fmian

fmian

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Photographer/Re-toucher/Consultant
Joined on Mar 28, 2010
About me:

If you're reading this it's probably because I wrote something that confounded or intrigued you. You should know that much of what I say is uncomfortable truth laced with straight faced sarcasm. Don't take it to heart.

Comments

Total: 929, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Tamron files patent for 115mm F1.4 VC lens (65 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: On a Full Frame camera, at a distance of 10 feet, the DOF would be 2.26 inches, just enough to get half of a face into focus.

On a cropped sensor APS-C camera, at the same distance of 10 feet, the DOF would be a sensational 1.43 inches, just enough to get the eyeballs into focus!

"The AF and VC better work on this thing, Captain!" - Grand Moff Tarkin

.

I believe you have your DOF the wrong way around.
Bigger frame = shallower DOF.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 02:33 UTC
On article Pentax K-70 added to studio test scene (36 comments in total)

Interesting to note that the Sigma Quattro is still unbeatable in terms of capturing detail. Even up against the pixel shift mode of these sensors and all the way up to the hallowed Pentax 645z.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 00:50 UTC as 9th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Mach Schnell: Okay, so it is obvious they are Canon fans. No issues with that, even though I shoot Nikon. Wouldn't it have been a lot more useful list to show the top 10 most frequently rented items?

This isn't a list of the most rented gear...

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

maikl80: This is an intersting discussion about the size of analog full frame cameras and digital ones. I was also wondering why film compact cameras could be really small and there is no digital FF camera that small available now. Same is with analog APS cameras which could be almost as small as a credit card. Also some analog SLR cameras were a lot smaller than any current models.
I think the main reason for this is the large price for FF and even APS digital sensors. If you look at the analog compact cameras with zoom they often had very small aperature lenses. The maximum aperture even at moderate focal length could be as large as 7 or 9. So economically it makes more sense to combine a bright lense with a cheaper (smaller) sensor than to combine a large sensor with a dark lense as it was often the case in analog time.
Another point is that it is really hard to find any whether-sealed cameras below 1000$, unfortunately Olympus stoped producing their sealed mju cameras a while ago.

'Another point is that it is really hard to find any whether-sealed cameras below 1000$, unfortunately Olympus stoped producing their sealed mju camerAs a while ago'
What? There are heaps of cameras under 1k that are sealed? Olympus TG series for eg. If you are talking about film cameras, the Nikonos range are also available under 1k (albeit second hand)

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Nope.

The time for this sort of camera came and went around two years ago. And removing key features doesn't bode well for Nikon's sales projections. Today's entry level camera is the smart phone. From there, anyone who wants to upgrade will go directly to the D5500 or a MILC camera for not very much more.

With DSLR sales at half of what they were a few years ago, you really need to wonder about the wisdom of Nikon offering NINE different DSLR models (Dx, Df, D8xx, D7xx, D7xxx, D6xx, D5xx, D5xxx and D3xxx).

Talk about cannibalization!

Nikon is so busy competing with themselves that they have completely forgotten that MILC cameras exist! Nikon should be consolidating their DSLR lines and moving more aggressively into other areas that are growing, or at least stable markets.

'moving more aggressively into other areas that are growing, or at least stable markets.'
Like 35mm manual film cameras...

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 12:03 UTC

If Nikon needs the money so desperately maybe they should fund their new camera ideas on Kickstarter...

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 12:01 UTC as 65th comment
In reply to:

lemonadedrinker: --'That source claimed, in part, that F-Stop’s CEO has been hemorrhaging company money with a lavish personal lifestyle'--
With $27,000 it must have been a pretty laid back kind of lavishness; maybe like a double cheeseburger with extra fries Tuesdays and Fridays.

'company money'
I take it the $27k from this campaign isn't the only money the company has...

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 02:48 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Finally catching up to the quality of 35mm motion film..

I suppose 4000dpi still frame scanners like the Coolscan 9000 are also made to do the same thing then? And I suppose when the makers of 8k cameras say it's finally at the level of 35mm motion film... They must be wrong..

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 12:04 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Finally catching up to the quality of 35mm motion film..

Meanwhile Arri makes a motion film scanner that pulls 4096x3112 px of detail out of analog film.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 11:23 UTC

Finally catching up to the quality of 35mm motion film..

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 08:31 UTC as 35th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

MadManAce: A click bait article if I ever saw one. Comparing spec sheets and making grandiose claims without any side by side testing, that is sinking to a new level. How about doing getting some PROs to compare the AF in different real life situations with lighting conditions and some repeatable dark studio tests. Lastly, I know very few situations that any PRO would use Dynamic Area Auto 3-D Select Focusing that reviewers are so keen on the D5. How the heck can one be satisfied with the camera making the decision on what to focus on. Now, I am not saying the Canon will win, but given these parameters, I would like to see the true results, not some spec sheet speculating article design to create controversy.

Pulitzer prize winning photographs have been taken with manual focus cameras for the better part of a century, therefore your logic is invalid.
'the pros would be all over it' - It doesn't sound like you know anything about pro camera users at all.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 04:09 UTC
In reply to:

MadManAce: A click bait article if I ever saw one. Comparing spec sheets and making grandiose claims without any side by side testing, that is sinking to a new level. How about doing getting some PROs to compare the AF in different real life situations with lighting conditions and some repeatable dark studio tests. Lastly, I know very few situations that any PRO would use Dynamic Area Auto 3-D Select Focusing that reviewers are so keen on the D5. How the heck can one be satisfied with the camera making the decision on what to focus on. Now, I am not saying the Canon will win, but given these parameters, I would like to see the true results, not some spec sheet speculating article design to create controversy.

@Silver Nemesis, A troll would be someone who places bait (usually nonsensical or illogical statements) to fish for a strong reaction from people.

The reason DPReviews assessment doesn't line up with the pro popularity of these products is because any pro photographer can make up for differences stated with use of good technique.
The popularity of the measurably lower product in this case I believe comes down to non measurable attributes like handling and familiarity and support of the product from the manufacturer.
So the statement Vivid1 made is inaccurate because he/she isn't aware of what I just wrote above.
Hence why I wrote troll or ignorant.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 12:41 UTC
In reply to:

MadManAce: A click bait article if I ever saw one. Comparing spec sheets and making grandiose claims without any side by side testing, that is sinking to a new level. How about doing getting some PROs to compare the AF in different real life situations with lighting conditions and some repeatable dark studio tests. Lastly, I know very few situations that any PRO would use Dynamic Area Auto 3-D Select Focusing that reviewers are so keen on the D5. How the heck can one be satisfied with the camera making the decision on what to focus on. Now, I am not saying the Canon will win, but given these parameters, I would like to see the true results, not some spec sheet speculating article design to create controversy.

Either a troll or just ignorant.
Like many have done before, using the 'McDonalds is also popular...' response is usually enough to make them go away.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 10:17 UTC
In reply to:

MadManAce: A click bait article if I ever saw one. Comparing spec sheets and making grandiose claims without any side by side testing, that is sinking to a new level. How about doing getting some PROs to compare the AF in different real life situations with lighting conditions and some repeatable dark studio tests. Lastly, I know very few situations that any PRO would use Dynamic Area Auto 3-D Select Focusing that reviewers are so keen on the D5. How the heck can one be satisfied with the camera making the decision on what to focus on. Now, I am not saying the Canon will win, but given these parameters, I would like to see the true results, not some spec sheet speculating article design to create controversy.

@Barney Britton: Yes, but did you ensure the sun was passing through the correct equinox so that your hemisphere of the earth was having an even spread of celestial gravitational force applied to it?
Either that or have the test done in a simulated zero g environment to knock out any variables...

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 03:43 UTC
In reply to:

biggercountry: A recommendation for the latest in the Canon EOS 1D line as a "landscape photography" camera? With the fastest AF and continuous shooting ability that Canon knows how to make? Really?

Meanwhile most Olympic Games photographers are shooting with a recommended for landscape camera... What are thinking?

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 15:02 UTC
In reply to:

Rooru S: Guess Canon will offer Log profile and other features with the C version of the 1DX Mk.II... for a premium of course. Will Nikon do anything to get better video specs or will they wait until 2020?

^^ You mean Red or Arri.. Or Kodak films..

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

Mark Banas: Remember not too long ago when commenters repeatedly asked "when are you going to review and compare Canon and Nikon flagship DSLRs?"

What now? Medium format? Lightfield cinema cameras? NRO imaging satellites?

Film cameras?

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 13:54 UTC
On article 8 creative tips for shooting waterfalls (160 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jay Williams: You should've mentioned a polarizing filter. Sometimes, you may want to remove the glare from the surface of the water. More often that not, however, I use it to get rid of glare off of wet rocks. It can also help get more saturated colors in foliage by—you guessed it—eliminating glare. A bonus is that it can give you longer shutter speeds, too, in lieu of a neutral density filter.

Better still, take two CPL filters and use them to create a variable ND filter.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 22:17 UTC
On article 8 creative tips for shooting waterfalls (160 comments in total)

Well written article. Got me thinking about doing some myself for the first time :)

Would just like to add to this:
'Tripod: Any time you're shooting long exposures a tripod is a must'
- Make sure your camera/lens is positioned in line with one of the legs of the tripod for the greatest stability. Same goes for light stands.
Have seen a bunch of seasoned photographers smash their cameras because they forgot this.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 22:09 UTC as 49th comment
In reply to:

steelhead3: Who uses the 11/24 other than a few niche players?

I'd imagine the 'very happy and creative' niche players would be using the 11-24..

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 02:57 UTC
Total: 929, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »