HRC2016

Joined on Jul 14, 2016

Comments

Total: 502, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Malikknows: I see all sorts of companies in many differing consumer industries struggling during COVID. I think we should cut folks some slack given the challenges of doing business in this environment.

Everyone is blaming the pandemic for everything.
Customer service was lousy, in most cases, before the pandemic. Now, the bar is even lower because customers, like you, will put up with it.

I never take part in crowd-funded ventures. This is why.

I'm very happy with my Sirui compact tripod.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2021 at 20:02 UTC

I'm most impressed by the shots where the photographer/gear don't disrupt the animals' behavior.

Too often photographers think their work benefits the animal. That's very rare, and used as an excuse to exploit the animal.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2021 at 03:17 UTC as 1st comment
On article Slideshow: 2021 Bird Photographer of the Year finalists (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leonp: The photo of the swallow has something unreal for me. It just doesn't seem in perspective or something. It sais it was exposed at 1/200 s, which is definetely not true, because the speed of a flying swallow would be at least enough to move it an inch in 1/200 s.

It's possible the contest organizers or the photographer didn't want it known that flash was used. It's not good for the birds.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2021 at 20:19 UTC
On article Slideshow: 2021 Bird Photographer of the Year finalists (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peak freak: Thankyou Kara.
Personally I feel like it has been a long time coming, to the point that I felt that I was completely over what is deemed 'competition worthy'. However, there are some truly great images here that I simply enjoyed viewing.
[Technical observation: How the hell do you get a Swallow (of all birds) pin sharp at 1/200th second? Flash, but not mentioned?]

I, too, suspect a flash was used but not mentioned. Using flash on birds is inhumane. It can cause serious injury or death.

Maybe the contest organizers didn't want it known that a flash was used (if that's the case, which I suspect also).

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2021 at 20:17 UTC
On article Slideshow: 2021 Bird Photographer of the Year finalists (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

kivis: Seems dominated by Nikon and Canon DLSR's. I thought they were obsolete.

Olympus is a sponsor of this contest.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2021 at 20:14 UTC
On article Slideshow: 2021 Bird Photographer of the Year finalists (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

PetoneOldBoy: The swallow flying through broken window is crazy.
I've been trying to photograph these for a while, and needing a shutter speed of a Minimum of 1/2000 sec to freeze them- often 1/3000 (on my Fuji APSC) when birds are flying straight ahead. f11 seems very slow too, especially combined with ISO 200.
Almost physics defying! Crazy.

Check out Feathered Photography (Ron Dudley)

I strongly suspect a flash was used, even thought it's not listed.
The shutter time posted is 1/200.

The National Audubon Society says artificial light should be used sparingly. I don't use any artificial light on wildlife, ever. I think it's inhumane.

Specs: Olympus EM1 Mark III with Olympus 12-100mm f/4 lens. 20mm focal length; 1/200th second; f/ 11; ISO 200.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2021 at 20:13 UTC
On article Slideshow: 2021 Bird Photographer of the Year finalists (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sammy1977: Great to see Olympus sneak in there with a couple of winners. Especially the EPL5! I think the 'Emperor Penguins' has been shot about 1 million times, always looks good, but no longer original. 'Mallard Duck' and 'Southern Giant Petrel' are the most interesting and memorable for me.

Olympus is sponsor.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2021 at 20:10 UTC
On article Slideshow: 2021 Bird Photographer of the Year finalists (190 comments in total)

How do these images help the birds?

I think us photographers need to be mindful of that.

We know how we react to a flash. Now think of how a fast-moving bird is affected. The inability to see can lead to a bird's death.

There are some images here that I suspect used flash, even though that's not indicated. . I've never been able to get a clear shot of a moving bird at 1/200 shutter time. Have you?

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2021 at 20:08 UTC as 20th comment | 9 replies

If I were the driver I'd honk repeatedly and back up slowly so the thief has to be concerned about falling. It's not easy to perform a task when you're at risk of falling.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2021 at 22:06 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

nflanders2: Wow, every time I went to SF, I was taking photos without considering the possibility of being robbed that violently. I even walked the streets at night and took photos.

Same here.
I don't go to SF anymore. It's a mess.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2021 at 22:04 UTC
In reply to:

nflanders2: Wow, every time I went to SF, I was taking photos without considering the possibility of being robbed that violently. I even walked the streets at night and took photos.

Same here.
I don't go to SF anymore. It's a mess.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2021 at 22:02 UTC

You gotta know when to fold 'em.

I'm sure this will be on many photographer-related gift lists later in the year. And then panned on forums about poor gift choices.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2021 at 23:30 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply

Some good ideas but I take exception with the strap.
If it's like buying a pair of pants, why is there any suggestion at all?
Not everyone is a fan of PD.

I use OpTech exclusively. I've probably outfitted all of my bodies and lenses for less than the price of one PD strap.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2020 at 19:51 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

DrCastle: Film photography is not a cheap hobby.. but it's heaps of fun.

It's especially expensive in the toll it takes on the environment.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2020 at 22:15 UTC

There is a lot of good information from the manufacturer's perspective.
But as a consumer, I don't care about that. I want to get a lens that works as advertised, and brings me photographic success.

If you get a good lens then you don't care about sample variation, and may even be hostile to those who say they got a bad copy. "How dare they!"

But calling out bad copies is a way for us consumers to harness our buying power and hold the manufacturers accountable.

For instance, I preordered a wide angle non FE but canceled the order based on initial reviews. It didn't seem like a good bargain to me.
I've also been subjected to blame for calling out QC problems with one specific lens, including allegations that I never even owned the lens!

In the end, we are the ones paying for whatever quality we end up with.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2020 at 23:13 UTC as 14th comment

There is a lot of good information from the manufacturer's perspective.
But as a consumer, I don't care about that. I want to get a lens that works as advertised, and brings me photographic success.

If you get a good lens then you don't care about sample variation, and may even be hostile to those who say they got a bad copy. "How dare they!"

But calling out bad copies is a way for us consumers to harness our buying power and hold the manufacturers accountable.

For instance, I preordered a wide angle non FE but canceled the order based on initial reviews. It didn't seem like a good bargain to me.
I've also been subjected to blame for calling out QC problems with one specific lens, including allegations that I never even owned the lens!

In the end, we are the ones paying for whatever quality we end up with.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2020 at 23:07 UTC as 3rd comment | 2 replies

Sample variation and bad copy are two sides of the same coin.

Everything has sample variation. Someone has to get those that fall on the poor end of the equation.
If you've never had an awful lens then you won't know there is such a thing as bad copies. You would think people are just nuts.

I knew that some lens don't produce good IQ. The $99 Olympus telezoom is one, but it's cheap. It's IQ is likely acceptable to some and others tolerate it because the lens is cheap. More people would complain if it sold for $499. And fewer would buy it at that price.

Whereas the Panasonic 100-400 originally cost $1800. There were numerous reports of it having an extremely stiff zoom and not fitting on some Olympus bodies. Panasonic never addressed whether these problems were due to a poor design or manufacturing defect.

But if I'm paying for a lens (and it's not a business expense to take a loss) why should I put up with an expensive lens that is best left at home?

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2020 at 21:16 UTC as 57th comment
On article Olympus M.Zuiko 12-100mm F4 Pro sample gallery updated (46 comments in total)

Why is this lens getting so much attention lately?
It's a great lens. Pair it with the new Olympus 100-400 and you don't need any other lenses.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2020 at 17:00 UTC as 7th comment | 4 replies
On article Olympus M.Zuiko 12-100mm F4 Pro sample gallery updated (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

aris14: One of the greatest overall lenses out there...

It's one of the best lenses I've used of any format. And I've been into photography (amateur and professional) since 1979.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2020 at 16:59 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III review (1719 comments in total)

I appreciate this and all reviews of the EM1.3.

I have an EM1.2, which is great. I'm really intrigued by the Live ND feature, however. But I don't want to spend $1400 just to avoid carrying an ND filter (when I already carry a CPL).

I have recommended both the EM1.2 and the EM1.3 to others, however.

If my EM1.2 fails then I'll consider this, or whatever else Olympus offers at the time.

The EM1x does not interest me. It's much larger than I want to carry/hold.

Peace!

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2020 at 16:12 UTC as 28th comment
Total: 502, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »