shigzeo

shigzeo

Lives in Japan Chiba, Japan
Works as a Writer, Audio Critic
Has a website at http://ohm-image.net
Joined on Sep 14, 2010
About me:

utterly impressionable

Comments

Total: 910, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (495 comments in total)

At this point, I'm more excited that Barnett's at the pen of an essay than I am that he's got his hands on something cool. I could read you all day, every day.

And I must try the M10 for longer than five minutes.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 13:44 UTC as 133rd comment | 2 replies
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

Windeguy: Once you use a good EVF like the one on the X-T1 it makes you think twice about how much you think you like an OVF.

The "What you see is what you get" image from the OVF is quite helpful.

@armandino:

I have also tried every new mirrorless including the A7rII and found severe stuttering when the light is dim, but definitely bright enough to still see things. While it isn't optimal for some lenses and shooting styles, non-TTL OVFs as seen in the X-Pro and Leica M cameras, have real advantages.

Under the same light, an OVF, while dark, can still make out details and point light without stutter.

I understand the benefits of the EVF. I don't own a digital SLR camera, and have no vested interest in defending the OVF. But EVF issues discussed in this thread are real.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 12:24 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zoom Zoom Zoom: Like it or not, EVFs are the only future. There are positively zero advantages to an optical viewfinder as soon as brightness, contrast ration and pixel density count matches the human eye's resolution limit. And it's almost there. The technical and workflow advantages of EVFs compared to glass, are basically endless. In a few years, except hard-core boutique cameras, there are no optical viewfinders anymore on any camera. In fact, they don't make any sense anymore..as in.. don't we all go look at the back screen display of our cameras immediately after taking a photo? Well, then just look at it directly when you are actually taking the photo. I only respect those who insist in optical viewfinders if their camera is analogue film or if they don't have a back display as well, like with the Leica M-D for example. That's real photography and a workshop that purely justifies no EVFs or screens at all.. just you and your photo. Everything else, is hybrid nostalgic rethoric..

@armandino:

I'm not debating whether or not an EVF is helpful in arriving at a desired output. I am debating whether or not EVF technology is at all close to the human eye and therefore able to replace an OVF, which simply isn't even remotely possible with today's or tomorrow's tech.

In a decade, or two, maybe. Maybe.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 04:13 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (441 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shlomo Goldwasser: I am disappointed.

Pentax K-1 is a quarter of the price, but delivers much better results.

At high ISO ranges, it looks far better, cleaner, and sharper. At low ISOs, the GFX appears to suck capture more fine details from the scene.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 00:50 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (441 comments in total)
In reply to:

Iloveaircraftnoise: How much will this camera cost?
Going by the studio scene I don't see a massive difference between this and the 35mm Cameras.

I don't think ISO is a huge differentiator any more. I have the Hasselblad CFV-50c, which utilises the same sensor. It certainly performs better at high ISO than any 35mm digital I've used, by not by leaps and bounds.

What is most attractive is the softer gradations, and by dint of using a larger sensor, per-pixel sharpness when paired with older lenses. There are advantages. There are disadvantages.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 00:18 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (441 comments in total)
In reply to:

ChrisH37: It shows how far we've come in the past few years that one minor complaint with a camera is that it doesn't go beyond a 'modest' ISO 12,800 as it clearly has the ability to comfortably allow usable images beyond that.

I added the Leica SL in to the mix in the A7rII's stead, only because the SL and the GFX will be used side-by-side in my studio. The SL's sensor is outclassed, but I'm surprised by how well any modern camera keeps up image quality into 12.800, which is higher ISO than typically I ever need to use.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 00:16 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheMexican: OVF for me. As some already mentioned here, it feels/looks better, easier for me to shoot in OVF in low-light and when flare is present.

I'm positive that sometime in the near future this will all change to the EVF. still not there yet, at least not for me.

Possibly interesting anecdote: in daylight I focus relatively accurately through the rangefinder of my M240, but when the lights go down, I nail almost every shot. With a dSLR, I nail most manually focused shots in the daylight but have some trouble when it gets dark.

Probably the brightness of the rangefinder combined with its out-of-frame viewing and sliding focus mechanism are responsible.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 21:57 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

mbaginy: I've come to like EVF better. It shows me the histomgram and I get less blown out highlights using an EVF. The OVF requires more experience which can still end up wrong in more extreme situations.

Bottom line for me: EVF of my Fujifilm cameras, the Canon gear is going on ebay.

You nailed the benefits of an EVF.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 21:53 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zoom Zoom Zoom: Like it or not, EVFs are the only future. There are positively zero advantages to an optical viewfinder as soon as brightness, contrast ration and pixel density count matches the human eye's resolution limit. And it's almost there. The technical and workflow advantages of EVFs compared to glass, are basically endless. In a few years, except hard-core boutique cameras, there are no optical viewfinders anymore on any camera. In fact, they don't make any sense anymore..as in.. don't we all go look at the back screen display of our cameras immediately after taking a photo? Well, then just look at it directly when you are actually taking the photo. I only respect those who insist in optical viewfinders if their camera is analogue film or if they don't have a back display as well, like with the Leica M-D for example. That's real photography and a workshop that purely justifies no EVFs or screens at all.. just you and your photo. Everything else, is hybrid nostalgic rethoric..

It is not even close to being almost there. There is nothing from an EVF that is even remotely close to the natural vision a human sees through their eye. The EVF would have to have such high dynamic range that it would never gain up or down and details in the highlights and shadows be preserved exactly as the brain perceives the information the eye sends, which frankly, is impossible in the near future. Maybe in ten or twenty years that technology will bud. It would be awesome if it did.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 21:51 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

Onur Otlu: My first EVF experience was with a PowerShot S1 IS, back in 2004. The display was horrible in every aspect and I could barely tolerate it.
From that I moved to a 350D, and the optical viewfinder was a huge improvement. I liked the "connection" to the scene, and the brightness&clarity were great compared to the S1's EVF.
Afterwards I got a 5D - again a big improvement. A huge, bright window into the world, and I clearly remember how my friends who never used a FF SLR were surprised.
From there I took a radical turn and purchased a NEX-6. Back to an EVF, but from 2004 to 2012, they had come a long way. No longer pixelised, noisy and dark, but quite usable. I also enjoyed perfect field of view, accurate exposure preview and level display.
I'm not going to say I prefer the EVF of the NEX-6 to the OVF of the 5D, but it's quite acceptable, and in dim light shooting or manual focus it turns into an advantage. In any case, I don't plan to purchase another dSLR, so it's EVF for me from now on.

The difference ten years has made is incredible.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 21:48 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

Windeguy: Once you use a good EVF like the one on the X-T1 it makes you think twice about how much you think you like an OVF.

The "What you see is what you get" image from the OVF is quite helpful.

Stu 5 has a point. When the EVF begins to stutter due to having to gain the signal far enough to see in relative darkness, it begins to lose its utility. It also gets grainy and harder to pick out details necessary to focus.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 21:47 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

KW Phua: OVF does not need power so good for waiting, and always ready when moment arrived. If you shoot wildlife you will know what I mean.

There is some information projected into the OVF, so they use some power, albeit small.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 21:45 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

nawknai: At night: Always OVF
During the day: Mostly EVF, but sometimes OVF.

I'm assuming you have a camera with all of the above: X100 or Pro? The cleverness of those two cameras is amazing. The only thing I dislike about them is that OVF manual focus is a lot more difficult to maintain accurate framing vs. A real rangefinder. But amazing designs otherwise.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 21:44 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

shigzeo: I have vertigo. EVFs exacerbate it when the camera is moved or the lens zoomed. OVFs are much easier for me. My wife also has trouble with EVFs and with small OVFs, but more with the former, but it's more eye strain.

Our cases are anecdotal, but germane to our interaction with cameras.

Haha, of course. Again, this is a medical condition. I also cannot do VR without feeling like I must wretch.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 21:41 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

shigzeo: I have vertigo. EVFs exacerbate it when the camera is moved or the lens zoomed. OVFs are much easier for me. My wife also has trouble with EVFs and with small OVFs, but more with the former, but it's more eye strain.

Our cases are anecdotal, but germane to our interaction with cameras.

I'm not dismissing them and I have tried every mirrorless camera out there. I get vertigo with every single one. It must have to do with the slight delays between updates that my left eye and my right eye see, or frame rate disconnect between the two.

Whatever the case, EVFs do not work well for me.

edit: vertigo is a medical condition, not a like/dislike due to agreement with the style of image projected through an EVF.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 05:12 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)

I have vertigo. EVFs exacerbate it when the camera is moved or the lens zoomed. OVFs are much easier for me. My wife also has trouble with EVFs and with small OVFs, but more with the former, but it's more eye strain.

Our cases are anecdotal, but germane to our interaction with cameras.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 04:27 UTC as 182nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

WookieLala: MFT the first mirorless camera system? Was it not preceded by the Leica M8?

When the rubble clears and the mutants crawl back to the surface and electric power for things like computers is again discovered, it will be Barney's comment that precipitates WWIV and the end of the mutant race.

In the subsequent re-emergence of post-human-post-mutant life, for the seals's and otters's sakes, let's hope that electricity isn't again discovered.

Peace out.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 02:45 UTC
In reply to:

tetsumo: I wonder why they take all the pictures using the LCD and not the Viewfinder, for me a viewfinder is a requirement.

@ceremus:

I'm not moderating what you discuss, but you are having are arguing points from a conversation not germaine to the one we are having.

He context was: viewfinder use in the video. The question was why? The answer is that in still life photography, the viewfinder is often the worst way to view, compose and focus on a subject.

The conversation isn't about sports, or out of doors, or critical camera drag situations where absolute hand held stability is of dire importance.

I think everyone would agree: in those situations, nothing is better than an eye level viewfinder. But that wasn't that we were talking about.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 23:48 UTC
In reply to:

shigzeo: Tested it briefly today. It is great. Lens focus feel still is disconnected and the lens jumps from motor point to motor point. The Leica SL's lenses feel far far more like real manual lenses.

But gosh is this thing well shot out. Even the AF-ON button is in a good place. Below it is the joystick. The problem is that whilst pressing the AF-ON button, it is too easy to hit the joystick, causing the focus point to move to the upper corner.

Haptic interfaces are typically fujifilm, and crammed, and complicated. But this camera is responsive.

@left eye:

I believe that all mirrorless lenses are fly by wire. Some however hide their lineage well. The Leica SL lenses for one, are great because you cannot feel or hear their motors jump between positions as you manually focus. The Hasselblad X1D's lenses are even more disconnected than the Fuji GFX lenses, with noticeable delays.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 22:58 UTC
In reply to:

HarryLally: Nice pictures with a very interesting camera. You've captured the feel of Tokyo/ Japan well, though I've only been once myself. A couple of years ago, my wife and I stopped off there for a few days en route from Australia. My abiding memory (apart from a visit to Mount Fuji on the bullet train) was just the sheer number of people. I live in the UK, where people often comment on the population density here in London but it's nothing compared with Tokyo. Thanks for posting.

@EDWARD ARTISTE:

Have you looked at Tokyo even from a google vantage? There are small clusters of trees here and there and in two areas large clusters. But flying over it all you see is grey. There are no sections you can walk through and see only green. Every bit, no matter how Parky, is concrete.

It is the city with the least amount of green in which I've lived. I assume there are factory or military cities somewhere in the world with fewer green areas, but this is the world's largest city: a city meant to be lived in. The only people I know that aren't frustrated by Tokyo's lack of recreational and other green are people that have never gone anywhere else, that think all cities must be concrete from the ground up.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 22:18 UTC
Total: 910, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »