Jim Salvas

Jim Salvas

Lives in United States West Chester, PA, United States
Works as a Photography/Writing
Has a website at camerajim.com
Joined on Mar 24, 2006
About me:

Serious photographer for 60+ years.

Comments

Total: 235, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (377 comments in total)

I'm older than most here, so my first camera was a Kodak Duaflex, a gift from my parents for Christmas, in the full kit box, with flash, film and a starter set of flash bulbs. My dad, an enthusiast himself, helped me set up a darkroom in a closet to develop the 620 film and make contact prints. I found the camera again a few years ago after my mother died, stored at the bottom of a linen drawer. I keep it on a shelf in my office.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 18:27 UTC as 164th comment
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (883 comments in total)
In reply to:

ldog: Great subject DP! The EVF is a revelation and one of the greatest advancements in photography since digital. I shoot weddings with manual focus primes and the EVF allows a nearly perfect hit rate even wide open. And since the EVF is truly WYSIWUG I never even look at the meter. With a little practice I'm nearly as fast as AF and my exposures are perfect. And there's no contest in low light for manual focus. The EVF/MF simply allows the process of photography to disappear and gives so much fluidity to the activity that I'm much more in the moment and have better results. It was strange letting go of the OVF at first but I now feel they are an artifact of the machine age.

" yeah the EVF is nice for noobs"

Really? This particular noob has over 60 years of experience and I prefer EVFs for everything but shooting action.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 17:56 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (883 comments in total)
In reply to:

gcbodie: OVF is better because I can tune it to my eyesight with the diopter whereas the EVF requires me to be wearing my reading glasses to use that screen.

I've never seen a high-end EVF camera without diopter adjustment. It works just like on an OVf.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 15:28 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (883 comments in total)

I use cameras with EVFs and don't regret the conversion from OVFs, which I used for over 50 years. I am not a sports or action shooter, so this may have a lot to do with it. I understand the superiority of an OVF for that. However, I don't understand those who prefer an OVF for low light shooting, because as the light drops, so does brightness of the viewfinder image. Right now, I can point my camera into the darkest recesses of my room (very dark right now) and still see almost exactly the image the camera will record. To me, low light performance is a huge advantage of an EVF, not a handicap. Where am I wrong there?

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 15:27 UTC as 306th comment | 1 reply

Deadpan. It's the key word in "art" photography, as people cannot be seen expressing emotions or animation of any sort. You just center the subject, who sits without expression and preferably without posture. If the background is slightly ironic (an electrical outlet or background supports showing), all the better. These photos hit that deadpan nail right on the head. Dead. Pan.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 17:03 UTC as 60th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Albert Valentino: Always sad to see an old icon retired. Olympus glass is still excellent but with a twist for the digital age. Lenses are far from optical excellence on their own and require lenses profiles to deal with issues like massive barrel distortion (12-40 and 7-14 Pro lenses). Unlike the need for a great lens for a film camera we now have great results from not-so-great designs that require under the hood adjustments. Progress?

If software correction can give me edge to edge sharpness -- as my 12-40 does -- then I'm all for software correction.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 23:05 UTC
In reply to:

chrohrs: You should probably change the headline to clarify that this is not MICRO for thirds.

We just had someone post in the m43 forum that they were surprised to hear m43 is dead. Because of this article. Many people don't know all the facts and don't read carefully.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 23:01 UTC
On article Prisma update adds in-app filter store (20 comments in total)

A friend of mine who is a pretty good photographer has become enamored of this app and I daily see him torturing another of his photos and posting it on FB. These will come back to haunt him someday, like helmet hair from the 70s.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2017 at 14:17 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply

The bear dances. It's not a great dance. But, hey, it's a bear.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 17:57 UTC as 26th comment

Carey, when do you think you will be able to report on that pending firmware update? It must be a big one, to warrant an extended loan of the camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 05:48 UTC as 46th comment | 1 reply

I was buying up old camera store stock in the early 2000s for resale on eBay and I wound up with quite a few of those FlashPath adapters, which quickly became obsolete. I think I still have a few someplace.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 22:02 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply

"a body with no moving parts." So, does that mean a global shutter in a mirrorless body?

Lots of hype here. Commercial aerial photography was at this level in the 60s, using large format film. In 3d, too.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 16:48 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
On photo When tomorrow comes in the Best Landscape Ever! challenge (7 comments in total)

Pretty amazing. You won with a six-year-old photo, taken with a nine-year-old four thirds camera, hand held, in a kayak. Yes, it's the photographer who makes the photo, not the gear. Congratulations on a well-deserved win from the guy in 12th place behind you.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 16:17 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply

Tiffani's website seems to suggest her style is "blown highlights," created with Cannon or Nikon cameras.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 21:05 UTC as 291st comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Jim Salvas: Price is relative to what you want and can get from a camera. For me, m43 and Olympus hit the sweet spot, as I have been using the system successfully for three years in part-time professional work and for personal images. I sometimes exhibit my images and enter competitions. The payoff for me has been tremendous and an extra few hundred dollars tacked onto a new, advanced body isn't going to keep me away from upgrading.

Besides, the system cost, in both weight and dollars are more important to me than the cost of the body. Since everyone is comparing this Olympus unfavorably to the D500 (before the full reviews of the this new model), let's do a comparison. Since these are action-oriented cameras, you want a fast, moderate tele lens. For the E-M1 II, mount the 40-150/2.8 PRO. For the D500, the new 70-200/2.8E lens. The Olympus weighs 1,324g and costs $3,500. The Nikon weighs 2,290g and costs $4,600. Which can produce good photos, more often, in your hands?

Horses for courses. I rarely find myself looking for a more shallow DOF. I shoot headshots at f4, to ensure the whole head is in focus. I use focus stacking for macros and product shots and even some landscapes, where I want everything in focus. Shallow DOF is a nice little tool which will keep your photos from looking like they were shot with a phone, but it's not for me.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2016 at 16:02 UTC
On article Cokin launches vintage-styled Riviera Classic tripod (94 comments in total)

Tiltall?

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 14:26 UTC as 17th comment
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1360 comments in total)

It appears to me this camera is suffering a torture of a thousand cuts because of its slow introduction. The basic details were known months ago, it was then introduced at Photokina with no camera availability, it was then introduced to the press on an Iceland junket (wrong place and time to intro an action-oriented camera) and is now being reviewed without access to adequate RAW processing. And STILL, it is not in the hands of its intended customers, who just might be able to tell us something about its usability. Many of the 900 comments here have pronounced it dead on arrival, but it has not yet arrived.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2016 at 16:54 UTC as 118th comment | 1 reply

I would love to control a bunch of Elinchrom strobes with my little PM2. Just because.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 02:11 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Jim Salvas: Price is relative to what you want and can get from a camera. For me, m43 and Olympus hit the sweet spot, as I have been using the system successfully for three years in part-time professional work and for personal images. I sometimes exhibit my images and enter competitions. The payoff for me has been tremendous and an extra few hundred dollars tacked onto a new, advanced body isn't going to keep me away from upgrading.

Besides, the system cost, in both weight and dollars are more important to me than the cost of the body. Since everyone is comparing this Olympus unfavorably to the D500 (before the full reviews of the this new model), let's do a comparison. Since these are action-oriented cameras, you want a fast, moderate tele lens. For the E-M1 II, mount the 40-150/2.8 PRO. For the D500, the new 70-200/2.8E lens. The Olympus weighs 1,324g and costs $3,500. The Nikon weighs 2,290g and costs $4,600. Which can produce good photos, more often, in your hands?

Less weight means you carry your camera more often and/or you carry a more complete kit. You take more photos and have greater versatility. So, yeah, less weight equals better images.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2016 at 14:48 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Salvas: Price is relative to what you want and can get from a camera. For me, m43 and Olympus hit the sweet spot, as I have been using the system successfully for three years in part-time professional work and for personal images. I sometimes exhibit my images and enter competitions. The payoff for me has been tremendous and an extra few hundred dollars tacked onto a new, advanced body isn't going to keep me away from upgrading.

Besides, the system cost, in both weight and dollars are more important to me than the cost of the body. Since everyone is comparing this Olympus unfavorably to the D500 (before the full reviews of the this new model), let's do a comparison. Since these are action-oriented cameras, you want a fast, moderate tele lens. For the E-M1 II, mount the 40-150/2.8 PRO. For the D500, the new 70-200/2.8E lens. The Olympus weighs 1,324g and costs $3,500. The Nikon weighs 2,290g and costs $4,600. Which can produce good photos, more often, in your hands?

What do you mean I "cannot compare a F2.8 full frame lens and a F2.8 m43 lens." I just did. ;-)

Besides, you just brought FF equivalence into this for no reason at all.

Not everything is about aperture equivalence. There is also weight, and stabilization and general usability. If you want equivalence, be sure to include the equivalent weight of a tripod and no tripod.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 18:27 UTC
Total: 235, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »