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: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Anfernee Cheang: I can understand the purpose of 24-85, but I don't understand why it is not 24-85/F2.8-4. In my point of view, the old 24-85/F2.8-4 is far better than the old 24-85/F3.5-4.5, in all aspects such as sharpness, color, speed, and the unique 1:2 macro mode.

The only work Nikon needs to do is to improve the coating of the glasses, and add SWM. That's it! Why not, Nikon?

The old 3.5-4.5 was AFS and this new one adds VR. You can't add the additional optical elements that make VR without redesigning the optical formula. The difference in speed is a lousy half stop which doesn't add to a hill of beans.

The point being is you can't just add something like VR to an existing lens and still have the same lens. This is a good mainstream lens that will probably be the kit lens for upcoming entry level and/or enthusiast level FX camera bodies. I suspect, in the long term, there to be both. With the cost to manufacture FX sensors falling to the same range of DX sensors, I think we can expect this to be most of the market eventually.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2012 at 11:01 UTC
On DSC0156 photo in dpchambers's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

That is a beautiful image. Thank you.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 11:20 UTC as 1st comment
On Just Posted: Pentax K-01 review article (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

DanK7: The lack of a view finder is a fatal flaw, sorry Pentax. I like the fact that Pentax thinks a bit outside the box, but this camera is more about design than taking photographs. The cart is definitely in front of the horse.

I agree with Dan. The lack of a viewfinder and the inability to add one is definitely the fatal flaw here. IMO, focus peaking is just the gimmick du jour. The slow focusing and poor LCD in bright sun makes the ergonomics score low too.

Even some owners of compact cameras often complain about the lack of an optical viewfinder. My 84 year old mother refused to use one. I had to lend her an old Pentax Optio that had one for her travels. How can Pentax think it's ok to leave off the viewfinder on this camera? Where's the engineering sense? Where's the marketing sense? Did they really think there were that many point and shoot upgraders out there who'd not notice the lack of a viewfinder or novices who would not care?

Other than this, I think the camera is really good looking. I love innovative looks and Pentax did a good job here, IMO. I love the colors too. There's nothing ugly about it to me, but form needs to follow function and that's where they failed unfortunately.

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2012 at 10:52 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Seriously what is the point?? If you are willing to spend that kind of money and carry a NOT compact camera/lens combo, why handicap your image quality with a quarter-frame sensor? Go APS-C or FF!

Hey Marty. Sign me up. I'll take the FX any day and the headroom and quality that goes with it. One thing though. You quote a Nikon FX 150 lens and I'm unaware of that one and consider myself pretty knowledgeable on Nikon glass.

Now I have a Sigma 150 f/2.8 APR HSM Macro for my D700 that that thing is a crazy good chunk of glass, so I'll assume you meant it. I think it on a D700 could help produce some awesome images where the OMD might struggle though. Depends on the photographer, of course. :)

Direct link | Posted on May 26, 2012 at 00:28 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Brunette: This is a true game changer, if you're serious about photography & more importantly video this is a killer piece of glass.

Suffice it to say that the super heavyweight 200mm/2.0 lenses that most pros want, yet can't afford is way more expensive (list price $9,500), and harder to transport, not to mention the big canon is almost 1/2 stop slower.

Dimensions = φ60.7 x 51.7mm / φ2.39 X 2.04 in.
Weight = 165g / 5.82 oz.

vs

Canon EF 200mm f/2.0

Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 2.4 x 2.4 inches ; 5.6 pounds

The Olympus is about the size and weight of the Canpn's lens hood.

Mike, no offense intended in the least, but you have no unearthly idea on whether or not this is a killer lens, I've see no tests nor heard of any. For all you and I know it's a dog. I doubt it, but it could be. All this nonsense this early on a product is just that.

Direct link | Posted on May 26, 2012 at 00:20 UTC
In reply to:

Digital Suicide: I don't get it...
What's the point previewing this lens without sample shots. I can't find them in this preview. Are they hidden somewhere?

They usually come out with sample shots at some point after the initial preview or wait for a review. I'm not sure it matters though. Internet displayed photographs can be very misleading. You really have to be able to download a RAW file and process it yourself, then maybe print it fairly large to get a basic understanding as to the characteristics of a lens. Even then, it sometimes really takes a few months or years working with a lens to really get to know it.

All glass can look good or bad online depending on the photographer's skill and the processor.

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2012 at 11:15 UTC
In reply to:

Guidenet: I think there is no excuse for leaving out modern sonic ring focusing motors in a new lens today, especially at this price point. Giving old technology a new name doesn't help except for the fan faithful. These days, we demand that a modern Sigma lens have HSM (their name for sonic ring type). We demand that Tamron's newest be USD (same thing). Nikon owners require all new lenses be AFS. Canon owners have long required USM (ultra sonic motors).

Pentax and Sony have been slow to adopt probably because it is expensive. Only Pentax's top "Star" lenses seem to have SDM (Sonic Drive Motor). There maybe one or two others, but they are just now moving that way. Their two new medium format models of course use the newer technology.

So what's the excuse for not using modern sonic ring motors in a new $900 lens from Olympus? The lens isn't that small. A good AF design would be worth it even if it required a little more width to handle it. Most excuses are going to not make much sense really.

I appreciate the reasonable answers. I'm not sure I agree, but most are reasonable. I think a micro motor or screw drive are chosen for cost reasons. They certainly are slower than a sonic ring model. I know Oly has the newer technology and never said they didn't. Pentax does too, but it's only used on the more expensive glass.

I think the way a motor racks in and out for a particular type of AF is semiconductor controlled and can work regardless. Sonic ring is silent, accurate and fast compared to other systems. Moreover, it has an instant clutchless manual override which is welcome.

I might be wrong. This indeed might be a rare case where the old technology micro motor is a better solution technologically. Maybe it wasn't chosen because it was cheaper and easier to implement. I hope those who think this is a good idea are not just going on blind faith of the brand faithful.

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2012 at 11:10 UTC

I think there is no excuse for leaving out modern sonic ring focusing motors in a new lens today, especially at this price point. Giving old technology a new name doesn't help except for the fan faithful. These days, we demand that a modern Sigma lens have HSM (their name for sonic ring type). We demand that Tamron's newest be USD (same thing). Nikon owners require all new lenses be AFS. Canon owners have long required USM (ultra sonic motors).

Pentax and Sony have been slow to adopt probably because it is expensive. Only Pentax's top "Star" lenses seem to have SDM (Sonic Drive Motor). There maybe one or two others, but they are just now moving that way. Their two new medium format models of course use the newer technology.

So what's the excuse for not using modern sonic ring motors in a new $900 lens from Olympus? The lens isn't that small. A good AF design would be worth it even if it required a little more width to handle it. Most excuses are going to not make much sense really.

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2012 at 03:25 UTC as 51st comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

zzapamiga: Just wondering what the advantages and disadvantages are of the new MSC screw drive autofocus and how does it compare to a micro motor or ultrasonic lens?

http://www.olympus.com.au/Learn---Explore/Core-Technologies/MSC-lens-technology.aspx

I think they might use it because it requires less weight and doesn't increase the size of the lens. I think it's nonsense about scanning because it's the AF logic in the camera that does that, not the mechanics of the lens. It doesn't matter if it's phase or contrast. Either one tells the lens where to focus.

I don't think there is any advantage in design for the old fashioned screw drive nor the old noisy unreliable micro motors. There is no doubt in my mind that USM/ASF/HSM/USD type sonic motors are superior to any other way of doing it. If they could have figured out how to go that way without growing the lens much more or without raising the price much more, then they probably would have done it. I think anything else is just the manufactures excuse for using an older design.

It looks like a well build looking lens, but it's expensive and uses an outdated AF system. We'll have to wait for tests to see how sharp. Anyone here want to translate f/1.8 to equivalent aperture FX.

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2012 at 02:59 UTC
On The One-Light Studio article (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

Guidenet: Great article. Thank you. So many don't consider a single light as studio lighting or try Strobist when a single monolight might be a better alternative so Kudos for this. This type of thing just helps people think about getting into a home studio situation or even carrying a single monolight with a battery pack on location.

So many think you have to start with three, four or five lights. I started with two and have over six now, but don't use them all very often. Many times I take only one and a reflector into the field.

Again, Thank you and Kudos to DPReview and Thomas Park for a great job.

Daryl, a monolight is a strobe and it doesn't matter for this kind of thing. For demo, he has to use continuous or a modeling lamp. Movies obviously can't use a strobe. Regardless the techniques are the same. Hot continuous lighting is often a pain for live models. Cool continuous is often not powerful enough.

Again, the techniques are the same. Most people use strobe type monolights or pack and head lights for studios. To learn more try www.paulcbuff.com

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2012 at 00:53 UTC
On The One-Light Studio article (94 comments in total)

Great article. Thank you. So many don't consider a single light as studio lighting or try Strobist when a single monolight might be a better alternative so Kudos for this. This type of thing just helps people think about getting into a home studio situation or even carrying a single monolight with a battery pack on location.

So many think you have to start with three, four or five lights. I started with two and have over six now, but don't use them all very often. Many times I take only one and a reflector into the field.

Again, Thank you and Kudos to DPReview and Thomas Park for a great job.

Direct link | Posted on May 22, 2012 at 18:33 UTC as 43rd comment | 7 replies

I think it's a good looking camera with some good specs. I could care less about the goofy features and syles, modes or whatever you want to call them.

What I like is that it has a real optical glass pentaprism viewfinder that neither NIkon nor Canon has in this price range along with a 100% viewfinder. Look also that like Nkon, the back LCD panel is directly below the optical viewfinder. I wish it were dead center, but this is close enough, unlike Canon which mashes it way over to the left.

It has a real metal frame under the plastic more like Nikon than Canon's all plastic models. The only thing missing is the top mounted LCD. The K5 has that though or the Nikon D7000. Great two cameras.

Weather stripping I think is a bit gimmicky but it sells cameras these days, so I suppose that is a good thing.

In closing, I think Pentax hit a home run with this camera. Kudos to Pentax again. Great job addressing the needs of more seasoned photographers in a budget priced model.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2012 at 23:04 UTC as 76th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Plastek: D3200 killer :)
Better high ISOs, tiltable LCD, much bigger viewfinder with 100% coverage, AF motor, better continuous shooting mode, immersely better video (one that's usable by people who don't have entire rig set up for filming with manual focus or strugglig with contrast detection which doesn't work more often than does) including stereo sound (! lol nikon Mono mode), stabilization for all lenses including Primes, lighter, smaller, 100$ cheaper! (for 100$ you can get 50mm prime in addition to kit lens which is something must-have for beginners IMO).

Nikon gets nicer accessories and +-5 EV exposure compensation which is good feature in did, but... on the other hand you get crapload of fun-features in Alpha: panoramas (including 3D), build-in teleconverter, and god-knows-what-else (cause I don't care about them).

IMO: Now there's no reason to get Nikon besides being proud of Nikon sticker at the front of camera.

There's a lot of good reasons for Nikon as well as good reasons for any other brand. One might be a huge legacy of lenses and accessories as well as probably the best world wide support in existence. Buying into the F mount provides a gateway into this treasure trove from the 1950s until present.

We all know it's the photographer more than the camera. If one can't get a better image from a D700 then one need only look in the mirror. Obviously that camera is not for you.

If downsizing is a bad thing, then I suppose there's just about not a camera made today that produces good prints most of the time. If you can see no advantages in a 36 mp $3000 camera, obviously a D800/e is not for you.

Nikon has coexisted with Canon, Pentax, Minolta and others for over fifty years. I guess they can do so with Sony. They are an optical glass company and that's what they do. They don't spend R&D on televisions or office copiers. They do cameras and lenses and yes, Nikon owners are proud of that.

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2012 at 11:35 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (452 comments in total)
In reply to:

Guidenet: I too am a bit underwhelmed. Most monochrome I see these days are failed color images where the photographer chose to go b&w in an attempt to be artsy, to same the failed image. I even see it here in critiques where people tell the photographer to try the same image converted to monochrome.

We look at some of the old greats like Ansel Adams and point at wonderful images, but that was the best medium available in those days. As technology improved, Adams moved forward. Today I believe he'd be shooting digital color and use Photoshop CS5.

I think it can be fun and rewarding to shoot B&W, and I too do these days, but it's with film and multi contrast paper printed high contrast. For those who still want great B&W, there you have it for much less money than this baby and you're not just trying to be artsy. For $7000, you can buy a complete darkroom, a nice 4x5 field camera & lens along with most everything else needed to really do B&W right. The image was meant that way from the start.

RR, nobody said B&W was a bad idea. What I said was that most B&W I see these days are attempts to save a failed color image. I have full respect for a monochrome image that was planned to be that way from the beginning. We're talking about the pre-visualized image where the photographer wanted to take advantage of the traits of monochrome photography.

IMO, to really take advantage of monochrome one needs to dive into where those traits lie, and I think this is B&W film photography, not removing the Bayer array from a color sensor. With film you have not only the characteristics of a B&W composition you mention but the characteristics of the film developer, paper and paper developer. You can choose to go more blue on multi contrast paper for that hard high contrast look, or more of a green light. This whole B&W endeavor all can contribute to the monochrome experience.

I think blowing $8000 on a camera might be fooling oneself into thinking they will get a wonderful B&W of old.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 11:23 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (452 comments in total)
In reply to:

dstate1: Leica perfectly understands their customer base...masochists with money (or credit). What will they take away for the next release? How about the lens mount?

Thank you sir, can I have another?

"Thank you sir, can I have another?"

Love it! ;)

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 01:16 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (452 comments in total)
In reply to:

OXwing: So why it still needs a COLOR LCD SCREEN ????
I would go for a B&W LCD, and -$1000 on MSRP.

So, where's Leica going to purchase this monochrome screen and for less money than they are paying for this 230k pixel 2.5 inch crap? Just curious.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 01:14 UTC
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (452 comments in total)

I too am a bit underwhelmed. Most monochrome I see these days are failed color images where the photographer chose to go b&w in an attempt to be artsy, to same the failed image. I even see it here in critiques where people tell the photographer to try the same image converted to monochrome.

We look at some of the old greats like Ansel Adams and point at wonderful images, but that was the best medium available in those days. As technology improved, Adams moved forward. Today I believe he'd be shooting digital color and use Photoshop CS5.

I think it can be fun and rewarding to shoot B&W, and I too do these days, but it's with film and multi contrast paper printed high contrast. For those who still want great B&W, there you have it for much less money than this baby and you're not just trying to be artsy. For $7000, you can buy a complete darkroom, a nice 4x5 field camera & lens along with most everything else needed to really do B&W right. The image was meant that way from the start.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 01:12 UTC as 135th comment | 7 replies
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

delete: "Wedding, event and studio photographers" are no professionals, since according to dpreview the D800, which "is an exciting prospect indeed" to them, is just a semi-pro camera.

May I kindly ask what exactly are the requirements dpreview needs to be fulfilled to tag a camera as professional?

Yes, Nikon considers any gear they have on their NPS qualifying list to be Pro gear. That's about the only thing to go by for the sake of discussion. Obviously anything you use to make money is professional, but we're talking build and feature set.

As far as DPReview saying SemiPro, I'm ok with that too. I don't need a review site, marketing department or anyone else to define things for me. The wording doesn't change anything about the camera. I think DPReview did a great job on this review.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 19:22 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gesture: The real question may be, where do digital SLRS go from here. I think the next frontier could be bringing full-frame down to the lower-priced models in each line.

PeeVee, that just isn't true. I'm not sure SLRs will ever be replaced by your mirrorless models. There are just too many advantages to an SLR. The others may overcome some n the future, but not now. There's not a mirrorless camera made that does what I like to do with is birding. EVF just can't keep up and no way to frame fast enough on the back panel. Sports and children running around the back yard also come to mind.

Then consider the small DSLRs out there. The tiny Canon T3i, Nikon D3200 or Pentax KR are so small it's almost ridiculous that someone might have an issue. They are hollow plastic and light weight as well.

I think Nikon and maybe Canon later will introduce full frame enthusiast priced cameras and you'll see a resurgence in these models when people really want that IQ and ISO performance that a true 35mm sensor gives. Look out for a Nikon D400 or D600 this year for the price of a Nex 7 or a little more. Look at a D700 right now.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

Guidenet: There are huge computers in modern cameras. These computers have operating systems and applications just like your home computer. When a new operating system for Apple, Windows or Linux is released, we can expect a few crashes here and there until it gets ironed out. It's fairly normal. Even with huge beta periods and a lot of testing, computer bugs crop up after release. Nobody likes it, especially the releasing company. No matter how un-rushed you are to market, it happens.

There are two types of errors; syntactical and logical. Syntax errors are usually all caught in beta and other testing. This is where you made a grammatical error in your coding. A logical error is much harder to find. It will only crop up when that logic is tested. It might mean a series of events simultaneously triggering another series of events where something in the middle tried to divide by zero.

Finding these bugs is not that hard and pretty trivial to repair. I'd buy one today without issue.

I think for starters, some don't know what an operating system is. They can be fairly trivial all the way to very complex. Your camera's computer has an OS. As others have mentioned, it is not so simplistic as a simple systems level OS designed for an assembly line. There are literally millions of possibilities for input and output. There is no way to beta test all variations. That's why problems can creep up years after release. I'm not putting down the folks that don't understand this. Just trying to explain. Someone has to try to break something in beta in order to find a problem. If nobody thinks of that way to break it, it won't be discovered. Simple as that.

But, that's why we call it "Software." Fixing it is trivial. It's designed to be replaced. It's designed to be fixed. It's designed to be able to add features later when you think of them. It's not like a design mistake like a light leak or white orb creating sensors. It's SOFTware. Software gets updated all the time.

Direct link | Posted on May 4, 2012 at 22:18 UTC
Total: 223, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »