Steve Balcombe

Steve Balcombe

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Jun 16, 2004

Comments

Total: 126, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners article (468 comments in total)

Don't get me wrong, I've had any number of gripes with Adobe in the past, not least of which was being forced to upgrade just to get compatibility with new camera models. But as pointed out in the Editorial they have continued supporting CS6 for much longer than previous versions. Anybody who owns CS5 and who exercised their right not to upgrade lost ACR upgrade compatibility years ago.

The subscription model is a good deal (very good actually) but I understand the philosophical objections and fears. Those who don't want to sign up can buy a perpetual licence for Lightroom, and a perpetual licence for Photoshop Elements - in fact Lightroom only is more than capable enough for routine photo processing. Or they can switch away from Adobe, but if you are thinking of doing that please don't whine about it - instead, use your new software for a while then come back and tell us about it. If it's good enough people will want to know.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 11:46 UTC as 72nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

ThePhilips: I can't understand why there are so few 4.0/100mm macro lenses.

2.8 is useless for the macro, and it only hikes up the price and size of the lenses.

@techjedi - just for info - no, it wouldn't affect diffraction.

@Pixel Pooper - that's an important point re the manual aperture, and another reason why this lens looks less of a bargain than at first glance. Not sure it really affects the f/2.8 vs f/4 issue though, as it would apply either way.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2015 at 12:40 UTC

Actually the editorial has it wrong - Panasonic's statement doesn't in fact say that the serial number label from the box would be required for warranty validation, it says the number is there if you want to refer to it. (It is also in the EXIF data of course.) In any case, such a condition would be unenforceable in the EU, and probably elsewhere too.

Actually my biggest concern wouldn't be warranty claims, it would be not having a serial number on the body in the event of loss or theft. Having had a bag of gear stolen last year, all the serial numbered items were recovered and all the non-numbered items were not. And selling it myself when the time comes might be harder if the serial number has rubbed off.

I have to laugh at the expressions of shock and condemnation below. Has your favourite brand never suffered any kind of manufacturing defect? I don't currently own any Panasonic gear but this would not put me off in the slightest.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 11:41 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ThePhilips: I can't understand why there are so few 4.0/100mm macro lenses.

2.8 is useless for the macro, and it only hikes up the price and size of the lenses.

@GKN - it depends on the subject. You would find it difficult to shoot moving insects with Live View 10x, but for static subjects especially with a tripod it can be very good. I find I can frame and focus a shot faster with the optical viewfinder, which can be very valuable when grabbing fleeting opportunities.

Having said that, I have chased moving arthropods around with an MP-E65 and Live View, so it's certainly possible!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 20:25 UTC
In reply to:

ThePhilips: I can't understand why there are so few 4.0/100mm macro lenses.

2.8 is useless for the macro, and it only hikes up the price and size of the lenses.

There is a world beyond micro four thirds you know... I use the *optical* viewfinder of my 60D when appropriate, and I use the articulated LCD when that is appropriate. The LCD is only preferable when a difficult shooting angle makes it so; the optical viewfinder is always better when it can be used. In both cases the narrower depth of field of an f/2.8 lens *helps* with precise focusing.

And drop the ridiculous troll accusation, it's pathetic.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

ThePhilips: I can't understand why there are so few 4.0/100mm macro lenses.

2.8 is useless for the macro, and it only hikes up the price and size of the lenses.

If you had ever actually looked through a viewfinder you would know exactly what we mean. It is *easy* to see the focus point at f/2.8, and more precise than with a smaller aperture lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 14:07 UTC
In reply to:

ThePhilips: I can't understand why there are so few 4.0/100mm macro lenses.

2.8 is useless for the macro, and it only hikes up the price and size of the lenses.

@Tilted Plane - agreed, f/2.8 makes a big difference to manual focusing, especially with the right focusing screen.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 11:47 UTC

Thought I'd take this opportunity to find out whether I 'need' to replace my MkI with a MkIV. And the answer is no!

It's ok, I do understand that there is far more to the difference than pure image quality, but on that specific issue it looks like I wouldn't gain much. Surprising perhaps, given three generations and all the fuss about the new sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2015 at 13:05 UTC as 54th comment | 2 replies

Looks like their web site has been slashdotted!

When the excitement dies down, I'm tempted to give one of these a try. I've always been a fan of close-perspective macro.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 11:54 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Anadrol: If this lens offers 1:1 magnification and a 180mm lens offers 1:1 too,
could someone explain me why their image would differ ?
Both lens should cast about the same information to the sensor because they are both 1:1 lenses.

Aside that the 15mm lens has a much higher depth of field.

They differ in exactly the same way as two non-macro lenses with different focal lengths. You can shoot a head-and-shoulders portrait with a 35 mm lens or a 200 mm lens - obviously you have to be much closer with the 35 mm lens so the perspective is different. This shows up in different perspective distortion (stretched corners in the wide angle shot; compression in the telephoto shot) and most noticeably in the backgrounds.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 11:49 UTC

I took a look at the pano, in large part because of all the criticism - I half expected to find it was exaggerated or unjustified. But no, sadly the critics are correct this time. It's a poor choice of subject with far too little interest to justify the gigapixel treatment, but above all it is dreadfully executed. What a waste of time and effort.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 12:53 UTC as 33rd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: First off...let me say that Art Wolfe is one of my favorite photogs...the guy is incredible. I've followed his work for years yet looking at this series from Iceland I am left a little underwhelmed. Iceland is a hot (pardon the pun) location for photographers at the moment and 500PX/Flickr are full of simply stunning images created by a lot of lesser known photographers. I mean, these pics of Art's are nice....but at this point in time there is a lot of better work coming out of Iceland.

Maybe I'm alone here in my thinking....cue the lambasting and tirade of insults:)

I think you're right, but it sounds like he had a week of mostly very poor light - look at those skies. There's only so much you can do.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 12:12 UTC
In reply to:

zeratulmrye: I bought a remote control from China, it works good with at least 5m range (didn't try any longer distance so maybe it's even better than I thought) and also support T mode. The only shortcoming is that you can only trigger your camera from the front side, I guess that's where the IR receiver is.

Oh...and it cost only 1 dollar.

I've had an IR remote for my Canon cameras for over 20 years, but more recently I bought a cheap (£12-ish I think) Chinese wireless remote which is superb - huge range, works from any direction, and line-of-sight not needed. The only problem is it's a bit big and clumsy, but it works perfectly.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2015 at 13:10 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5 offers 20.8MP BSI sensor and revamped look article (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: Shouldn't the max/min shutter speed figures be reversed in the Specs?

You're trying to be a scientist instead of simply speaking English. As I said, it is a perfectly legitimate use of the word 'speed'. Similarly, if I say "look at this - quickly", the word "quickly" isn't wrong, it's just a slightly different usage from "he ran quickly". In the first case it means "in a short period of time" - just like "shutter speed".

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 09:21 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5 offers 20.8MP BSI sensor and revamped look article (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: Shouldn't the max/min shutter speed figures be reversed in the Specs?

It's a perfectly legitimate use of the word 'speed' - the shutter gets from the beginning to the end of the exposure quickly or slowly - 'speed' describes that. The same kind of issue arises with apertures - f16 is smaller than f2, which is why I like to write these as f/2 and f/16, analogous to 1/2 and 1/16 which nobody seems to have a problem with.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 08:21 UTC
In reply to:

120 to 35: "which consists of" or "which comprises" more than 73,000 items ...

I'm afraid you've got this wrong guys. "Comprises" and "is comprised of" are both correct - the one which is wrong is "comprises of". See http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/comprise (British English) and http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/comprise (US English).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 31, 2015 at 12:23 UTC
On World Press Photo revokes prize from Giovanni Troilo article (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aur: I think there is more to this story. This person diliberately misrepresented that city, lied about where the shots were taken, lied about setting things in scene.

Interestingly, Charleroi used to have coal mines, many italians used to work there decades ago, it wouldn't surprise me if this Italian photographer is in some way connected to charleroi and has some deeper unresolved problems.

More interestingly, I believe that pipeline above is associated with the mining. Also, he says "dark heart", just like coal is dark.

This whole story and his actions are just too weird, he intentionally went out to attack that city, fully aware of his narrative, I think it has nothing to do with artistic expression, but everything with his resentment towards that city.

I don't know the background to this, but if you're right then I would point out that creativity is often fuelled by emotions of one kind or another. This might be simply photographing people you have an emotional response to, or writing your best songs just after a break-up. Creativity is usually a positive thing but maybe in this case it is more destructive.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 10:47 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Sandman: I agree with the earlier post by Edymagno that the 410 is so heavy that it unbalances a carbon fiber tripod. So the almost 1 pound drop in weight is most welcome, despite the loss of capacity. But it appears that they've designed this one like the 410 in that it doesn't pan/pivot over the center of the tripod. That's a problem when shooting panos. You can buy a 3rd-party Swiss-Arca replacement mount from Hejnar to fix that on the 410; perhaps that will work for this head as well.

It's actually not an issue for panos - or rather when it is, it's irrelevant because having the centre of rotation above the tripod doesn't solve it either. For panos with nothing in the near foreground the parallax issue doesn't arise so this head could be used. If there are objects in the foreground you need to align the optical centre of the lens, not the tripod mount.

I have a 410, which has become my go-to head for close-up work where the precise framing can be really useful. If you do this you will soon realise that the off-centre rotation is an issue in all three axes, not just the one you mention, so fixing the vertical axis doesn't in fact remove the problem. You quickly learn to get the framing approximately correct by whatever means, then using the gears only for fine adjustment.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 08:57 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: I've been earning my living from created works since about 1987 - photography, graphic design, computer programming and web site design. So I have a vested interest in preventing copyright theft.

But for goodness sake, does this guy think that because he published a photograph of a basketball player with his legs split in 1985, he owns every photograph of the same thing? Utterly ridiculous.

If that was the situation I would agree with you, but in this particular case the 'concept' has little or no original creative content. If he'd taken a shot of Michael Jordan walking down the street eating an ice cream, would he expect to profit from all future shots of Michael Jordan walking down the street eating an ice cream?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2015 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: Facts first. WE can see the logo, but WE need to see the photograph he claims it is derived from. UNtil then we can form neither opinion nor judgement, and perhaps DP needs to get the photographer to state his case.

Why talk to the monkey when you should be talking to the organ-grinder?

Oh stop trying to change history. If you had followed it you would have known that the original photograph was there.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 16:45 UTC
Total: 126, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »