JhvaElohimMeth

JhvaElohimMeth

Joined on Dec 5, 2012
About me:

http://fuorisposto.tumblr.com
www.davide-esposito.squarespace.com

Comments

Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 First Impressions Review (125 comments in total)

Flash sync?

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 17:10 UTC as 5th comment
On article Apple unveils iPhone 7 and dual-cam iPhone 7 Plus (946 comments in total)

Interesting the double module with two focal lenght... but, holy s*it, why don't you put this fuc*ing feature ALSO on a smaller phone? Or you expect serious photographers (the one may be more interested...) to shoot easily with this frying pan in the hands?

Thanks Apple, but on the 4.7 would have been perfect.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 00:27 UTC as 130th comment
On article Minox announces tiny, retro-styled DCC 14.0 camera (148 comments in total)
In reply to:

robmanueb: Nikon Coolpix A killer. Faster lens, quarter of the price and it has an optical viewfinder.

"Coolpix A killer" ahahahahah. I think there are 100 times more Coolpix A worldwide than digital Minox XD

Have a nice day,
by a Minox 5.1 owner...

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

mario loconte: Ok, nice article, but there is no mention regarding the highlights recovery (where sony does much better than canon). Sometimes even the best photographer on a rush does overexposed pictures, accidentally.

I'm not saying that no one talked about DR before 4 years ago (are you used to put your own thoughts in other people's mouth?). I'm just saying that it's becoming a stupid obsession and many people think to expose -3 stop "because I want to preserve highlights". I think you'll agree that it's not a way to shoot.

Pictures like the one above this article are kitsch and terribly awful.

However if you know how to expose your scene you'll have zero problems with every modern camera. Even my Panasonic GX1 is enough for me.

And I repeat, until 4 (or 5 maybe) years ago DR in digital (yes I wrote DIGITAL) world was not as wide as today and I've never seen complaints. No one has never told me "AH! You work with your Canon 5d mk II has not eough DR, I don't like your pictures".

There are few applications where extremely high DR is useful. But it's also true the opposite, in some kind of picture less DR is better (try to imagine Mario Giacomelli's work done today with a high DR camera...).

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 11:47 UTC
On article All about control: Huawei P9 camera review (90 comments in total)

I have a question, is possible to shot b&w raw (I think yes...)?
And, more important, is possible in manual mode to expose differently ambient light and flash? For example... I want to shot -2 EV ambient light and +1 EV flash, in the same shot... can I?

Thanks guys

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 15:33 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
On article Hasselblad True Zoom Moto Mod hands-on preview (151 comments in total)

It's so difficult to have a fuc*in' mobile phone with a sensor similar to the rx100's one and an equivalent 35mm f/2 lens attached on?

I want to dream, I would have several modules: 28mm f/2, 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2.

It should come in two versions: one with a big display and a smaller one (about 4") to be more discrete.

In other words: project Ara... where are you?

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 14:48 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: I don't understand all this "noise" about dynamic range and shadow recovering. As a wedding photographer I am pleased with the "poor DR" Canon 6D.

The dynamic range could be more, but honestly when exposing the picture in the right way (with a good composition about the exposure of the various elements), I get always the shot I need. And this is what a real photographer should always do.

When light is bad, all cameras make bad pictures, there's no dynamic range that will save you. All that photos with extreme shadow recovery look bad, fake, kitsch. They are awful. Is absurd shooting -3 EV for preserving lights: I just imagine the bride telling "show me the photos" during the wedding, I would really appreciate her face after.

There's no need in more dynamic range. Everyone just need how to look and interpretate the natural fuc*ing light. Everyone just need to be a real photographer, able to evaluate the composition and the exposure of the various elements to show in the picture.

@dtibi: ok, no camera can froze the light you see with your eyes in the viewfinder. But that "problem" in reality is an opportunity to be creative...

Understanding light is a wonderful experience.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 14:09 UTC
In reply to:

mario loconte: Ok, nice article, but there is no mention regarding the highlights recovery (where sony does much better than canon). Sometimes even the best photographer on a rush does overexposed pictures, accidentally.

Yeah, I think the "DR matter" is just talking about bullshits (until 4 years ago I don't think there weren't good pictures... until 4 years ago you were just OBLIGED to shoot like a photographer that knows what's the fuc*ing light).

But if I can choose, I would have more margin in highlight recovery, at least my style of shooting tend to have so much informations in the "high" side of the exposure. However, the only Sony I used is the original A7, and it doesn't perform better than my 6D about highlights information. At least in my experience.

I don't know why everyone tend to evaluate the dynamic range just on how much you can recover from shadows... I would prefer to have more gentle passages in the highlights until they are totally burned. But it's not a "must", I'm happy with the 6D.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 14:06 UTC
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: I don't understand all this "noise" about dynamic range and shadow recovering. As a wedding photographer I am pleased with the "poor DR" Canon 6D.

The dynamic range could be more, but honestly when exposing the picture in the right way (with a good composition about the exposure of the various elements), I get always the shot I need. And this is what a real photographer should always do.

When light is bad, all cameras make bad pictures, there's no dynamic range that will save you. All that photos with extreme shadow recovery look bad, fake, kitsch. They are awful. Is absurd shooting -3 EV for preserving lights: I just imagine the bride telling "show me the photos" during the wedding, I would really appreciate her face after.

There's no need in more dynamic range. Everyone just need how to look and interpretate the natural fuc*ing light. Everyone just need to be a real photographer, able to evaluate the composition and the exposure of the various elements to show in the picture.

@dtibi: Until last year I had a 5D mk II. Noise (and banding) is bad compared to 6D, but dynamic range is similar. At least this is what I noticed during the workflow. However the biggest problem of the 5D mk II is not the sensor (good enough) but the slowness of the camera, and the really bad center point focus.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2016 at 09:33 UTC
In reply to:

noms78: I am alittle torn trying to decide between the 5D4 and the 5DS (for still photography). Leaning towards the newer sensor though. I really would have preferred a couple more megapixels for more detail in landscape/cityscape (I think 36 is a good amount without being excessive - i.e. 50).

5DS is slower than my 6D, personally tested. If you want to shoot weddings or street 5D mk iv is surely better...

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2016 at 01:33 UTC

I don't understand all this "noise" about dynamic range and shadow recovering. As a wedding photographer I am pleased with the "poor DR" Canon 6D.

The dynamic range could be more, but honestly when exposing the picture in the right way (with a good composition about the exposure of the various elements), I get always the shot I need. And this is what a real photographer should always do.

When light is bad, all cameras make bad pictures, there's no dynamic range that will save you. All that photos with extreme shadow recovery look bad, fake, kitsch. They are awful. Is absurd shooting -3 EV for preserving lights: I just imagine the bride telling "show me the photos" during the wedding, I would really appreciate her face after.

There's no need in more dynamic range. Everyone just need how to look and interpretate the natural fuc*ing light. Everyone just need to be a real photographer, able to evaluate the composition and the exposure of the various elements to show in the picture.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2016 at 01:21 UTC as 20th comment | 10 replies
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2669 comments in total)
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: I sold my Pentax gear due to poor AF in almost every kind of light. As a wedding photographer that would be frustrating.

I feel very confident with Canon 6D... Pentax K1 and poor AF means lost pictures.
Bye Pentax, try to catch canikon in AF performance, and then we'll see!
I would like to return in Pentax world, I would like to try in a wedding the limited series... 31, 43 and 77mm. But if you are 10 years behind in terms of AF... there's no match!

I use just the center point with my 6D. Is fast, accurate and see everything in every light. Just like 5D mk iii (even a bit better in dim light, just to say...).

That's my experience. It has enough buffer for my needs, it's silent and light with primes mounted on.

Maybe Pentax didn't say that K1 is for weddings (and I think if you ask them they wold say "yes surely you can do everything!")... but it's strange to think that a 2K reflex is not able to cover well fast action photography... today! Even my 6d can do weddings very well...

The point is that I don't want to risk and buy something that makes me losing shots.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 19:26 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2669 comments in total)

I sold my Pentax gear due to poor AF in almost every kind of light. As a wedding photographer that would be frustrating.

I feel very confident with Canon 6D... Pentax K1 and poor AF means lost pictures.
Bye Pentax, try to catch canikon in AF performance, and then we'll see!
I would like to return in Pentax world, I would like to try in a wedding the limited series... 31, 43 and 77mm. But if you are 10 years behind in terms of AF... there's no match!

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 19:20 UTC as 259th comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

David Kinston: In our family there are 3 different recent Nikon cameras, from the D7200 to the D750. Tamron, Sigma and Tokina lenses as well as Nikon. Never any issues.

Plainly CANON is the problem! They like making life difficult for their competitors - and we photographers are the ones suffering.

Lol, my 6D is crying...

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2016 at 10:14 UTC

Can you mount them on sony a7 series (without stupid adapters)?
No?
Too bad Tamron: too, bad!

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 20:04 UTC as 42nd comment | 2 replies
On article Fujifilm X100T successor rumored to feature new lens (334 comments in total)

identical but smaller, with 4/3 sensor and a 20mm (40mm eq.) 1.4

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 11:16 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Jylppy: If someone remembers I have often posted (and still will) here comments supporting FF DSRL. So with that background I must say that the new Pana GX8 has impressive image quality. Really impressive. The high ISO is a challenge as usual for m43 sensors (GX8 @ ISO 1600 ~ 5D2 @ ISO 800), but still impressive.

But once Panasonic has realized that there is "minimum size" for a serious camera (vs. pocket camera) due to ergonomics, the benefits of m43 system vs. larger sensor Sony system are getting bit marginal, IMO. Yes, I understand how sensor size impacts on lens size, but I also understand that it impacts less on DoF-equivalent lens size. Just see how light-weight Canon 70-200/4L IS is.

Sony FE is still my favorite MILC system (not owning one) in case I choose to get 2nd camera.

Canon FF DSLR user.

Sometimes I still use a 5d mkII for weddings, and it's a crap sensor. Red skin, generally inaccurate colors and so much banding even at 100 iso.

For personal shots I use Panasonic GX1 + 20mm 1.7.
Ok, it's 4/3... but is way more accurate in colors, at high iso got luminance noise and not chroma noise. Got far less banding. To my eyes is a more pleasing sensor than 5d mkII one.

5d mkIII is ok sensor, but mkII is really bad to my eyes, at least nowadays. Once it was revolutionary, but now... please.

Canon 6d is my favourite Canon sensor, however.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 09:16 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Review (8 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThirstyDursty: no mention of AF performance....which is for me...decidedly lacklustre (at least on an OMD em-10).

Ive found this to especially in low light and backlit situations. If you have moving targets in these situations and this lens can be frustrating by missing focus on otherwise great shots.

Yeah on that camera focusing is pretty bad (my sister got that camera/lens combo so I know)...
Pana 20 focuses far better on an old model like my Panasonic GX1

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 13:38 UTC
On article Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM real-world samples gallery (141 comments in total)

Good enough, small enough, cheap enough.
As expected.

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 22:10 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: Still waiting for a compact and moderately fast ultrawide fixed lens for 4/3

If I remember is a fisheye, and I don't like fisheye.
But I'm not sure if it's a rectilinear lens or not.
EDIT: it seems to be rectilinear but not compact enough, for my needs...

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2015 at 00:03 UTC
Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »