Grevture

Lives in Sweden Stockholm, Sweden
Works as a Photographer, tech journalist
Joined on Oct 14, 2005
About me:

2 x D3, D3s (and an old D70S)
.
Sigma 15-30/f3.5-4.5
Sigma 30/f1.4
AF-S 17-35/2.8
AF-S 24-70/2.8
AF-S 35/1.8 DX
AF 50/1.4
Micro 55/f3.5 (borrowed)
AF 85/1.4 D
AI 105/f2.5
AF-S 80-200/2.8 (now retired)
AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR II
AF-S 300/f2.8 II
TC-14E, TC-17E

Used to own:
D2H
D200
AF 10.5/2.8 DX
AF-S 24-120/f3.5-5.6 VR
AF-S 28-70/2.8
AF 135/f2.0
AF 180/f2.8
TC-20E

NPS Member

Canon shooter during the film era, still got the F1 ...

Comments

Total: 49, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E ED VR sample gallery (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zigmont: Not impressed at all, every sample photo looks out of focus in various spots. Although the photo composition is of such poor quality, who knows. Very bad photo gallery on this one.

"... out of focus in various spots."

Ever heard of the concept of depth of field, often abbreviated "DOF"? :-)

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 12:59 UTC
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

pro photo 2011: Nikon and Canon cameras somehow never look all that different; they are very boring. Can't they be more creative? If they were car makers, they would have gone out of biz a long time ago.

I assumed as muh. The arguments I am making are rather aimed at the casual reader which might mistake his rash statements for knowledge :)

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 11:10 UTC
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

pro photo 2011: Nikon and Canon cameras somehow never look all that different; they are very boring. Can't they be more creative? If they were car makers, they would have gone out of biz a long time ago.

@pro photo 2000: It is worth repeating: of course mirrorless will be dominant in the future. It is a simpler technical design, and that great advantage alone will at some point win.

But mirrorless camera makers in general and Sony in particular will need to rethink the current "mirrorless must be smaller" mentality. Mirrorless CAN be smaller, and some models obviously should exploit this. But mirrorless should also aim at being simply better, more purposeful, not just this minded focus on making the smallest camera possible at the expense of usability and ergonomics.

I have used Sony A9, and love it. It is a great camera and in my mind the first mirrorless to serioysly challenge DSLR fpr professional use. But its ergonomics is a disaster. Try using it for a full day with lenses like 16-35/2,8, 24-70/2,8, the 70-200/2,8 and the 100-400. I have, and it sucks. Try using it with gloves - it just does not work.

The D850 has a very conventional design for good reason.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 06:07 UTC
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

pro photo 2011: Nikon and Canon cameras somehow never look all that different; they are very boring. Can't they be more creative? If they were car makers, they would have gone out of biz a long time ago.

@pro photo 2000: You quote CIPA numbers, and fail to see their real message - after almost ten years of "mirrorless crushing DSLR" mirrorless still have just over 35 % of the number of ILC units sold and (what you failed to mention) less then a quarter of the value.

Yes, mirrorless will be dominant in the future, but it sure ain't happening fast. Which mean a camera like the D850 will most likely be very much relevant for its technical life span.

And no, Sony is not number 2 in the US market, they were no 2 for a single month, looking at the year as a whole they still lag considerably behind Nikon and much more so behind Canon.

Will Sony be number 2 in the future? Maybe, Minolta used to be bigger then Nikon ye olde film days, so that might happen again once Sony actually manages to finally live up to what Minolta achieved ...

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 06:04 UTC
On article Hands on: Nikon D850 (372 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rooru S: Why does DPReview ignores the a99II, the closest competition to the D850? No mention whatsoever of it.

DPreview just follow the lead of camera buyers - ignoring the A99 II ... :-)

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 16:09 UTC
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

pro photo 2011: Nikon and Canon cameras somehow never look all that different; they are very boring. Can't they be more creative? If they were car makers, they would have gone out of biz a long time ago.

They are professional tools for creating images. And much like hammers och screwdrivers tend to look a certain way, professional cameras also tend look a certain way. This design has been refined for well over 30 years by now and is indeed very functional.

If you want fun stuff, buy a toy.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 15:50 UTC
On article Hands on: Nikon D850 (372 comments in total)
In reply to:

Valps: Maybe this will breathe new life in the XQD card format, to the benefit of Sony, currently the only producer of such cards.

You probably don't need to worry to much about the future of XQD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFexpress
http://resourcemagonline.com/2016/10/the-cfast-vs-xqd-battle-is-already-over-stop-buying-cfast/68002

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 16:18 UTC
On article LensRentals tests the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 FL ED (111 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): I wonder what the effective focal length at 200mm and minimum focus distance is, the previous version was really only 135mm.

Tony ... I have seen quite a few of your videos over the years and you seem like someone genuinely interested in providing level headed, common sense-based information about lenses and cameras. Except maybe for one thing ... :-)

I freelance as a sport and event photographer, I used an old AF-S 80-200/2,8 literally to destruction, I have quite often used a collegues 70-200 VR, and my own 70-200 VR II has averaged something like 75K shots a year since I got it in december 2009. And I mainly shoot people full body, half body or portraits with it.

Never once I have had a situation where the focus breathing of the 70-200 VR II has caused me any trouble. I did notice it when I first got the lens, probably spent 20 seconds thinking about it, and then forgot about it until I noticed it being a much discussed issue on forums.

Moreover, I have never met another professional photographer who seem to care much about it.

To me this seem like a wildly overblown "issue" ...

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 01:19 UTC

I have to say I am seriously impressed with the Samsung NX1. It really does deliver also on high iso.

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2014 at 16:01 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Robert Soderlund: As usual these capture the moments where a certain expression has nothing to do with reality, but rather the emotion the photographer tries to express. If a person has a certain look, he too often chooses that photo and thinks it expresses the situation of the population in question.

Emotion in photography should in my opinion have no weight, what photography does if done correctly is documenting the facts, not twist them and make people draw conclusions of a certain second in a certain war that could take years. Its the experience of suffering that is bad, you can only capture part of it, the emotions are not to be taken in pictures.

For example, everyone who has been ill knows that taking a picture of themself does not explain how they felt during that illness. If you however got blue or pale, thats where photography comes in handy, to bring out the truth, not how your lips or expression was during a certain time of the day.

Robert Soderlunds: Who's facts? :)

Your comment is just amazingly naive, sort of what you expect to hear from a child.

"Emotion in photography should in my opinion have no weight" ... Oh dear :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 09:26 UTC
On article Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

Grevture: To me this poll is basically impossible to answer - because to me many if not most enthusiasts would happily use more then one camera in parallel, with different sensor sizes, depending on the situation.

So essentially, all the top six options are appropriate, depending on the situation and one's shooting habits in various situations.

And the bottom option does not work either - because sensor size does matter to people. Just not a single one.

Steve, you might want to take a look at Panasonic FZ1000 ... One inch sensor and 25-400/2.8-4 zoom is a pretty neat combo.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 01:26 UTC
On article Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

Grevture: To me this poll is basically impossible to answer - because to me many if not most enthusiasts would happily use more then one camera in parallel, with different sensor sizes, depending on the situation.

So essentially, all the top six options are appropriate, depending on the situation and one's shooting habits in various situations.

And the bottom option does not work either - because sensor size does matter to people. Just not a single one.

Matthias: Exactly, it is a bit like asking a carpenter what he likes best, his saw, his hammer, his plane or his chisel. Answer? Neither and all of them.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2014 at 20:11 UTC
On article Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think (198 comments in total)

To me this poll is basically impossible to answer - because to me many if not most enthusiasts would happily use more then one camera in parallel, with different sensor sizes, depending on the situation.

So essentially, all the top six options are appropriate, depending on the situation and one's shooting habits in various situations.

And the bottom option does not work either - because sensor size does matter to people. Just not a single one.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2014 at 13:46 UTC as 37th comment | 6 replies
On article Dronestagram contest winners announced (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: "Photography" just fell from the art of profane to the art of ridiculous.
Now it even excludes human eye behind the camera, and replaces it with a remote controller.
I personally don't know what this "art" is, but when something is totally removed from our senses and sensibilities, and drowns in the blind fad of times, it despises everything we sensibly believe is human side of photography.
Drones are not the apparatus, but drones are people who engage in this profanity just for the sake of "ability".

So paintings made from anything but direct observations are not art either then?

Whenever something is done that has not been done before, there seem to be a choir of angry detractors eagerly standing by to moan and groan about it.

This is photography just as much any other photography. Just because you cannot see past the technology used, it does not take away any of its potential value.

And for your information: remote controlled photography has been around for many, many decades already :)

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2014 at 12:59 UTC
On article DPReview Reader Showcase: The beautiful game (47 comments in total)

* Warrning! This comment contain irony *

For an insightful look at football/soccer as a social and cultural phenomena, here a contribution from one of the great thinkers of our time ...
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/06/25/coulter-growing-interest-soccer-sign-nations-moral-decay/11372137

Oh dear ... ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 00:44 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply

I have shoot sports on and off for 30+ years, and really liked this article. Mr McDaniel sums it up well in the first paragraph: If you have equipment where iso 3200-6400 works, particularily after a bit of scaling down, and pair that with f2.8 or faster lenses, you can shoot almost any indoor sports event.

Today's m43 cameras do that well, meaning they are indeed useful for indoor sports photography.

Usually when someone brings things like this up it erupts into a debate why cameras like Canon Eos 1Dx and Nikon D4s at all are used when you obviously can shoot even tricky things like indoor sports in bad light with much lighter/smaller/cheaper equipment.

Well, as I wrote, a m43 camera is indeed _useful_ for indoor sports. But a 1Dx or a D4s is way _easier_ to use for that. As a professional you want the maximum yield of useable images from every situation in every event since you must always deliver.

BTW, I strongly recommend rollerderby, it is great fun to watch and to shoot.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 11:18 UTC as 34th comment | 1 reply
On article 1939: England in Color (part 1) (222 comments in total)

Great collection, and a great story derived from the collection.

Got to love the understated comment accompanying image 21:
"... as clouds gather in the late summer of 1939."

Yeah, they sure did ...

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2014 at 15:08 UTC as 114th comment
On article 1939: England in Color (part 1) (222 comments in total)
In reply to:

Earthrise: These are great, thank you for posting. I wonder what those in 75 years time will make of the images we take now. I suspect that the impact shots we think great now will fade to obscurity and it will be the ones documenting everyday life that become treasured. And there's plenty of those now :-) Looking forward to the next set. Thanks

That I think will be the historical legacy of the cheap compacts and the smartphones - a lot of images of our everyday lives.

How I wish my grandparets have had even the humblest of smartphones ;)

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2014 at 15:06 UTC
On article Roll with it: Official World Cup ball goes HD (28 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lars Rehm: Nice to see the winner's team gets to play with it first ;)

I'll just say: 4-4 ... ;)

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2014 at 12:05 UTC
On article Two photographers re-imagine city potholes (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prairie Pal: what kind of crap is this? Is has nothing to do with photography. Nothing at all.

And you are of course the one person in the world who defines and decides what is, and what is not photography?

Get over yourself ;)

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 15:32 UTC
Total: 49, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »