JhvaElohimMeth

JhvaElohimMeth

Lives in Italy Capri, Italy
Works as a Professional photographer
Has a website at www.sposarsiacapri.it
Joined on Dec 5, 2012
About me:

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

Comments

Total: 83, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Couscousdelight: For cheaper than a 6DII you can have a Pentax K-1, and it gives you :

36Mpxl
14Ev od dynamic
IBIS + pixel shift
35 cross Af points
A rugged body adapted for most situations.
And many more...

@EDWARD ARTISTE: it depends of what you want to shoot. For my work needs Pentax AF is unreliable

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 11:37 UTC
In reply to:

Couscousdelight: For cheaper than a 6DII you can have a Pentax K-1, and it gives you :

36Mpxl
14Ev od dynamic
IBIS + pixel shift
35 cross Af points
A rugged body adapted for most situations.
And many more...

@ozturert: Where did I say that 6D is better than 6DII? I said that 6D STILL kicks asses. Explain me where did I write such things. I know the answer: they're just in your head.

It still kicks asses because I already own it and because costs half than 6DII. It's so easy to understand. 6DII has a born old sensor for such price. This IS the point. With not that much more effort it's better to buy a 5d mkIV or spend just 1000 euros for a second 6D body.

And yes: Pentax AF is unreliable since EVER.

PS. before answering, learn how to read comments. I hate when people put in my mouth words I didn't say.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 11:37 UTC
In reply to:

Couscousdelight: For cheaper than a 6DII you can have a Pentax K-1, and it gives you :

36Mpxl
14Ev od dynamic
IBIS + pixel shift
35 cross Af points
A rugged body adapted for most situations.
And many more...

This camera is almost pointless. I'lll keep my 6D. Maybe I'll buy the 5D mkIV next year... maybe. Because my 6D still kicks asses with no problems.

PS. Pentax AF is terrible since... EVER. It's impossible to trust your camera when it misfocus almost always. I was anxious at work, I'm an ex (frustrated) Pentax user.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 10:24 UTC
On article Bang for the Buck: Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Review (719 comments in total)
In reply to:

MyMy: The Crop Factor is not clarified all reviews are marked as EQUIVALENT 35 mm ...rubbish the crop factor of OM Lenses is critical. 14- 42 for example at the 14mm setting ( equivalent to 28 in 35mm ) Not So ...much of the wide angle has been cropped away... I would need to step back several meters in order to render it the same as a 35mm Full Frame ...in my case that is not always possible especially indoors ... my solution is yet the purchase another lens like the 9 to 18 , very expensive Australian $799 ...not knowing this has left me with 2 cameras , not 1, that i really dislike . fiddling with the menu . compared to my Old OM 4Ti ...Also No 12v charger, a remote trip as I had planned presents difficulty ... I had to find a Solar and an 12volt adapter to charge from car at least or small or carry several batteries AU$120 each...Olympus batteries are not interchangeable either ....
Yeah The Thrill is Gone ...

ahahahahahahahahahahahah

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

dgumshu: So what is the relevance of theses photos? What am I missing here? It's tragic that people died, but it's just a recent ship wreck and the photos only show damage... that's to be expected in any wreck. It's not the Titanic, Lusitania or the Arizona.

Theses shots don't reveal any truth, provide any evidence of guilt or innocence or anything else for that matter... just damage. What was the pourpose of all the sneak around drama... as though he was trying to uncover some wrong doing?

Pointless photos. They are empty, with no style.
Aestethically speaking: just empty technique.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 11:32 UTC
On article Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 sample gallery (180 comments in total)
In reply to:

pca7070: My Nikon D750 + Nikkor 35mm F1.8 produces much sharper images. But it's much bulkier I know.

Usually I see it as a more "depth" in little color and tonality variations. It's not scientific, I know. But I shoot for work since 7 years and in difficult light conditions I can recognize with no doubt when I use 4/3 primes and 35mm primes.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 20:37 UTC
On article Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 sample gallery (180 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steve NYC: I like the look of images from the 15mm, but the price is a problem (even on sale or used). So, other than maximum aperture, what would one give up by choosing the far less expensive Pana 14mm f/2.5 instead? Just wondering.

However, the 20mm is inferior to the 15mm, BUT it has a more natural rendering in overcast days, a more "film days" look. It's the lens I use most.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 19:45 UTC
On article Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 sample gallery (180 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steve NYC: I like the look of images from the 15mm, but the price is a problem (even on sale or used). So, other than maximum aperture, what would one give up by choosing the far less expensive Pana 14mm f/2.5 instead? Just wondering.

I have 15mm 1.7, 20mm 1.7, 25mm 1.4 and I tried for some days the pana 14mm 2.5

The 14mm is a wonferful lens, it has a worse performance compared to 15mm 1.7, but it could be a nice lens if you prefer compactess and a more "dreamy" images, you'll have a bit more "old style" color and a softer rendering, and it isn't always a bat thing

I think I'll have both :D
And I already have the "wonderful ugly" 15mm f8 oly lens cap.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 19:45 UTC
On article Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 sample gallery (180 comments in total)
In reply to:

pca7070: My Nikon D750 + Nikkor 35mm F1.8 produces much sharper images. But it's much bulkier I know.

35mm systems have more microcontrast with a "same level lens" mounted on. Sharpness is just an "illusion". But as everyone can state a bad zoom on a 35mm camera isn't as microcontrasty as a Panaleica 25mm 1.4

Then, I think the only limit of 4/3 is with strong and harsh backlight when exposing for the shadows.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 19:39 UTC
On article Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 sample gallery (180 comments in total)

Have it, love it.
Worth the price, perfect at any aperture and condition.
Just backlight isn't so perfect but every lens I tried on 4/3 isn't up to 35mm options out there, at least in this regard. But I use 4/3 for other kind of light

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 19:35 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: Sony must offer long lenses, full stop.
Only a spec sheet fanboy would buy an a9 to put canikon glass on because of "wow, I have 20fps"... come on!

...and, however, I hope (for the customers, not me) that the finder does its best in very bad light conditions. OVF are very hard to beat in fast moving photography+dim light.

I still prefer OVF in those situations. It's always real time and I always understand what I'm framing.

About the exposure: I've never used an EVF reliable enough about real time exposure at night.

However, I already know the exposure I'm using. I don't need a finder to tell me what to do with light, I just need a reliable finder and full format prism OVF are enough to shoot weddings with people dancing or martial arts fights (in not so good light...). EVF? I have some doubt.

However, even if a9 finder is so fabulous as never before... without specific lenses there's no reason to shoot sport with sony instead of canikon.

Adapters? Come on...

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 09:18 UTC
In reply to:

jl_smith: So here's my take on the whole "but MF at f/1.4 is out of focus!" etc.

Sure, shot UP CLOSE, all formats (even down to m43) are going to have issues with a short DOF under the right conditions.

Thin DOF **IS NOT A PROBLEM** shooting things closely (either with a telephoto or a shorter lens closer) with fast aperture.

The benefit of APS-C over m43, and the benefit of FF over APS-C, and now the benefit of MF over FF (ad nauseum) is a great thin-DOF look with medium-distance subjects, especially with wider-angled lenses.

It's trivial to get myself a 35-100/2.8 in m43 and shoot at 100mm f/2.8 and get a good looking background with a close subject. It's much harder to do this with a 14mm (28mm FOV) f/2.5 lens with m43.

But, this is easier to do with say a Fuji 16/1.4 at f/1.4, and even easier with say a FF 24mm f/1.4 -- You still have enough DOF to get your subject in focus, but you get a great dropoff quickly because it's still a fairly thin DOF.

Out of characters - GOodbye !

I love micro 4/3 format. You are assuming things I didn't wrote.
Cheers

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 09:08 UTC
In reply to:

jl_smith: So here's my take on the whole "but MF at f/1.4 is out of focus!" etc.

Sure, shot UP CLOSE, all formats (even down to m43) are going to have issues with a short DOF under the right conditions.

Thin DOF **IS NOT A PROBLEM** shooting things closely (either with a telephoto or a shorter lens closer) with fast aperture.

The benefit of APS-C over m43, and the benefit of FF over APS-C, and now the benefit of MF over FF (ad nauseum) is a great thin-DOF look with medium-distance subjects, especially with wider-angled lenses.

It's trivial to get myself a 35-100/2.8 in m43 and shoot at 100mm f/2.8 and get a good looking background with a close subject. It's much harder to do this with a 14mm (28mm FOV) f/2.5 lens with m43.

But, this is easier to do with say a Fuji 16/1.4 at f/1.4, and even easier with say a FF 24mm f/1.4 -- You still have enough DOF to get your subject in focus, but you get a great dropoff quickly because it's still a fairly thin DOF.

Out of characters - GOodbye !

Yes, I agree, but you forgot that the majority of the users here REALLY doesn't know how to use a camera... :(

I see many spec sheet fanboy, few photographers.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 06:47 UTC

Sony must offer long lenses, full stop.
Only a spec sheet fanboy would buy an a9 to put canikon glass on because of "wow, I have 20fps"... come on!

...and, however, I hope (for the customers, not me) that the finder does its best in very bad light conditions. OVF are very hard to beat in fast moving photography+dim light.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 06:43 UTC as 59th comment | 3 replies
On article TriLens triple lens holder coming to Kickstarter (165 comments in total)

I LOVE it.
For a prime lens shooter this is everything.
Going around with some small primes attached on will let you go thru situations without any stupid bag.

For example during a wedding. I often shoot thru many guests, and everytime I need to change lens (from a 50mm to a 28mm, for example) I have two options: I carry my bag with me, feeling and looking like a heavy turtle, or I have to come back where I left my heavy bag... uncomfortable situations.

Now I can take with me one, two, or ever three primes and shoot everything I need without coming back. On the other side of the belt I can place a little sack for my speedlite and the trick is done!

Wedding photographers, this will be a good tool!

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 21:55 UTC as 21st comment

Still better AF than Fuji GFX 50S :P

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 14:07 UTC as 16th comment
On article Fujifilm X-T20 Review (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: Am I the only one who find fuji's high iso so ugly? Flat, fake colors and smudging details.

Yes... but even RAW files are so flat...
Maybe you can avoid smudging with the right settings. But colors and contrast are terrible, midtones and shadows turns purple/yellow.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 15:29 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (783 comments in total)
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: I don't usually like fujifilm cameras. X100 series have always been bad focusing cameras and the "mechanical wanna be" controls appeared to have "electronic" feedback in my hands.

BUT, this one tempts me... except for one thing: does this model still have the problem explained in this page? : https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmx100/17

In the end of the page linked here, they shows that the blur at high speed (above 1/1000) is "cutted" by the shutter. Are there X100F possessors that can tell me this (or a dpreview staff member)?

Thanks guys

Could someone from dpreview staff help me?

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 03:38 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T20 Review (369 comments in total)

Am I the only one who find fuji's high iso so ugly? Flat, fake colors and smudging details.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 03:36 UTC as 53rd comment | 5 replies
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (783 comments in total)

I don't usually like fujifilm cameras. X100 series have always been bad focusing cameras and the "mechanical wanna be" controls appeared to have "electronic" feedback in my hands.

BUT, this one tempts me... except for one thing: does this model still have the problem explained in this page? : https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmx100/17

In the end of the page linked here, they shows that the blur at high speed (above 1/1000) is "cutted" by the shutter. Are there X100F possessors that can tell me this (or a dpreview staff member)?

Thanks guys

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 08:39 UTC as 96th comment | 1 reply
Total: 83, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »