. :D Im not particulary sure for what its good cause output from this lens and camera combo is terribly flat and it takes a LOT of PP massage to get something reasonable from it.

I always wondered, where are those beautiful images that could be done with Pentax in film days? Cause they aint in those current Pentax dSLRs, neither in their lens..

Im sure, most will be happy with camera overall performance and high ISO capability (and DR, yup thats good). Maybe pairing with Zeiss lens would help.. well if they still made it in ZK mount, which they dont..

Dont get me wrong, it seems as great camera (most Pentax cams are very photographic friendly, more than rest). Im just sorta disappointed with latest dSLR development concentrated on high ISO/DR and mpix count.

Hubertchen we mostly agree. I didn't say lenses don't count. I was saying that a good photographer trumps all of it. Any of today's modern lenses can produce good images when limitations are understoood and one works around those limitations. Mescalamba had made a broad statement about Pentax losing IQ over older film cameras, and I say that's not the camera.

Concerning RAW files looking different between cameras. That just shows somewhat of a misunderstanding on what a RAW file is. They are not images. You can't see them. They are merely a digital stored file of the red, green and blue dots the sensor stored. Some algorithms might have been applied to help prevent noise, but essentially it's just RAW storage.

At some point, your converter must demosaic that file and create an RGB image from it. What you see might or might not have camera settings applied as a starter point, so what are you talkig about, Mescalamba? How can you know or compare those RAW files from the same sensor?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:26 UTC
On Just Posted: Pentax K-30 full review article (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: Well done review, I agree with most of the conclusions. The K-30 is a solid DSLR with a fantastic grip and superb IQ.

A minor note, I don't know why DPR bothers with JPEG DR as with an 8-bit file DR is going to lag way behind 12 and 14-bit RAW files. Making a point of give the K-30 a Con for JPEG DR is just nitpicking.

With all the great editors like LR 4, I don't know why anyone would want to start off with an heavily compressed, 8-bit JPEG file. It's sort of silly to use a DSLR, and shoot JPEG, IMHO. Kind of like buying a Porsche with an automatic transmission.

Thanks for the review. Good job.

Great review guys, as I think most all are. I do agree with marike6 though. Judging most anything by Jpeg output really doesn't make much sense to me. Yes, novice shooters mostly shoot Jpeg and yes, many probably don't even mess with their in-camera software settings from factory default, and yes, those probably should stick with a cheaper camera, maybe a bridge. But, the fact that you can make Jpeg edits and setting changes means you really can't compare to another camera unless you could somehow equalize those settings between two cameras.

That brings up another issue. People who look at Jpegs using a monitor to decide on a camera or lens, or for that matter, looking at RAW conversions. Few have callibrated monitors. Many have cheap TN LCD monitors of 6 bit or so. You can't tell a thing about a camera or lens by Web posted images. Nothing, and that especially holds true with 8 bit Jpegs at default settings on most novice photographer's monitor.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2012 at 01:52 UTC
On Just Posted: Pentax K-30 full review article (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mescalamba: Well, camera itself seems capable. RAW files are reasonable durable, tho it has quite a lot of noise in blue channel at ISO 100. Not suprising these days..

That 16-50mm f2.8 lens is obviously for something else than landscapes. :D Im not particulary sure for what its good cause output from this lens and camera combo is terribly flat and it takes a LOT of PP massage to get something reasonable from it.

I always wondered, where are those beautiful images that could be done with Pentax in film days? Cause they aint in those current Pentax dSLRs, neither in their lens..

Im sure, most will be happy with camera overall performance and high ISO capability (and DR, yup thats good). Maybe pairing with Zeiss lens would help.. well if they still made it in ZK mount, which they dont..

Dont get me wrong, it seems as great camera (most Pentax cams are very photographic friendly, more than rest). Im just sorta disappointed with latest dSLR development concentrated on high ISO/DR and mpix count.

The output of a camera and lens combination is mostly the job of the photographer, period. Zeiss labeled Cosina lenses from Japan are not a panacea either. Pentax makes some fine lenses that compare well with anything on the market. You can mount some older Pentax primes and Nikkors on them which also compare well with anything available.

If you're incapable of creating compelling images with today's modern Pentax camera, you're incapable of doing so with an older film camera too, and that's a fact. Pentax's sensor is the same thing as what's in a Nikon D7000 or for that matter the D5100 and the Sony A57. Make a RAW file and you should have just about the same thing with any of them. How you process and bring it alive is the difference, not the camera or lens. That's foolishness.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2012 at 01:35 UTC
On Hands-on with the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR article (258 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kodachrome200: 200mm lenses need tripod collars pretty bad. even if cannon does it too 200 dollars extra for something shoulld not only be included but built in and is frankly somthing that sould cost like 50 bux is pretty messed up. Again i am aware the cannon one works the same way but 2 wrongs don't make a right

The Tamron is not a 70-200 f/4 like the Nikon and Canon. The Tamron is an f/2.8 lens and like all of them, does include a collar. I'm not sure what it should cost until I see one.

Moreover, I'm certain both RSS and Kirk will offer alternative solutions which may be both better and less expensive. Nikon's collars have not been that good over the past few years, allowing too much flex.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2012 at 11:08 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Hands-on Preview preview (626 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThomasSwitzerland: Signal and data processing picks up, the importance of sensor size lowers. The same is that lenses on less than full frame cameras get better step by step.

I am not sure whether full format cameras will maintain the present market share in the future. I think the peak of full format has been passed.

Thomas, we professionals and many advanced amateurs require and demand the best image quality we can get. This makes it easier to produce the best image we can produce. The "big players" are Nikon, Canon and maybe now Sony who supply the gear we want and need and who also understand that supplying our need also drives a good bit of the amateur market.

Sure, entry level and average photographers don't really need full frame, but they want it to be like the professionals, assuming it will help their images. The fact you might not like this scenerio is not relevant. Neither is the possibility you don't understand it. Never the less, the FX market is expanding fairly rapidly as the "above entry level" way to go.

Your last remark really needs no answer as it was semantically zero. Nobody said good photos only depend on the sensor size. Nice try, errr.. well maybe. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 15:10 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Hands-on Preview preview (626 comments in total)
In reply to:

Guidenet: What a beautiful and interesting camera Sony came up with. Bravo. Many of us love this retro look. I especially love that beautiful optical viewfinder by Zeiss. With a non-SLR, this type of optical viewfinder always seems best when matched to it's lens. Leica has them for most of their wide angles.

Zeiss and Voigtländer also have this type of wonderful optical viewfinder to match most of their wide angle rangefinder lenses. I'm glad Sony saw fit to have one available here. Some rangefinders back in the day used to have two top shoes so you could keep two viewfinders or one and a flash up top.

Again, bravo to Sony for creating this exquisite retro full frame 35mm camera. If it were more reasonably priced, I'd be standing in line to own one.

The only thing I find a bit interesting is all the people who never seem to have seen this fairly common type of external viewfinder. It's been around a long time.

Mcm, I understand what you're saying, but this type of external viewfinder is perfect for this kind of camera, especially a wide angle. If you don't have an SLR where you can optically look through the lens, and if you do want an optical viewfinder, how do you do it on a compact camera? On a rangefinder, gridlines only go so far then become pretty useless. Parallax also becomes a problem.

Voigtländer, Zeiss, Leica and others all solved this with exquisite detachable optical viewfinders like this a long time ago. Look in a modern Zeiss Ikon catalog or a new Leica catallog as well as a Cosina Bessa catalog for Voigtländer glass. This is the solution for an optical viewfinder for non-slr cameras.

Even if it were not the best optcal solution, it is certainly the most exotic and retro looking solution. The fact that this Zeiss viewfinder is so usable is a plus. I would assume it is as well crafted as the others in the Cosina mix. I'm sure that is who made it and the lens under Zeiss.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 14:49 UTC
Total: 223, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »