bobbarber

Joined on Oct 6, 2011

Comments

Total: 1148, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom (93 comments in total)

I still have one. I also have the C7070, which I like more, although the C8080 IQ is better in the corners. My only complaint with these cameras was the focus. The autofocus had trouble locking on sometimes, and manual focus was difficult to use (hard to see).

But you could do almost anything with them except for the obvious like sports. At maximum aperture and telephoto on the C8080, you could even get a blurred background. IQ is still good enough for almost everything. I have many 13x19" prints from the C7070 little brother that stand up.

Also, this camera is great for stitching landscapes. Stopped down a little and focused to infinity, everything is focus. Snap five or six shots that overlay, and modern software will stitch it together perfectly. No tripod needed,

Link | Posted on May 18, 2017 at 12:54 UTC as 59th comment
On article Panasonic DC-ZS70 (TZ90) sample gallery (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

orion1983: They really should have gone back to 12MP wit a new sensor instead of pumping it to 18MP. Too much grainy noise even at low ISO settings. And too much texture being eaten up. Also very bad blurred and noisy contrasty edges. Really disappointing TO ME. Am hoping for a 12MP successor, as 18MP with a 1/2.3" chip can never reach a 12MP quality.

Downscale images?

I downscaled a couple of images to 12Mp and 7 Mp. They look sharper than the originals. They might print better too, especially the 7 Mp image.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2017 at 13:39 UTC
On article Serious speed: Sony a9 real world samples gallery (557 comments in total)

Photos look great! This camera looks like it would be a lot of fun to use. Honestly, it's priced out of my range at the moment, but so are the best DSLRs. I'd shell out for this camera first though. Looks incredible.

I think performance and features will be the measure of cameras going forward. IQ is more than good enough from all ILCs. Nitpicking on this thread about performance of the camera makes sense. It better do what they say it does for the price. Nitpicking on IQ? Yeah, right.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 16:11 UTC as 116th comment

Beautiful photos, everyone! It makes me want to visit the cherry blossoms if I'm ever in Seattle when they're blooming. Thanks.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 17:17 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

scotthunter: It's sad how people these days put convenience above image quality. Who cares about pixel count, shadow detail and dynamic range if all people want to do is upload a picture of their dog on Instagram with a filter so that their friends can like it on their 4" phone screen.

I have use a Canon G7X Mkii - slightly less pocket friendly but it's a brilliant little camera and cost me £200 less than my phone. I can print huge canvas photos of the images I take with it, and even mount it on a triod to take pictures of the stars. In almost every respect, a dedicated camera is a better tool for the job.

scotthunter

It's not sad. It's just a realistic reflection of how people use cameras. You explained it well yourself--most people just want to upload the picture of their dog. If they make prints, they make 4x6 prints. You can't fault people for that.

The number of people who make "huge canvas prints" is tiny indeed. For sure, a good camera is of more use to those folks.

Think of cameras as you might think of cars. Most of need a grocery-getter and drive on good roads. That's it. Why would we spring for a dump truck or performance 8-cylinder muscle car, analogous to specialized, "good" cameras?

To the guy who needs the muscle car, more power to him. But I get by with cameras I bought over 10 years ago!

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 22:45 UTC

I still see value in travel zooms, because they give compact phone I.Q. but with zoom.

Not sure about the high-end compacts. Truth be told, most of us don't make large prints. I prefer better files to worse ones, but cell phones print well at 4x6.

EDIT: One more point--the graph is truthful, but misleading. It shows camera manufacture, but many cell phones are bought for reasons other than the camera in them. But cameras are always bought to be cameras. Not all of the cell phones manufactured represent a "choice" for poorer image quality.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 12:58 UTC as 46th comment
In reply to:

mosc: I didn't understand the advantage of this over an FZ20 and I still don't understand the appeal of this segment today. Maybe I've just never been a big fan of slow telephoto lenses (f4.2 1/2.5" was dark even then). The Canon S1 IS I owned at the time this came out was anchient but the lens was very similar and the size wasn't that different. 40mm thick is less than 66mm thick... but neither one is going into my pocket. I got a little elph a bit later on because it had 1/2.33" 28mm f2.8 and even that was too big for a pocket. Cell phones are THIN and still people complain about those in their pocket. I don't see the size difference as that significant.

I understand the appeal of the segment.

Travel zooms are niche cameras. Are you traveling? Don't have or want to carry a lot of equipment? Anticipate shots at a wide variety of focal lengths? Rarely print larger than 8x10? Usually shoot in good light?

I took one to South America with me (lived there a few years.) It was my most often carried camera, in preference to much "better" DSLRs. I could carry it in my pocket, didn't draw attention to myself for theft, could lean out the window of a crowded bus for a photo of a distant mountain or a nearby plaza, etc.

People go down the rabbit hole on this site with IQ and forget practical considerations. Travel zooms are a good choice for many scenarios. They don't compete with a Nikon D-800 fora $5,000 portrait shoot of a movie star, but they're not meant to. And how many people really shoot like that? Hint: Very few. Travel zooms offer cell-phone IQ (good enough for most people) with outrageous zoom. What's not to like?

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 23:40 UTC
On article Nikon D5600 review: making connectivity a snap? (363 comments in total)
In reply to:

HEWCanon: Sorry to differ 110% with Richard. I think size, fully articulated screen, connectivity and full function touch screen is what makes this camera great. It is my second camera to Nikon D810, so I know what I am saying. IQ not as good as D810 of course, but anybody would be stupid to expect otherwise, but still very good. Buttons and dials not as good as D810, but again who would question that. Am I able to use in an easy, portable creative way, I definitely do. Can't use if you use your left eye, but that is almost all DSLR's and cameras with a right hand grip and left sited view finder. If Nikon is reorganising, I would do away with all other cameras and keep this one, next D500, next D810, finally D5 and that's what we all really need from Nikon!! Great camera for size and price. Well done Nikon.

@marike6 To play devil's advocate, I'm less interested in IQ than almost any other spec. IQ is more than adequate for most uses from all cameras, and that includes smartphones. Why are smartphones taking over the market? Because they are good enough. We share photos at web resolution for the most part these days, followed by 4x6 prints, and only rarely larger prints.

I would compare ultimate IQ to something like top speed in a car. Does anybody buy a car because it has a top speed of 126 mph as compared to 113 mph in a competing model, ignoring all other features of the car? If so, that's foolish, since 100% of our driving time is less that 80 mph for most people. Now, if one of the cars only went 35 mph top speed, that would be another matter. But if both cars are "good enough," you look to other features.

These IQ discussions are divorced from real world considerations sometimes. I "don't care" about IQ in cameras like this because it is awesome. Tell me about features instead.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 15:11 UTC
On article Women Photograph is a directory of female photographers (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: I have never once looked at a photograph and said I wonder if a male or female took the picture... Art has no Sex, Race, or Gender.. The only time I think its necessary is if the client or model would prefer a female in a case sensitive situation..

@fmian

I don't know if your math is wrong, but your logic is wrong.

In voting, male and female voters had only two choices. In taking pictures, especially in a crowd scene, there are an almost infinite number of choices. How does voting for one of two candidates correlate with photo choices at a rally based on the gender of the photographer? You're making stuff up to support a pre-determined conclusion. In voting women are boxed in. In taking pictures, not. I can't imagine you don't intuitively understand that there is a difference between male and female points of view in many situations, but apparently you don't.

I guess I'm a little surprised at the reaction to this article, but then again, I'm not. I don't have any doubt that women see the world a little bit differently than man, in many cases at least. Different does not mean "better," it means different. Personally, I'm interested in women's point of view. It seems you're having trouble even understanding that it exists!

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 15:29 UTC
On article Women Photograph is a directory of female photographers (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: I have never once looked at a photograph and said I wonder if a male or female took the picture... Art has no Sex, Race, or Gender.. The only time I think its necessary is if the client or model would prefer a female in a case sensitive situation..

@Teila Day "I would expect ANY professional photographer to get photos of him (if that was the assignment) AND photographs depicting women in the background,"

But are you sure that would happen? And my example was meant as just that, an example. Are you sure that would happen in all situations?

50 male photographers and 50 female photographers are sent to cover Trump, with identical instructions. Do they come back with the same photos? I'm not so sure. It's not even a question of what they shoot, because everybody might shoot lots of pictures. It's a question of what they choose not to throw away.

I'm not sure I understand the resistance to the idea that people have different windows through which they view the world. It seems like a given to me, not something open to debate. But, I don't know it all. Best.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 02:07 UTC
On article Women Photograph is a directory of female photographers (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: I have never once looked at a photograph and said I wonder if a male or female took the picture... Art has no Sex, Race, or Gender.. The only time I think its necessary is if the client or model would prefer a female in a case sensitive situation..

Aroart

Not trying to troll you. Your point of view is valid.

But I find it impossible not to consider who produces the information I consume, of any type. It obviously influences point of view. It doesn't have to be the only factor I consider, but I don't make a point of not thinking about it at all.

Take Donald Trump. You wouldn't consider it important that the Washington Post, for example, published an unflattering photo of him, as compared to Breitbart? You wouldn't consider the source? And if you do consider sources, then why aren't female photographers a different source than males?

If a female photographer was tasked with getting shots from a Trump rally after the allegations of sexual misconduct, might not she be more likely to shoot pictures of the silent women of his circle in the background than a male photographer would be, even if that were not part of her assignment?

Treatment is not everything. Choice of subject matter is also part of art.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 16:47 UTC
On article Women Photograph is a directory of female photographers (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

brn: Should we all split up into our sub-groups and only work with those in the same sub-group? Is that OK?

I went to a lecture recently on how to properly address gender / race / etc issues from a legal perspective. In summary the advice was, NEVER take gender / race / etc into account. Pretty simple, isn't it?

Intentionally segregating, like this directory does, creates more problems than it solves.

Except the real world DOES take gender/race/etc. into account. Your statement reminds me of rich people complaining about class warfare. Rich people are already engaged in class warfare, and have been for a long time. They're winning!

My wife of 17 years is a Latina, a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, she still speaks with an accent, and we live in a border state with problematic politics. After this election, she carries a copy of her passport with her everywhere. Hopefully she'll never need to use it to justify her presence to a legal authority, but surely some other people in her situation will. How does the real world not take into account her gender, race, etc.? It does!

I'm glad you enjoyed your lecture, but speaking from down here at street level, it looks a little different. Best.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 02:03 UTC
On article Women Photograph is a directory of female photographers (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

razadaz: One of the great things about photography is that when you see a photograph you don’t know whether the photographer was male or female, what their colour or ethnicity was, whether they were young or old or disabled in some way. However, for years it used to be an expensive profession which excluded the poor. Now with the advent of digital cameras you can shoot all day at no cost and a relatively cheap digital camera can hold its own against the best. Now more than ever it is a level playing field for everyone, and it is a strange time to be raising equality issues.

Everybody's take is not the same, especially in things like news and war photography. When a photographer shows up at a house where civilians were mistakenly shot, what pictures does (s)he take? The crying soldier, the screaming mother, a vendor passing by the carnage as things return to normal--people will make different decisions on what is important, and gender plays a role. So while the ability to shoot pictures may not differ between men and women, "editorial decisions" made at the scene may well be different. And we need all viewpoints.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 01:06 UTC
On article Women Photograph is a directory of female photographers (218 comments in total)

I don't see this as a threat. It's interesting inasmuch as women have a different view of the world. Do they? (I think so.) And if so, would it show in their photos? Those are the questions that interest me.

One of the promises of the women's movement (I go back a ways...) was that women would bring a different point of view to politics, the corporate boardroom, etc. Largely, that turned out not to be true. Probably external factors are to blame. To get to be a powerful national female politician, you have to go along with bombing small countries at some point. It's unfortunate, but that's reality. But underneath that, women do think differently. (Right?) And over time the larger dynamics of society will change with more women in power.

As an "I can take professional snapshots too," thing, my reaction is, "Meh." Maybe men are underrepresented as potters. People express themselves in different ways. But as a reflection of a different world view, I like it! So, thumbs up.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 20:18 UTC as 39th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: the Nikon D80 (244 comments in total)

I looked closely at the D80, along with the K10D and E-510. (Hope I got the letters and numbers right!) Went with the E-510. I thought it was the best deal at the time, with in-camera IS, two lens kit, etc. In retrospect, maybe I should have gone with the Nikon, since 4/3 DSLRs went down the tubes. Or maybe they didn't go down the tubes. I still use them. Best.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 14:19 UTC as 73rd comment | 1 reply
On article Throwback Thursday: the Nikon D80 (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

Josh Leavitt: Some of the 10+ year old cameras aren't half bad, even by today's standards. Sure they probably won't hold up well in low light, or produce decent files above 1600 ISO, or burst beyond 5 fps, but there's still a few gems out there. I just picked up a Canon 5D "Classic" and have been amazed by the color rendition.

Look at the photos--horse, wedding, water, barrel. Mostly in good light. A lot of us take photos like that. I still use an "old" camera. Works great!

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 13:07 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS 77D (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fujica: Apparently DSLR doesn't need to be huge bricks, but I am thinking its too late for the DSLR to make a return.

I'll think we will still see a decline in sales of DSLR volumes over the longer term and a small but steady growth of the MILC systems.

What's weird about the whole debate to me is the "IQ" issue. I guess if you pixel-peep the BEST cameras, DSLRs win by a miniscule amount. But in low and mid-level cameras, what you can achieve technically with mirrorless is higher, especially when you consider critical focus, etc. But DSLRs are less hassle and more fun, at least to me. DSLRs are supposed to be for "serious" types, but I like them just to grab and start shooting. I've been down on DSLRs for years, but now I don't think I'll ever get away from just wanting to look through a viewfinder and snap, er, press the shutter release. This camera fits the bill. Best.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 13:10 UTC
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

bobbarber: Zooms have improved since film days. A lot of the "zooms are terrible" stuff originated then, and people have not updated their opinions. Not arguing with the article's basic point, but zooms are plenty usable these days.

Also, one of the "advantages" of a crop format, is that you only use the sweet spot of lenses that were manufactured for a larger format. Some of my 4/3 lenses are rebadged lenses from Sigma, built for larger formats. No edge problems for me.

davev8

Nobody is doing selective reading.

Here is what YOU posted above, in your first post on this thread:

"The 'sweet spot' is a myth... "

No, it is not a myth. It's real. I hope this helps.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 17:51 UTC
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

bobbarber: Zooms have improved since film days. A lot of the "zooms are terrible" stuff originated then, and people have not updated their opinions. Not arguing with the article's basic point, but zooms are plenty usable these days.

Also, one of the "advantages" of a crop format, is that you only use the sweet spot of lenses that were manufactured for a larger format. Some of my 4/3 lenses are rebadged lenses from Sigma, built for larger formats. No edge problems for me.

Flruckas

Fair enough.

I guess I figure that seeing the sweet spot should be good enough!

Anybody who has looked at enough photos knows it's true.

I don't think that my 4/3 cameras are as good as FF, and he seems to be arguing that. It's a point I readily concede!

Best

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 16:23 UTC
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

bobbarber: Zooms have improved since film days. A lot of the "zooms are terrible" stuff originated then, and people have not updated their opinions. Not arguing with the article's basic point, but zooms are plenty usable these days.

Also, one of the "advantages" of a crop format, is that you only use the sweet spot of lenses that were manufactured for a larger format. Some of my 4/3 lenses are rebadged lenses from Sigma, built for larger formats. No edge problems for me.

"I think you'll have your answer between different sensor size and sharpness in the sweet spot...."

Sure, but that wasn't the question here.

There IS a sweet spot. Period. It's not a myth.

Who gets better results in that sweet spot, using what format, etc. is an entirely different question. I just put rechargeable batteries and a 2Gb flash card into my 1.8 Mp point and shoot Kodak from 2001. It's good for 3,000+ photos, all printable at 4x6. Lots of fun, and good enough for me. The sweet spot on FF lenses, which inarguably DOES exist, is good enough for me on 4/3, irregardless of whether another photographer would get better results in that same sweet spot with another format.

Sharpness is an unproductive obsession, even from the standpoint of ultimate image quality. I do pixel-peep corners from time to time, and the lack of sharpness almost never bothers me, although it's there. The bigger problem is CA, etc. in corners. You avoid that in the sweet spot.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 16:13 UTC
Total: 1148, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »