jdc562

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 18, 2010

Comments

Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

This item overlooks several things:
1. Many photographers travel on airplanes. The advantage of a sandbag is that it can be carried empty and filled with beans, rice, etc., at the destination, then emptied for the return trip.
2. Many of us use a bean bag as a heavy, steady, vibration-absorbing rest for our telephoto lenses, especially when shooting from vehicles.
3. Water-filled containers are universally available, as heavy as you want them to be, and easy to hang from tripods.

So why does it make sense to transport seven pounds of recycled steel?

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2019 at 20:56 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply

I often work out of the back of my SUV or my house or a small meeting place. I need a small gear case for a limited number items that are quick and easy to access. For this work I don't want a lot of clutter: no bulky straps, no layers of zippers, no digging around. I just want something like a small suitcase that opens easily to display all of my pre-chosen gear that I can easily pick out and put back into their compartments. This would hold my selection of lenses, bodies, flashes in a simple, unpretentious case. This is exactly what I have been looking for.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2019 at 18:58 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: There's a reason for this:

1. There is no true certification to be a professional photographer. Just go to Best Buy, plunk down a couple grand, buy some cheap business cards at Vista Print and you are now a pro photographer.

2. Tell people you are now a pro photographer with a big camera.

Seriously, most professions have some kind of standard for certification in order to provide credibility and validity to the profession. Photography is like dentistry in the 1800s. Got a pair of pliers, a chair, and a jar of leeches? Great, you're now a dentist.

I gave up pro photography because it didn't feel legit when I was taking photos. I was good enough at it, but my only qualification was a full frame camera and business cards.

There should be formal pathways in my opinion.

Mike Fairbanks: Photographers can be certified if they want, and being certified leads to better paying photography jobs. Photography schools, including photography departments in colleges, offer training that leads to certification in various kinds of photography. This is a criterion that wise clients can use to select a photographer, along with examining a photographer's portfolio, and interviewing a photographer for his/her suitability for the project at hand. You are delusional if you think a degree or speciality certification from a recognized photography school will be viewed by potential clients as equal to a camera from Best Buy combined with glossy business cards.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2019 at 22:41 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: There's a reason for this:

1. There is no true certification to be a professional photographer. Just go to Best Buy, plunk down a couple grand, buy some cheap business cards at Vista Print and you are now a pro photographer.

2. Tell people you are now a pro photographer with a big camera.

Seriously, most professions have some kind of standard for certification in order to provide credibility and validity to the profession. Photography is like dentistry in the 1800s. Got a pair of pliers, a chair, and a jar of leeches? Great, you're now a dentist.

I gave up pro photography because it didn't feel legit when I was taking photos. I was good enough at it, but my only qualification was a full frame camera and business cards.

There should be formal pathways in my opinion.

Being a surgeon and being a photographer have zero relevance to one another.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2019 at 23:07 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: There's a reason for this:

1. There is no true certification to be a professional photographer. Just go to Best Buy, plunk down a couple grand, buy some cheap business cards at Vista Print and you are now a pro photographer.

2. Tell people you are now a pro photographer with a big camera.

Seriously, most professions have some kind of standard for certification in order to provide credibility and validity to the profession. Photography is like dentistry in the 1800s. Got a pair of pliers, a chair, and a jar of leeches? Great, you're now a dentist.

I gave up pro photography because it didn't feel legit when I was taking photos. I was good enough at it, but my only qualification was a full frame camera and business cards.

There should be formal pathways in my opinion.

Mike Fairbanks: What are you thinking? Your photographs speak for themselves. Why add another layer of bureaucracy??? Requiring "formal pathways" won't make a good photographer out of one who lacks vision. Confusing dentistry with photography makes no sense at all.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2019 at 02:27 UTC

I have never thought about selling my photographs. I photograph for my own enjoyment and purposes, often for photo documentation; I am a biologist. I am glad to donate my photos to groups doing good; e.g., educational groups, researchers, conservation groups, public interest groups, etc. I always verify the integrity of any group requesting photos.

When I started this, commercial photographers were very upset, claiming I was taking away their business to get selfish ego boosts. They ignored the reality that the entities that requested my photos were not-for-profit groups that needed every penny they had and were largely staffed by volunteers. They were not a a good source of paying clients to begin with. Plus, they are doing good projects that benefit all of us.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2019 at 02:21 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Steve in GA: If you really want beautiful skies, go where they are beautiful all the time and don't need enhancement.

We vacationed for a week in New Mexico three years ago, and immediately noticed that the skies there are just extraordinarily beautiful. I suppose it is a combination of clean air and the high altitude, but whatever the reason, it's gorgeous.

To Albert: The "Chemtrail" conspiracy is fodder for imbeciles. Use your brain. Don't get suckered into that b.s.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2018 at 20:44 UTC
In reply to:

wheatfieldsoul: The "after" results look so amateurish and overcooked.
Whatever happened to subtlety?

Wrong premise. The skies are not "enhanced." To the contrary, the resulting skies were disgustingly contrived. Apparently you are not aware that Ansel Adams worked in black and white. Ansel Adams would have puked.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2018 at 20:40 UTC

This filter is great if you're into converting your photos into geegaw garbage. The "Befores" looked better than the "Afters." You could do much better with basics in PhotoShop. But if this amateurish garishness appeals to you and philistines are your target audience, go for it.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2018 at 20:29 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Joachim Wulfers: @Jjdc562. I can see equipment getting moldy in a place like Colon, Panama, however I like to point out that in 1976 no one took steam ships (rather Diesel powered) for transatlantic travel, unless it was a pleasure trip. In 1956 yes. Living in Colombia at the time, I took several trips from Bogota to London and Frankfurt between 1961 and 1965 with a stop-over in Gander, NFl

To Joachim Wulfers: Sorry I didn't spell out every detail, bit by bit, resulting in your missing the main points of my post. I didn't say that passenger steamships were still sailing into the port of Colon in 1976 (although a few probably were). What I did say is that by 1976, airlines had replaced steamships for transoceanic passenger travel, meaning there was much less ship passenger traffic from the port of Colon (=Cristobal). You can do the math on how long that had actually been. (More than a decade.) This resulted in a severe loss in of customers for the high-end retail stores in the port city of Colon, so luxury stock remained unsold on the shelves for many years. In 1976, when I lived near Colon, one could go shopping in the old stores that had prospered in the years of maritime travel and find all sorts of old vintage items, still unsold, still in their original packaging. This included the Leica cameras I described.

I hope this is clear now.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2018 at 01:10 UTC
In reply to:

jdc562: In an old camera store in a tropical country I found a number of never used Leica cameras still in their original boxes. However, looking through the lenses was like looking through waxed paper. I wrote Leica: can these be fixed? Their answer was an unmitigated NO!!!! They explained that fungus had eaten the coatings and etched the glass. Not only could they not fix the lenses, they would not let the infected equipment anywhere near facilities.

So for those who have replied just clean up the equipment and it will be like new, forget it. You are delusional. You cannot reasonably fix this fungus damaged equipment, and you are risking your good equipment by exposing it to the spores floating off the poxed Hasselblad gear.

To AbrasiveReducer: This was in the port city of Colon, Panama, in 1976, at at the Atlantic entrance to the Panama Canal. Before the prevalence of airlines, steamships were the main form of transoceanic travel, and Colon was a major port for refueling and a stopover for canal transits. Colon has a long history as being a center for trade.

So, Mr. Abrasive know-it-all: (1) In Colon, there were many well-heeled customers from the steamship passengers, ships officers, and Canal Zone engineers and administrators, and big business owners, among others. (2) Airconditioning in such places did not become prevalent until the 50's-60s. Leica was producing cameras long before that. (3) Your term "stockpile" is an exaggeration, symptomatic of irrational desperation to make false judgements.

Your statement "Hard to imagine" is more the result of your teensy-weensy ignorant mind hellbent on making negative judgements than it is a result of the improbability of the situation.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2018 at 20:37 UTC

In an old camera store in a tropical country I found a number of never used Leica cameras still in their original boxes. However, looking through the lenses was like looking through waxed paper. I wrote Leica: can these be fixed? Their answer was an unmitigated NO!!!! They explained that fungus had eaten the coatings and etched the glass. Not only could they not fix the lenses, they would not let the infected equipment anywhere near facilities.

So for those who have replied just clean up the equipment and it will be like new, forget it. You are delusional. You cannot reasonably fix this fungus damaged equipment, and you are risking your good equipment by exposing it to the spores floating off the poxed Hasselblad gear.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2018 at 05:59 UTC as 32nd comment | 5 replies
On article Nikon D850 Review (2096 comments in total)

Regarding autofocus, this is not much of a test--easy-peasy for just about any run-of-the-mill camera. It's not too hi-tech to distinguish a close subject from a distant background. A better, and more relevant, set of tests would have more high-contrast and well lit elements nearer the subject.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 19:52 UTC as 245th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Mojave: I'm looking at the 5 photos in this article and the skin pores in the 2nd shot are outstanding, especially for an online photo on my phone. The original at lifesize must be amazing. I see nothing to complain about anywhere.

Pore choice of details to characterize the sharpness of all 5 images. :)

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 05:22 UTC
In reply to:

vivaldibow: Am I the only one who feels couple of photos are out of focus, and the high ISO performance is no better than D750?

Esign: You're making false assumptions. Clearly you have never tried a camera that shoots at high fps. I shoot up to 12 fps without problems and without getting the blurry results shown in this thread for the D850. Choosing the area of the frame for focussing is mostly done before the action starts. See my small bird shots in my gallery for some examples. (This is all the birds in the gallery except for the owls and cranes.) They were all shot with a 42 mp camera at high fps in natural light, no flash. Keeping the highlighted focus points on the birds' heads in the high-speed shooting is not difficult: just move the camera [frame] to keep the highlighted points where they should be. The flying hummingbird shots were done while the hummingbirds were zipping around. Most of the other birds were bobbing around. Check the bills on the birds: all are tack sharp. None is blurred. Here's another difference: I'm just an amateur; DPreview touts the D850 photographer as a pro.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 05:13 UTC
In reply to:

vivaldibow: Am I the only one who feels couple of photos are out of focus, and the high ISO performance is no better than D750?

Esign: regarding focus, are you joking? All modern DSLRs at the level of the D850 allow you to choose ahead of time which part of the frame you want to use for focussing. The photographer was not forced to relinquish control to all 153 focus points. On top of that, the viewfinder displays the points of focus at the time of focus; so a competent photographer knows what part of the frame should be in focus. I very much doubt that the Nikon D850 lacks these features. This leaves us in this quandary: did some part of the D850/lens screw up, or did the "pro" photographer? We do know that the photographer is partly at fault for allowing these low quality images to represent the D850 in the first place.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 00:45 UTC
In reply to:

iAPX: The fisher is ISO 1250, with ugly noise reduction, incredibly bad resolution (58mm Nikkor could not resolve for this sensor, as it is already the case for the 36MP D800/D810). Technically it just demonstrates that this sensor is totally prone to noise at 1250 ISO and many, so many lenses could not resolve enough for it.

This is also the case for 24MP APS-C (so funny!), and even 20MP APS-C or 36MP Full Frame is way over any zoom real resolution, you could not exploit them to their fullest except with some rare perfect prime lenses, in a limited aperture range.

I think 16MP and 32MP are the limits in terms of real-world resolution, with pro-level zooms (24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8), for APS-C and Full Frame, and D850 marketing material demonstrates it very well.

I would die for a "downgraded" D850 with the 20MP D5 sensor and it'S incredible dynamic range and high ISO. ;)

PS: I am looking to go into 20MP D500, not for th 20MP, but for everything else that makes it a Pro camera!

Your claim regarding 16 and 32 mp limits to "real-world resolution" are fallacious thinking, and contradicted by professional tests of high mp cameras. Just look at the variety of resolution tests on the DPreview site. As most have posted here, the images under discussion are just plain poor compared with similar cameras.

These "high res" images alone disprove your high mp explanation for lack of sharpness. There is a lack of sharpness in some images, but not all: Image #2 is sharp, but images 1 and 5 are definitely not. Since the camera was the same for all, this inconsistency in sharpness further contradicts your explanation of high mp count producing the instances of lack of sharpness.

We are left without an explanation for the poor image quality. Did the D850 work poorly under these shooting conditions? Was the the fault of the photographer? Or, maybe a combo?

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 21:57 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: How can anyone complain about these shots. Let us see you do any better. Nuff said

Not enough said at all. Thousands of photographers do better every day. For examples of much higher quality images from many photographers using many kinds of cameras, go to a website like http://fredmiranda.com/
Be objective: the consensus in this thread shows you are way outnumbered in your appraisal of these shots: plenty of posts have specified the defects in these images. The quality of these images are way below expectations for a Nikon camera at this price point and claimed specs.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 21:28 UTC

At first the Nikon D850 seemed to be a break-through camera, but Hancock's "D850 high res samples" do little to make the camera an attractive proposition. How sharp are the "high res" images produced by the camera when images 1,3 and 5 show prominent over-sharpening halos? Images 1,4, and 5 show lots of noise in the background. Images 1, 4, and 5 lack sharpness in key areas of the images. All of the images show limited dynamic range. This is way below the IQ performance I was expecting.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 01:42 UTC as 74th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

jdc562: For outdoor photography: wear a button-front or zip-front shirt or jacket in a dark color. When unbuttoned or unzipped, you can pull the back of the garment over the top of your head and top of the camera to easier view the LED screen on the back of the camera. This is like the cloth used by old-time view camera photographers.

Thanks for the correction. Yes, I meant LCD. Some cameras allow you to switch between the viewfinder and the live view LCD screen. When I'm composing some kinds of landscapes, I find the screen useful. A number of photographers have been using other live view devices the same way.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 05:13 UTC
Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »