John Bean (UK)

Lives in United Kingdom Waterfoot, Lancashire, United Kingdom
Joined on Jun 29, 2003

Comments

Total: 224, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Roadtrip Review Redux: The Fujifilm X100F (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marcelobtp: those colors are not there, dark images, don't know...
I think i pass.

I've never used a X100F but I have used X100 and X100T and currently use a X-T20 having previously used a X-T2 and X-T10, so I have some experience of various generations of Fuji sensor. X-trans II is not significantly different from the original X-trans as far as colour goes. Both differ from the original Bayer sensor - not better or worse, just different.

That said I'm inclined to agree with the OP about the images here: the colour and tone look a bit odd to me too. Maybe it was the light - I wasn't there after all so who am I to judge?

Link | Posted on May 29, 2017 at 07:49 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Yeah get a X-pro 1 body with the 23mm F2 lens

My 23/2 is absolutely fine, even wide open, but I've read many opinions like yours all across the web. Maybe there was a bad batch - QA problem? Who knows.

My 18/2 is also very decent, certainly better than its bad press implies. I bought it used for a pittance and use it a lot.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 18:20 UTC
In reply to:

MCMLXXIII AD: How about Fuji XA3 (comes with a kit lens for £500) and a 27mm (£300 or less on ebay) This is quite a small combo and also tack sharp.

Inded. Or my X-A2 kit bought new for £325, sold kit zoom fot £125, added 27/2.8 new from Japan for £205. Total for a brand new camera and lens: £405. That said the lens is more often on my X-T10 and is a stellar performer.

Sure I could have gone cheaper the used route, but... well, there are often downsides to used "bargains". Not always, but often enough - like my first 27/2.8, £190 used in "like new" condition but a complete dog optically.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 14:44 UTC
On article TriLens triple lens holder coming to Kickstarter (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

DesmondD: Now if we make that at an angle like a microscope it could be mounted on the camera and you could just swivel to the lens you want without having to remove a lens :)

Like almost every cine and TV camera used before good zoom lenses were available. Never caught on with still cameras, although you could buy things to mount spare lenses to the bottom of the camera - Leica I seem to recall.

I do use home made double caps though;; makes lens changing much simpler when the cap (not caps) is always attached to at least one of the lenses during the swap.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 07:45 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

TwoMetreBill: If the Mark II was stills focused, it would have kept the tilting LCD.

Re lenses: where is a close focusing 100-500 f/5.6 lens for wildlife, with a 1.4TC?

Too true. I used Olympus for years and appreciated the superb lenses and stellar service from Olympus Europe. But when my E-M5 was upgraded - FOC - to a E-M5 mk II after a repair fiasco I fell out of love with it because of the loss of the simple tilt screen of the original. Swivel screens really annoy me when I want to use a camera at waist level.

I'm now a Fuji user - X-T2, with tilt screen of course.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 17:27 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Pentax 645Z vs Hasselblad X1D (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

rawmagic: Missing about video ?

I can't think of a single reason to want to shoot video on any MF camera, except perhaps in the unlikely scenario that it's the only camera you own.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 10:39 UTC
In reply to:

Wally Brooks: Hmmm. I'm, an Ex View Camera shooter who owns Sigma Merrill’s and this makes me re think my workflow... It’s still show up at dawn, shoot at ISO 100, use a big heavy tripod, use a cable release, and pray for no wind...... now without the clunky workflow. Well Done Sigma. Many bloggers have postulated about DNG in Camera and only Sigma has the courage to do this for cameras most of us can afford.

Ahem... "affordable Leica" isn't a phrase I often see ;-)

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2017 at 18:48 UTC
In reply to:

jpeghorror: I downloaded image #33 from the sample gallery (purple flowers against the building). On a Mac, the DNG is 148 MB. I ran it through the latest Adobe DNG converter and it reduced to 57.3 MB (6192 x 4128, same dimensions as the original). I have DNG Converter set to "Don't use lossy compression," so I'm wondering what was lost in the process. Here are my full settings:

Compatibility: Camera RAW 7.1 and later
JPEG Preview: Medium Size
Don't embed fast load data
Don't use lossy compression
Preserve pixel count
Don't embed original

Probably nothing was lost. Adobe uses lossless compression by default, the original probably has no compression at all.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2017 at 14:40 UTC
In reply to:

Wally Brooks: Hmmm. I'm, an Ex View Camera shooter who owns Sigma Merrill’s and this makes me re think my workflow... It’s still show up at dawn, shoot at ISO 100, use a big heavy tripod, use a cable release, and pray for no wind...... now without the clunky workflow. Well Done Sigma. Many bloggers have postulated about DNG in Camera and only Sigma has the courage to do this for cameras most of us can afford.

"Many bloggers have postulated about DNG in Camera and only Sigma has the courage to do this for cameras most of us can afford."

You can't afford Pentax? Sigma is not the first "affordable" camera maker to have DNG as an option for raw files. Then there was Samsung (RIP) who had it in their Pentax lookalike dSLRs before Pentax...

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2017 at 14:34 UTC

I suspect I know the unnamed retailer, Barney - they are responible for taking out a lot of good camera dealers and replacing them with... well, not a lot. They're not so big these days though; what goes around cimes around.

I was in The Assembly Rooms recently too. Never owned a 10D though :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 13:05 UTC as 72nd comment
In reply to:

Paul JM: Anyone found a link to download the updated manual for 3.00 as a pdf ? The web link only has one of those wretched online manuals in HTML.

My apologies, you're absolutely correct. There's a link in version 2 (for X-T2, which I have) and in all the other html versions I've ever looked at so I (wrongly) assumed the version 3 X-Pro2 manual would be the same.

Lesson learned: assume nothing.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 09:41 UTC
In reply to:

Paul JM: Anyone found a link to download the updated manual for 3.00 as a pdf ? The web link only has one of those wretched online manuals in HTML.

There's a download link on the first page of the html version.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 07:11 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T20 Review (356 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Seso: "The camera's Auto ISO system isn't focal length aware" - this is not true, it is. Quote from the camera manual at http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x-t20/menu_shooting/shooting_setting/index.html#iso: "If AUTO is selected for MIN. SHUTTER SPEED, the camera will automatically choose a minimum shutter speed approximately equal to the inverse of the lens’ focal length"

Impressive. My X-T2 can't do that... yet. No doubt it will appear in the next firmware update.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 18:56 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T20 Review (356 comments in total)
In reply to:

dudewithcamera: Can we stop calling the Fuji XT series "DSLR style"? They're​ SLR-styled. No DSLR ever looked like the cameras in this series.

This series of models look the way SLR cameras looked *before* digital.

I'm not making a dig on DSLR styling. It's fine. I have a DSLR. I'm just saying that these cameras specifically do not look like DSLRs Panasonic's GH series, yes -- these, no.

"No DSLR ever looked like the cameras in this series"

Nikon Df, anyone? ;-)

Good point though; in general the styling of most dSLRs don't follow the old style SLRs.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 15:58 UTC
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mac McCreery: The beauty of being an observer is that we can each draw our own interpretation. For me the quiver tree photograph makes me feel insignificant and humbled. For others it may be trees and the milky way.
To apply a hard and fast reading of a photograph is a little dictatorial.
Interesting all the same.

Over-interpretation is rarely a good thing anyway. I'm reminded of pranksters leaving random everyday objects lying around in "modern art" galleries and being amused by the reactions of visitors who feel obliged to "interpret" them as works of art.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 10:59 UTC
In reply to:

homsa: Does it allows autofocus?

Of couse not - the camera has no way of knowing that you are moving the (mechanical) focus ring on the lens. However a quick press of the magnify button (normally the rear command dial) is all that is needed to bring up a magnified view.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 12:01 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)

Mine was a 16-on-127 camera called the "VP Twin", bought for me in about 1955. I remember it was bought in Woolworths and cost 2/6 (remember old money?) and the optional canvas case was the same price! (2/6 is 12.5p uk or about 15c us)

To my surprise I found an Amazon entry: https://www.amazon.co.uk/VP-Twin-Vintage-English-Bakelite/dp/B00HW13QB0 :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 11:23 UTC as 287th comment
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

Terry M: Finally, a reviewer who doesn't fall all over himself getting lost in the rangefinder mythos. It takes time and a LOT of practice to consistently take good photos with them. But seriously, "I'm getting old"? LOL

It's all those heavy SLRs you prefer to haul around... ;-)

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 16:15 UTC
In reply to:

armandino: One more time I have been reminded that I could never win a prize in any contest.
Perfect examples of wasting money on an expensive camera. Wouldn't want Hasselblad to showcase what their cameras can do? An iphone would overkill for these shots.

"Rineke D is not "famous" for the brand he uses but for the photos he takes..."

*He* is not famous for anything but *she* is quite well known ;-)

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 13:14 UTC

I received a spam email advertising this yesterday. It had a bogus heading claiming to be from "Silkypix News" (which isn't spam) so avoided my filters.

If I was intersted before (I wasn't) I certainlt wouldn't be now. Terible marketing tactic.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 14:47 UTC as 10th comment
Total: 224, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »