GrahamD

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Aug 12, 2005

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (889 comments in total)

I think we're missing the most important thing here; the need to have a love affair with your camera. Some years ago I bought a D7000 on the basis of the specifications and reviews. It delivered the goods, but was just a tool for the job to me. Last year I swapped it, together with a few lenses, (sorry if some find this upsetting) for a Fuji X-E2 with kit zoom and a 90mm portrait lens. This is a camera I love to use, I even like the retro look of it (the last thing I would consider when weighing up specifications). The EVF works for me, but if others love OVFs, who would rob them of a beloved partner?

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 10:31 UTC as 18th comment
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (889 comments in total)

EVF without a doubt. It immediately gives me an idea of what the picture is going to look like and I love all the extra information you can get overlaid, plus manual focus aids, etc. I could quite happily live without an LCD display on the back though!

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 21:31 UTC as 231st comment | 1 reply
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 (342 comments in total)
In reply to:

proxy: Were you expecting a purchase order with this review? This is for information purposes only, don't get offended. I assure you, you are STILL free to choose, or did they ruin your carefully crafted plans? Took away all pleasure...?
Best if manuf. stopped making new cameras so some of whiners would enjoy their cameras for many more years to come, no more spoilers. Not gonna happen.

Stop studying specs, make up your mind and start enjoying life. Next year there will be better cameras, cheaper, with higher specs, more features and more comfortable grips... but some here think it is the worst that could ever happen. You keep analyzing just like your life depended on it... and guess what, next December some punk will show you the newest toy.
THE ONE you've been waiting for all those years...

I think the upgrade that made the most difference to my photography was a book.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 08:57 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 (342 comments in total)

I think the best camera for an individual depends what type of photography you are interested in. I like the XE-2 for portraits and landscapes, but if I was into sports or video in a big way I would probably not have chosen this. Though I'm usually the last person to think this way, I think it's almost as if cameras have peronalities; some of them you take an immediate liking to and some you just never get on with. My old D7000 was technically superb, but we never really got on.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 13:06 UTC as 68th comment | 1 reply
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 (342 comments in total)

I considered the a6000, but the poor kit lens put me off. I went for the Fuji X-E2 with its pro level kit lens and I love it.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 07:45 UTC as 74th comment | 7 replies
On article Nikon J1 real-world samples gallery (336 comments in total)

I think the people who would really appreciate this will be amateur wildlife photographers and birders, once they release a decent telephoto. A 300mm lens would be 810mm equivalent! But without the option of a long telephoto lenses, I don't see much advantage over a fixed lens camera. I understand the logic behind the small sensor. As sensors get better and more sensitive, you can either offer ever increasing ISO, or offer images with similar noise characteristics to earlier APS sensors but at a fraction of the size.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2011 at 10:43 UTC as 112th comment | 1 reply
On article 3D Video Primer, Part 1 (32 comments in total)

Our brains are very clever; we can watch a black and white movie and interpret it as if it were colour (i.e., we don't think of people as having grey faces). Similarly, we can watch a 2D movie and interpret it as 3D. But we cope better with missing information than wrong information. Watching black and white is OK, but watching something with the wrong colours is not. Just shift the hue setting on a software movie player. Grey faces are OK, but purple or green won't work. Similarly, 2D is better than wrong 3D and 3D is only right when the viewer's angle of view is the same as that of the camera (with appropriate image separation). Most people sit too far back from a TV, so will see everything in miniature. Directors will have to sacrifice the flexibility of wide angle and telephoto zoom shots and shoot everything with a standard lens. If they need to get close to the action they'll have to move the cameras in. So 3D is great if you get it right, otherwise forget it.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2011 at 12:20 UTC as 3rd comment
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7