Tom K.

Tom K.

Lives in United States Tulsa, United States
Joined on Mar 6, 2002
About me:

Retired aerospace engineer

Feb 2000 - Canon A50 (Sold Aug 2000)
July 2000 - Canon S100 (great early pocket camera)
Oct 2000 - Olympus C-2100UZ (a classic)
Nov 2003 - Minolta A1 (CCD died 8-2006)
May 2005 - Panasonic FZ5 (given to wife after I got FZ30)
Sep 2005 - Panasonic FZ30 (great camera in its day, seems dog slow now)
Jan 2006 - Fuji F10 (don't like it-overrated)
Apr 2006 - Kodak CD33 (2 from eBay for grandkids to use)
July 2006 - Nikon 4500 (from eBay for digiscoping-disappointed)
Aug 2006 - Panasonic FX07 (lost)
Sep 2006 - Minolta A2 (from eBay to replace A1)
Aug 2007 - Kodak P880 (from eBay on a whim)
Apr 2009 - Panasonic ZS3 travel zoom
Dec 2009 - Panasonic GH1 with 14-140 lens (finally a decent EVF)
Sep 2012 - Panasonic FZ200 (lightweight, wanted more zoom reach)
Apr 2013 - Panasonic ZS19 (replaced ZS3 when zoom function got intermittent)
Feb 2014 - Panasonic GF1 (bought cheap to have a dedicated body for the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye)
Jun 2014 - Panasonic ZS40 (replaced ZS19 which lacked EVF)
Dec 2014 - Panasonic FZ1000 (4K video, beautiful EVF)
Mar 2015 - Panasonic ZS50 (replaced ZS40 due to improved EVF)

Comments

Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

JackM: Does anyone have an example of who uses $50,000 backs like this? And who might plump for a monochrome one? Don't just say "architecture/landscape/studio", I want actual examples.

By the way "The $50,000 camera..." it's not a camera, it's a back.

"It will have its very small market."

So, there should be room here to list their names....

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 14:03 UTC
In reply to:

alandalsong: Fantastic! Those shooting stars are amazing. Is it all time lapse photos, or video clips?

Most of them are airplanes and I found them very distracting and annoying. I really couldn't see the starfields because my eyes kept following the streaks. This is a case where manipulation to get rid of them would be justified.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2017 at 19:44 UTC
On article TriLens triple lens holder coming to Kickstarter (165 comments in total)

"...a belt-worn device that is made of steel and fiber-reinforced nylon and can carry up to 100kg weight."

220 lb of lenses. If that's not a case for NOT using an ILC I don't know what is.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 22:02 UTC as 89th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: I would go with the zs50 over the zs60 or zs70. The EVF on these cameras are only useful when the lighting makes the LCD unusable. Adding more megs to a 1/2.3 sensor is not a good idea. I own the zs100 and zs50. The zs50 does well with good ambient lighting.

For me the LCD is almost always unusable, which makes the EVF paramount. I have to put on reading glasses to see a screen and an LCD is unusable in sunlight. I had one camera with a touchscreen, it was nothing but an aggravation to me.

What I'd like to see is the ZS100 with an FZ1000 EVF.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 22:00 UTC
On article Light's L16 camera is in final stages of testing (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fredrik Glckner: Can it take 3D images? If not, sounds like a missed opportunity, given the number of camera units.

On the other hand, perhaps 3D is simply so yesteryear that it isn't on anybody's map anymore.

Looks to me like it can take 16D pictures.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 00:28 UTC

Stick a red dot on it. People will praise its dreamy, magical quality and you can sell it for $2500.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3804675692/leicas-summaron-28mm-f5-6-is-old-fashioned-fun

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 15:38 UTC as 25th comment
On article Re-make/Re-model: Leica Summaron 28mm F5.6 Samples (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

darlot: I am speechless, magical. The combination of the lens and the M10 is purely magical. The total cost of the lens and the camera is likely more than $10,000.00 , IMHO , it is a bargain price. Look at the sample photos, they are just great.

Magical !!!

Funny !!!

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 16:10 UTC
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (108 comments in total)

"The quiver trees are thereby humanized, and the anthropomorphism makes the viewer identify and feel a deeper emotional connection to the trees...."

You shouldn't anthropomorphize inanimate objects - they don't like it.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 14:24 UTC as 30th comment | 3 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)

My first camera was a $10 35mm from Johnson Smith Company. Looked like a rangefinder but was fixed focus, with three apertures for "exposure control". I shot slide film even though I didn't have a projector, because I could get it developed for $1 with a coupon from the Sunday newspaper. First real film camera was an Olympus XA, a perfect little gem. I eventually acquired an Olympus OM-G SLR. I still have them all.

First digital was a 1.4mp, 2x zoom Canon A50 in 2000. It was very clunky. I quickly replaced it with a 2mp, 35-70 Canon S100 which would fit in a shirt pocket. Took some great pics at Yellowstone and the Reno Air Races with it (and an add-on monocular). It was then supplanted by the magnificent Olympus 2100, subject of last week's throwback Thursday. The A50 was sold but I still have the S100 (sitting on a shelf at my right) and the 2100.

Trivia - there's a shot of a Canon S100 in the opening theme song of The Big Bang Theory.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 14:59 UTC as 208th comment
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (892 comments in total)

I guess I'm not really qualified to answer the question because I haven't used an OVF since I quite using my Olympus film SLR. I can say that I'm very happy with the EVF on my Panasonic FZ1000.

The few times I've looked through an OVF on a DSLR that I could potentially afford, it's been like looking through a dim tunnel. Maybe on a pro level body they're worthwhile.

I have to laugh at this comment by Carey Rose: "There's a lot to be said for being able to preview your results with an electronic unit, but I still enjoy that brief 'moment of discovery' when I see an image on the back of the camera." It seems like DSLR users chimp every shot which I find ridiculous.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 15:23 UTC as 312th comment | 3 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: the Olympus C-2100UZ (123 comments in total)

It wasn't just that the 2100 had a huge zoom range for the time - it was IMAGE STABILIZED! I will quote from an old thread:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/1377718
"Let me explain what a 10x IS lens does for you."

"Essentially it's kind of like you just got irradiated with plutonium trygliceride wax-majing... and you've got a superpower. You still have the same camera you had before but you float. Yeah, that's right, you float. You float on anything... you float on ground, on water, off a cliff if necessary... you float about 10-15 feet away from a place that we formerly called YOUR FEET."

"So you see this coolass gator on the other side of the canal... and you say... ok, let me float on over there... so you float out to 380mm, and you take a picture of the gator. And the gator can't see you, 'cause... and this is another superpower... to the rest of the world it seems like you're not floating... they think all along you were standing where your feet are!"

Amazing milestone.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 16:00 UTC as 53rd comment | 2 replies

Once there are enough of them and they can fly close enough together, there won't be any need for them to maneuver because they will just create an airborne video screen - potentially three dimensional.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 20:27 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

SushiEater: The Wave image. In order to go there the lottery has to be won. I have a doubt that a couple plus photographer went there. That means at least 3 people won a lottery. Highly doubtful. Plus it is quite a hike. and the rocks are not reflective either.

"Just because you are not able to spot a photoshoped image does not make it real."

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/500/shopped_3.jpg

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 15:49 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta's prosumer DiMAGE 7 (205 comments in total)

I had the 5mp A1 and it was a nice package, until the sensor died. I got a check from Sony for it and found an 8mp A2 on eBay for about a hundred bucks less, so I did okay there.

The D7/A1/A2 lens was nice in that it went down to 28mm, but after being spoiled by the Olympus 2100's 38-380 reach I always felt handicapped by the Minolta's shorter 200mm maximum. Shortly after getting the A2, Panasonic came out with the FZ30/50 with its 35-420 lens and I never looked back. Plus, the Panasonic's lens had both a real manual zoom ring, AND was non-telescoping. THAT's the type of lens that someone (Panasonic) should do again.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 15:39 UTC as 84th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

SushiEater: The Wave image. In order to go there the lottery has to be won. I have a doubt that a couple plus photographer went there. That means at least 3 people won a lottery. Highly doubtful. Plus it is quite a hike. and the rocks are not reflective either.

@sushiEater - The photo you linked to doesn't look like the same spot. It's surely in the vicinity, but there's no pool of water - unless you photoshopped it out....

I'm still not seeing what you think is a "smooth curve" in the original photo. Note that there is a high-water mark several inches above the water's actual edge. Here's a link to the original at the highest resolution available.
https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/articles/5125092729/_SLL2880.jpeg

Here are some other pictures of the same pool. As you can see the water level varies considerably.

http://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/archive/efvnqgaAsbGlg1nMKdqH_1082089962.jpeg

http://20772-presscdn.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/unnamed-10.jpg

http://www.travelthruhistory.tv/ThruHistory/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/The-Wave-Arizona.jpg

I still don't see why you think the photographers would even bother to photoshop a picture like this, much less anything to indicate that it was.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 01:58 UTC
On article Google AI adds detail to low-resolution images (150 comments in total)

It would be interesting to see some of the multitude of poor results, that they sifted through to be able to show three good ones.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 01:27 UTC as 49th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

SushiEater: The Wave image. In order to go there the lottery has to be won. I have a doubt that a couple plus photographer went there. That means at least 3 people won a lottery. Highly doubtful. Plus it is quite a hike. and the rocks are not reflective either.

@sushiEater "The rock is not flat but the edge of water is."
Did you look at the picture fullscreen? I don't see any place where the edge of the water does not follow the contour of the rock.

"The hike is kind of difficult and I don't think they came dressed like that."
Did you even READ the captions under the pictures where they SAY that they have to hike in and change, fix their hair, etc?

"Again, no reflection from the left slope."
So, what is it that is filling the left side of the picture if not the left slope and its reflection?

Nothing about this picture looks 'shopped (other than the usual post-processing of saturation, sharpening, etc.)

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 16:32 UTC

These aren't selfies. Selfies are thoughtless snaps taken from arms length or thereabouts, of zero interest to anyone except the person taking it. These are well crafted, interesting, and fun.

I like them. For the people who think they are landscape photos that have been ruined by having people in them, isn't it difficult to sit with that stick up your butt?

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 06:05 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply
On article Stunning time-lapse captures the seasons of Norway (65 comments in total)

I would like to have seen more of a transition between fall and winter. Suddenly it's clear and sunny with everything covered by windblown snow, without ever showing any of it falling.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 16:08 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

matthew saville: I feel sorry for folks who still think these images are fake. It just means they simply have not experienced the real world very much. GET OUT AND SHOOT! All it takes is a little planning, a BIG lens, and a stable tripod.

PS: my favorite app, not mentioned here I think, is Sun Surveyor. It's a great interface, and also includes the Milky Way. :-)

Image 1 shows the rising full moon and was taken from New Jersey with the camera pointing towards the east. Image 8 shows the setting crescent moon (obviously on a completely different date - could be weeks, months or years different) and was likely taken from Red Hook on Long Island with the camera pointing towards the west. How can that be so hard to understand?

I guess that's why he's taking these pictures, and you are not.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 21:11 UTC
Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »