Lives in United States UT, United States
Joined on Jan 3, 2011


Total: 53, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

itaibachar: Oly needs to rethink their naming strategy.
It used to be OM-1, 2 etc.
Now its a weird bunch of letters and odd numbers.

Agreed. You already have the OMD on the name alluding to it's film predecessor. The EM should be where you reference your Professional, Advanced, Entry markets level cameras (EP, EA, EE?) Then the numbers just tell you which revision it is.

Thank goodness they're not as bad as movie sequels.
OMD EM1 The Return
OMD EM1 Revolutions
OMD EM1 In Space!

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 23:21 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

kobakokh: Dear Lens Fanatics! Its very funny when Olympus say it, and I want to say why. I have Canon 5D m3 with 3 pro lenses. To be honest, I will buy OM-D M2 with 2-3 lenses today or tomorrow and will be really happy, because its will be enough in many situation, really... But please see to prices! with 3 equal pro lenses total price will be just about 30% less then my Canon set price (also the F4 on 4/3 sensor is a F8 on full frame!). Also in OM-D price you can buy Canon 6D or add very little money and buy Nikon D750!!! If you will see more clear, Olympus pro lens prices are 3-5 times more then Canon's equal f-stop lens prices. Yes, they are superior lenses, also looks great, but they are designed for small sensor and have very big dept-of-field. For example: new 25/1.2 Olympus lens is great, no words, but see to price - more then 1000 USD! And his real F-stop is 1.2x2=2.4! Same f-top 50mm lens (if you will find it!) for full frame cost maybe about 100 USD!

"(also the F4 on 4/3 sensor is a F8 on full frame!)"
F-stop is a measurement of lens speed not DoF. The depth of field will be equivalent to F8 but the shutter speed you'll need is still equivalent to F4. A F/4 speed lens is still and F/4 speed lens regardless of the sensor.

On the flipside of less bokeh in your portraits is if you're a landscape photographer doing hyperfocal shots, you can handhold a hyperfocal sunrise/set picture at 1/50th a second where a Full Frame user will need a tripod (especially if un-stabilized). Not to mention you're in your f/5.6 lens sweet spot while the FF courts lens diffraction at F/11.

Bokeh overuse is the new HDR overuse. And redefining one corner of the Exposure triangle as the "Bokeh level" is the sign of an unschooled photographer.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 23:13 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (337 comments in total)
In reply to:

TonyPM: Depending on the damage that people cause I think they should pay a penalty of at least 6 months of jail and a heavy fine. Atleast 15000usd sounds reasonable, but for those who commit really severe damage to a natural reserve of this importance should during their entire life.

Vandalizing a building in a city can warrant upto $10k and 4 years in jail.
It says alot that we apply those penalties to destruction of a business but destruction of a natural wonder that took tens of thousands of years only gets $430.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 02:05 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (337 comments in total)
In reply to:

deanfuller: Why can't people film in landscape orientation, for God's sake?

Instagram's new social feature only allows verticle orientation. Or if you want to do landscape everybody will have turn their heads while viewing it.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 02:04 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (337 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deorum: Ok dont get me wrong, but technically this is not Vandalism. (damage of public of private property)
and i dont know how legally you can say that this is damaging public property
First you have to identify all the places that have potential artistic/photographic value. This is arbitrary & chaotic. Then you can conclude, that you dmged something (it has to be Specific!) that had some value.
Otherwise, (even if it's obvious to us photographers) it is just people having fun in the nature. Like cutting some flowers, or throwing some stones in the see, or digging for a camp-fire.
If this was recognised as a specific monument, sure then it's vandalism. But since it is not a recognised monument (excuse if it is, and has signs etc around) it is not technically or legally anything. It is not even cutting down a tree (there are rules that require permit to cut down trees, but no rules concerning small masses of rocks)

Needless to mention that this is something awful, nevertheless

The fact that there are so many people like Deorum defending the actions of these people show that the problem isn't just one of weak penalties for this kind of action. Something is inherently wrong with our society where people see public land as a resource that can be destroyed for their own personal pleasure.

Deorum is a perfect example of the "Entitlement society"; people who think that the world is their own to lord over others. Vandalism of public land isn't artistic expression it's a way of taking something away from everybody else and making it yours alone and in the process destroying it so it can't be given back.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 01:59 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (337 comments in total)
In reply to:

Manbungo Skumbaum Chimwala: Nonsense, all nonsense.

A sneeze could have toppled that rock over. And what next? Every fetching tree stump, rock, and bush is a monument, so that we have to navigate through a minefield of monuments every time we head outdoors?


Should we tear down every thing tall enough to fall on somebody? Level every tree because it might blow over in a storm? Stop people from driving faster than walking speed because a pedestrian might get hit?

We can't water down the world or put safety pads on everything so people like you don't get hurt. Is life too dangerous for you? Stay in bed where you feel safe. The world is tough and when you go outside things can be dangerous, if you don't have the common sense not to sleep under this rock while 3 other people push on it for 5 minutes (because it obviously took a lot more than a sneeze to topple it) then you deserve the Darwin Award they get.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 01:49 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (337 comments in total)
In reply to:

djrocks66: I'm not sure I agree with most here. I don't know the whole story but from the video it looks like kids just having some fun not thinking they are destroying something that we all look at as beauty. I mean a heavy fine and jail time? I know its sad and all... but maybe they should just be educated on the respect and care of our environment. That formation was going to fall on its own soon enough. Just my opinion of course. I have done some stupid things in my time that I wish I could take back.

If I paint my name on the side of a manmade building that has existed for 10 years I can get upto a $10,000 fine and 5 years in jail.
If I destroy unique creation of nature that took ten thousand years to create I can get $435 fine.

One is something that you can take you grandkids to. The other will likely be torn down in a few years when a larger developer wants the land.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 01:43 UTC
On article Field Test: The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV in Mexico (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: I have the original rx100 and mixed in images from some street photography with my Fuji xe-1, Sony a6000, and Canon 7dm2 and asked friends if they can pic out the pocket camera... Most people thought the pocket camera were the images from the 7dm2.. sorry Canon. I'm sure the Canon would show its strength in lower light situations.. Sony really makes a rather magical pocket camera for street photography...

"I am not smart enough, but Canon 7dm2 is."

If you think it's the camera processor that is the brains in the photographic process you have a lot to learn.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 06:41 UTC
On article Field Test: The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV in Mexico (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

M H S: You accidentally got a few shots with good light. Fortunately, most were with sol straight overhead.

Travel Photography isn't like studio or portraiture. You can't say, "Ooh! Bad lighting today, lets come back another time."

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 06:38 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (397 comments in total)

Its not just looks, it's mostly form factor. If something gets used more because it's small light and fun it's more valuable than something big heavy and ugly that sits on your shelf at home all day. Even if the bigger one is technically superior.

I've taken many pictures with small capable cameras where my photographer buddies had to use their smartphone because "I didn't want to pull out the DSLR for this short stop." The smaller fun good looking cameras are almost always at your side because you want to use them, they seek out their own photos. You don't have to pre-plan if it's worth hauling out the great black brick for a short drive or stop along your roadtrip.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 19:29 UTC as 71st comment | 1 reply
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (397 comments in total)
In reply to:

G1Houston: For how long are they going to continue milking the retro look cow? It would be nice if doing so actually makes the camera easier and more intuitive to use, which in my opinion is a major Impediment to marketing this to a wider audience, let alone that much too high asking price.

It is about time for these cameras to receive a modern re-design to take advantage of touch screen interface and modern OSs like what we see in the smartphones.

I've used the Samsung Galaxy Camera and I disagree wholeheartedly.

While I don't mind a touchscreen and some intuitive menus camera function and smartphone function should be kept as far away as possible from each other. You really shouldn't have to spend too much time in camera menus once the camera is setup. I actually prefer the swing out articulating screens because they can be flipped in and hide the screen while you shoot.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 19:18 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (397 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kivivuori: PEN-F is better looking camera than other digital Pen-models. It´s quite beautiful....

But still there are far too many buttons...
I like the ON/OFF switch, large shutter button with cable release connector, exposure compensation dial and large viewfinder ocular.


But I think that 42 different symbols are far too much in LCD display during still photography.


Esa Kivivuori

I know what you mean but whenever I've used cameras with less buttons you have to use the menu to do so many settings and that is so much worse.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 19:11 UTC

I'd like to see some astrophotography with this lens. Wide lends and gathering lots of light is ideal to take pictures of the sky.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2015 at 20:06 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
On article Beyond the table top: 5 mini tripods reviewed (199 comments in total)

One I never see reviewed is the Pedco Ultra-pod 1.
The first of these I got from REI backin the 1980's they're tiny when folded and have a velcro strap that you can wrap around fence railings, tree brances, or hiking poles.

Of all the mini-tripods I see reviwed including the ones here, it still is the one I keep with my hiking gear. Going on 30 years I've never seen the need to upgrade.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2015 at 02:07 UTC as 40th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

luxor2: Just great, shot noise is something else to obsess about besides bokeh. No wonder phone cameras are so popular, only the chief obsession is selfie sticks!

I know right?!

The whole reason I bought a camera with the P for Professional on the dial was so that I could take better pictures without thinking about all this.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 03:59 UTC
In reply to:

Musicjohn: In my opinion the writer of this article is missing the real story here. The suggestion that apperture and shutter speeds have influence on the amount of noise is not correct. Making pictures at the suggested shutter speed / apperture combination will show the same amount of noise levels, even if you were to change one of the parameters (so the other changes accordingly). If I change my apperture from f/3.2 to f/8 and the shutter speed changes accordingly (at same ISO setting), I will not have two different images with two different noise levels. However, when using EV compensation and actually over-exposing, I might achieve a cleaner image. However, in a case whereby you would have to raise the ISO setting in order to make exposure to the right possible, your brighter picture may well show a lot more noise than the picture taken with the suggested shutter speed and lower ISO. So, to conclude, it is all about exposure, not about the shutter speed and apperture used.

I've taken shots where increasing the ISO a stop to get the image exposed a stop to the right resulted in less noise in the finished product.

I was really confused why my ISO 100 shots were being beat by an image at ISO 200. It's cool seeing an actual article explain why noise sometimes shows up at ISO 100.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 03:55 UTC
In reply to:

mostlyboringphotog: @By rhurani (3 hours ago)

"@mostlyboringphotog understood your question. the answer is NO. no difference, the FF lens just shed light on and around the crop sensor (what goes around is wasted)"

When I think one way I agree with you; then I think the cropped printed image of a FF sensor should still have the SNR of uncropped printed image? If so, the printed image of a "crop lens" that lets in less light than the FF lens will have less SNR than the cropped print from a FF image.
This is more of a thought experiment than if the difference if any would be visible.
It may be that I need to understand "Poisson" distribution better :)
BTW, I do not fret about the noise differences in my photos as I have other issues :(
BTW2: a radio with a larger antenna will sound louder and less noisy than a radio with a small antenna. But if you reduce the volume of a radio with a large antenna to the level of radio with a small antenna, the radio with a larger antenna will still sound clearer, no?

I think I know where you're coming from, and you're right, but the issue on the cropped sensor is the focal length with be different even if the same photons are coming through the same lens.

So lets say I take a pic on a FF sensor with a 50mm at 1/100 f2.8 ISO100. Then I take that same 50mm lens, and put it on a crop sensor and take a picture with the same settings.
The SNR of the photons through the lens are the same, but the crop sensor is only seeing a 75mm field of view (the rest of the light is spilling off the edges of the sensor and are ignored). If you crop the 50mm FF image down to the 75mm field of view you'll see basically the same noise level between the two sensors.

The example in the article didn't compare identical lenses, the focal lengths were different so the resulting image would be the same between the FF and MFT image, leading to a bit of confusion.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 03:47 UTC
In reply to:

mostlyboringphotog: Maybe I'm just misreading it but much of noise discussion becomes if a larger sensor is less noisy. As the shot noise is an attribute of the photons and as the SNR is a function of sqrt of number of photons (regardless of whether the photons are captured or not), the shot noise SNR is then a property of the lens and its size of image circle and not the size of a sensor.
For example, of one uses same DX lens on FF and APS-C, the photon shot noise SNR should be same; however, it's counter intuitive to think that conversely, FX lens on FF and APS-C should also have the same SNR.
So I'm very curios if the example in the article used same lens for larger sensor and for smaller sensor?

I've seen the effect of exposing to the right and it's not a theory. If I was less lazy i could provide plenty of examples from my own experience where images exposed to the right and "dimmed back down" have more detail in the shadows.

But this is also why we do HDR exposure blending; you probably have your own examples at home. You can take the mid range exposure of bracket and try jacking up the shadows but you'll find lots of noise when you do. By blending in a longer exposure you get more detail in your shadows.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 03:14 UTC
On article Canon XC10: What you need to know (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

WACONimages: At last Canon offers something out of the box. And see all those comments here on dpreview. Bashing a product no one seen for real, no one touched or had the chance to use.

Give it break. I'm sure there is a market for and soon many website will show reviews from video customers and will tell if it up to do the job.

Just don't understand bashing products you never used or saw in real life.

I would want this camera. It's great and I think it's show of innovation in a direction Canon should be going as a company...
But at 1/3 the price. I find their price here pompous. If they cut it to a third, I'd be singing the praises of a Canon that is once again putting customer interests first.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 18:39 UTC
On article Canon XC10: What you need to know (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

MayaTlab0: The orientating grip is interesting. I have no idea if that is a thing that will prove beneficial in practice (well at least it's better than the immobile camera body-like grip and doesn't force users to change their hand's position when going from head-level shooting to waist-level shooting like most barrel-shaped video cameras), but I wonder : If you want to shoot from above or below, I suppose you'll most often want to change the orientation of both the grip and the rear LCD (or "EVF" attached to the LCD). Right now, on the XC10, it seems like it's going to be a two steps process (change the grip's orientation, + change the LCD's orientation). Would it be possible, and more importantly useful, to create a mechanism to synchronise both movements (Basically, rotating the grip would rotate the LCD at the same time) ? Or totally useless ?

I had and old Coolpix 4500 back in the day (thanks to a glowing DP Review) and the split body functionality was awesome. I still think they should be making cameras like that.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 16:31 UTC
Total: 53, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »