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. 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.
My gal Jan, of over 20 years, is also an avid photographer, and I have a daughter who is a successful Wedding Photographer. As 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. 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 on the creation of truly great glass.

Comments

Total: 218, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »

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
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.

I think you're so completely wrong. Look at Nikon, Canon and now Sony. Full frame is not only not dead but increasing in sales for the enthusiast market and above. Nikon now has four FX SLRs in their catalog. Canon has several. Sony now has two and generally the pricing seems to be falling. I expect full frame models at $1500 shortly and pushing $1000 within a years. Let's see what Photokina also has left to offer in the Full Frame arena.

I now shoot only full frame with three of them and would never consider a crop camera again other than a fun backup or loaner. All my primary shooting is FX.

Lenses and sensors do get better step by step, but then that same technological advancement also occurs in the FX market as well. The very finest glass out there is still for the larger formats.

I believe that crop will be relegated to entry level and mirrorless P&S upgraders over a short time. Take a hard look at the big players now.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 14:30 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Hands-on Preview preview (626 comments in total)

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.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 14:15 UTC as 185th comment | 4 replies

Ok, I know it doesn't have VR/IS and I know IBIS really doesn't accomodate that long of a focal length. I also know f/5.6 is a bit slow for $7000. But, even given that, I welcome Pentax entering into the longer focal length range for birders and wildlife shooters. Hopefully this is not going to be the only one. I also hope it's a stunning performer. That might be what compensates for the slow speed and lack of IS.

There is just enough wrong with this lens to stimulate my curiosity. It only has 6 elements in 5 groups. Its lack of usable IS, the slow speed for the price and the kind of strange mid focal length of 560mm. That's a lot of kinda weird stuff to me. What's Pentax doing? Is there something new and cool that it works with coming out. Maybe a full frame or a 645 adaptor or something? There has to be something. There's just too many strange metrics otherwise. What do you think?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 11, 2012 at 04:22 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

LoonSailor: For years, I shot with a view camera and loved the tilt-shift functionality, mostly for perspective control, which I really missed in SLRs. Now, though, with excellent perspective control available within Lightroom / photoshop, I don't really miss it nearly as much. Why is a tilt-shift lens better than a software-based correction? Is it primarily for depth of field control, or in order to use the entire frame more effectively (seems like not as big a deal with 30MP sensors), or to improve visualization at time of image capture? Or, is it just, somehow, "better"?

I want to want this lens, because it would be fun to play with and bring back great memories of my bellows days, but why does one NEED it?

Software won't do tilt and even these lenses won't do it quite like a real technical camera where I have front and rear movements. Never-the-less, I will probably purchase this lens if it fits properly and if the price is reasonable.

To design one PCE lens to properly clear the font pentaprism bulge on so many cameras by so many makers seems to me to be a great design job. We'll see. I'd also like to know the price tag.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2012 at 10:35 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony Alpha NEX-5R hands-on preview article (127 comments in total)
In reply to:

xoio: More crappy 'wave the camera around - Iphone Style' rubbish.

Poking a camera on the end of straps is just not very stable and it doesn't work well in LIveView.

And for Heaven's sake, Leica is a RangeFinder camera which never had a mirror. It's been around since before SLRs were invented. Photographers moved to SLR so they could have through the lense optical viewfinders. The way you're thinking a rangefinder is a new thing people will migrate towards.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2012 at 02:00 UTC
Total: 218, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »