probert500

Lives in United States boston, MA, United States
Works as a photographer
Has a website at www.peterharrisphoto.com
Joined on Feb 13, 2009

Comments

Total: 314, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Zakzoezie: I really hope Canikon launch mirrorless FF & APS-C very soon, so that all the whiny pussies can run to the shop buying this thing, so we finally get rid of their whining and we all can concentrate again on articles talking about how to take nice, original & funny pictures ...

"whining" + "pussies" = internet

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 16:47 UTC
In reply to:

M Chambers: Nikon and Canon entering the mirrorless market is a great idea. As DP rightfully pointed out Canon's M series should have been release AT LEAST two years earlier.

The lens compatibility issue can be overcome with good adapters. That's what's made a big difference for E mount. When we see more and more pros using their high end Canon lenses on E mount cameras, Canon should get in on the action, not fight what's already happened.

This is true, and is how I use my Sonys - canon T/Ss, zuiko, nikon, and one sony.

Canon could keep the same mount because it is adaptable to most other mounts - though not the FD (without adding more glass). Still - maybe not the best route.

The Nikon mount is not easily adapted to. Nikon would really be smart to have a more universal mount with a specialized nikon adapter. No time for pride, and it would also allow for a new lens line specialized to mirrorless.

Now, about universal RAW formats....

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 16:44 UTC
In reply to:

aris14: I 'd like this hands-on to give me a hint on how they managed the weight reduction.

That for symmetrical wide angles only.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2017 at 02:23 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I think our affection for fixed prime lens compacts harks back to our love affair with film Canonet QL17s, Yasica Electro 35s, and Mintola Hi-matic cameras in our youth. Call it nostalgia.

All of which were relatively cheap, good, and were rangefinder cameras. These were some of our first real cameras, and now that we have the means we buy those sexy Fuji X100s.

olympus xa!

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 14:37 UTC
On article Sony a9 shooting experience (1281 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sannaborjeson: Indeed. The world needs more posts about a9. May be you could set up a dedicated website for it?

This is a camera website. ????????

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (504 comments in total)

Love the a7r2 and the a7r (still probably the best overall IQ). The battery thing is overblown - swap 2 or swap 4 - 15 extra seconds - who cares. Of course, now, if you have one of these and an a7r2, you'll need 2 sets of batteries - yuck.

The menu thing is really big - I hope they do firmware upgrade for prior products.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 15:01 UTC as 20th comment

1 adapter with exif and auto focus: $100.00.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 18:52 UTC as 120th comment
In reply to:

probert500: I could see this being useful for video use, cameras in remote locations, and time lapse. Otherwise I just plunk in a fresh battery - they're about $19.00 for pair, they're small, and I carry a few. Using arca plates makes this a non issue.

Doing architectural video shoots, we've set up 2 or 3 cameras for timelapse, and gone to shoot the vids. This was on a school campus'. Pretty straight forward - nothing was stolen.

But stretch the boundaries of you imagination. Let's say you were shooting wild life. You could set a bunch of cameras in trees, on cliffs etc, and feed signal to a remote recorder. But you might not want to climb up to change camera batteries.

i leave it to you to think of other examples.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 20:40 UTC

I could see this being useful for video use, cameras in remote locations, and time lapse. Otherwise I just plunk in a fresh battery - they're about $19.00 for pair, they're small, and I carry a few. Using arca plates makes this a non issue.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 16:48 UTC as 13th comment | 6 replies
On article Light's L16 camera is in final stages of testing (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

noflashplease: This looks like a repeat of the Lytro flop, albeit with 16 smartphone cameras crammed into something that looks like a 1990s Palm Pilot. It's clunky, chunky and doesn't have a chance as a standalone product. Maybe they can license their software? Hardware startups are always difficult.

Is it a flop? http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/11/11405700/lytro-cinema-light-field-announcement
If it is, it's a fascinating one.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 20:05 UTC
In reply to:

daleeight: Good for overall status, but how does Sony look in the professional world... where professionals who really demand equipment that works and stays working... like sports shooters?

sports shooters? You mean the guys behind a fence with a really big lens on a tripod. That shutter finger must get a cramp occasionally. Tough racket.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

rev32: Hopefully Nikon will kick it up a notch or two and make gains in market share. I'm happy for Sony, but really want to continue being a Nikon user...

If sony fades into a sniveling wreck, where will nikon get its sensors? Who's living off scraps - bwaaaahaha

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 18:23 UTC
On article Zeiss formally announces Batis 135mm F2.8 (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

straylightrun: So its not fast, its not compact and its not cheap. Why does this lens exist again? Are there people out there willing to pay this much for a Tamron designed lens , just for the blue badge?

@evilted This is a 135

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 17:39 UTC
On article Zeiss formally announces Batis 135mm F2.8 (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

straylightrun: So its not fast, its not compact and its not cheap. Why does this lens exist again? Are there people out there willing to pay this much for a Tamron designed lens , just for the blue badge?

@tkbsic They're generally sharper, less distortion, and, for some, the process of shooting with a prime is what they want.

2.8 is fine, and for subject isolation, it should be more than adequate given the focal length. $2000 - that's another story.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 16:07 UTC
In reply to:

c h u n k: Min focusing distance is a bit too small I think. 3cm...or about an inch to get the full 1:1. Might as well forget adding tubes or a close up lens if you want more magnification as the front element would be touching the subject. Not to mention that for photographing insects, that small amount greatly increases the risk of scaring off your subjects. Too bad, I was excited about this lens.

It's a 35mm - that's life.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 23:57 UTC
In reply to:

bolt2014: For that kind of money spend just a few more dollars and get a camera that has image stabilization!

This is mainly for video, not still. It enables handheld tracking and crane shots that are smooth and seamless.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 14:10 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (901 comments in total)
In reply to:

IdM photography: If the AF is "sluggish in moderate light", how can the camera be useful for studio shooting where don't always have lots of light? Phase detect AF is necessary for studio shooting... (e.g the Pentax 645Z) in order to focus precisely in the eye.

Well lit when the strobes fire.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 23:52 UTC

I pronounce it "the reason lenses are twice the size they need to be to pander to a misplaced sense of cheap "creativity"."

Not sure where to put the accent.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 13:00 UTC as 52nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Yuck! This is exactly what NOT to do — Medium Format is about lenses, not sensor size nor noise. Medium Format Lenses, yes lenses !, and their quality and geometry, give that distinctive look and nothing in the 35mm world matches it.

Generally speaking, you are wrong.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 00:38 UTC
In reply to:

iAPX: I clearly don't see the point, except for rare lenses that may cover the GFX format.

If you want to work with Canon EF lenses, use a Canon body: they are made for each other, few surprises (except for older lenses).

There's another point here, IQ degrades slowly but clearly from the center to the edge of the circular image projection, so even if there's no crop, you might end-up with a degraded IQ on the corners, and maybe in a major part of the image, letting a good or great center and everything else of mediocre or bad quality.

The point to use a MF body is about quality, on the long run, with quality lenses that are created for it's sensor, or it's body family, not to throw old unadapted small lenses that don't cover sensor place correctly. This is dumb!

Like with every lens on every camera?

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 22:49 UTC
Total: 314, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »