Lives in Australia Melbourne, Australia
Works as a Portrait & wedding photographer
Has a website at www.leoklein.com.au
Joined on Jan 22, 2003


Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11
In reply to:

Leok: I decided this wasn't going to happen 4 years ago (despite annual rumours to the contrary). Sold all my Pentax gear and went Nikon instead. I'm so glad I did, no FF for all this time is why Pentax hasn't been taken seriously in the digital era.

Only another 14 years until the mark ii comes out!

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2015 at 10:14 UTC

Jinbei's HD600 is much better value. No TTL but no serious off camera flash user needs it. Try using TTL for rim, hair or back lighting and you'll soon turn to manual instead.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2015 at 11:53 UTC as 3rd comment

I decided this wasn't going to happen 4 years ago (despite annual rumours to the contrary). Sold all my Pentax gear and went Nikon instead. I'm so glad I did, no FF for all this time is why Pentax hasn't been taken seriously in the digital era.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2015 at 11:51 UTC as 20th comment | 6 replies
On article 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months (593 comments in total)
In reply to:

f8andshowup: Not all types of photography yield to the "small-package approach". Anything requiring seriously long lenses, for instance. Sure, I could take my Sigma 500mm 4.5 and put a smaller camera on the end with an adapter, but the portability won't improve. There are no equivalent *serious* tele lenses for these small bodies, and they will be pretty large should they ever arrive. One good point, of course, is that if I did put a high-megapixel mirrorless body on the back of my "big Sig", I would get one hell of a long reach. I just may do that one of these days.

The smaller sensor cams also have a hard time competing when it comes to ultra-low DOF shooting. There is no small(ish) sensor equivalent to a full frame DSLR with 85mm f/1.4 lens, for example. The smaller designs just can't do DOF that thin.

I'm not saying I don't lust after that new Fuji system, however...

Actually Panasonic make a very nice 200-600mm equivalent lens thats unbelievably small by DSLR standards - it has a 67mm filter i.e is about the size & weight of some SLR "kit" lenses.

You get optical stabilization, great AF & mega image quality from a compact lens. There is nothing even close for an SLR.

There are some great primes too - the Oly 45mm f1.8 - 90mm equivalent is around $400 and gives gorgeous bokeh. Has to be seen to be believed.

Panasonic also make 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 equivalent lenses which take 58mm filters - again amazing size, quality, performance & price... a little over $1000 each and mega sharp.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2013 at 10:23 UTC
On article 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months (593 comments in total)

The photo in #4 is a perfect illustration of why you DO need zoom... the perspective is really quite unflattering.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2013 at 06:12 UTC as 67th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

jonikon: I own the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF non-VC lens in a Nikon mount and bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC version to replace it. However, after comparing the sharpness of these two lenses, I decided the non-VC lens was noticeably sharper at f2.8-f4.0. I could not justify the loss in sharpness for the occasional usefulness of VC in a lens of such short focal length, so I returned the VC version and kept the sharper non-VC version. There is little doubt in my mind that this new 24-70 VC Tamron would have been sharper without the VC. I'll bet the reviews of this lens will find the center sharp and the edges soft at f2.8-f4.0. The only good reason to have VC on a lens of this type is for shooting video where it matters, and softness does not.

The non VC version of Tamrons 17-50 has been widely reported to have better optical performance than the new VC version. As with any lens purchase, its wise NOT to assume the new version will be better in all respects. The focus breathing of Nikons 70-200 2.8 VRii is another classic example... its a great lens in every other way but for users who want close focus @200mm the VRi may be a better choice.

I hope the 24-70 VC does not have any major issues... and will wait for reviews before purchase.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2012 at 12:06 UTC
In reply to:

canderanet: Where's PENTAX mount? I believe many PENTAXIAN would buy this lens

As Pentax DSLRs have built in stabilization the advantages of this new lens over the 28-75 2.8 are minimal. I used to shoot Pentax, and really miss having antishake in my short lenses now that I went FF Nikon.

This lens makes much more sense for Nikon & Canon shooters who want VR / IS.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2012 at 00:08 UTC
On article Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom (187 comments in total)

Wow where can I get one?

Since switching to Nikon (from Pentax) to get FF I've really missed having VR in my short lenses. I'll use it a lot, it allows low light shooting without a tripod - even the mighty D700 does have noise at high ISOs

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2012 at 02:11 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

Michael J Davis: It seems to me that there are two principles involved:-

1. The infringement occurs because the photographer *set out* to produce a similar image, i.e. effectively to copy the first. In that the judgement is fair.

2. The judge referred to the similarities quoting Schindler's List as a prior example of spot colour. Now copyright is NOT Patent Law, but in the latter, it is possible to quote 'prior art' as an example to object to a patent. Well, many of us were doing 'spot colour' before Schindler's List; and I would have thought that was a contra-argument against the infringement in this case.

I have to say that I'm in agreement with Jane Lambert in her analysis. And we need to be. Ideas are great and I'm happy to credit those who inspire me for their prior art; but I'm still wanting to follow them until I can produce my own original stuff!

Will there be an appeal, I wonder?

I hope the judgment is reversed on appeal.

The red bus and building have been shot millions of times by tourists in the same shot.

Selective desaturating is an overused cliche. Neither image shows any outstanding artistry. Both are guilty of unoriginality, nothing else. I don't see anything worthy of copyright.

In addition the images are shot from substantially different viewpoints.

The case should have been laughed out of court.... otherwise any tourist with a camera is potentially liable for breach of copyright!

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2012 at 00:45 UTC

I hope these are fixed f2.8 bright lenses and are released very soon. This is precisely what the micro 4/3 system is missing.

We dont need more kit style variable zooms, there are plenty of those. There is also a huge choice in bright primes in the short to medium tele range.

There is not a single high quality zoom. I just hope these are as good as competing systems 24-70 and 70-200 equivalent lenses!

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 22:53 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
On article Compact Flash Association announces XQD card format (84 comments in total)

XQD is NOT about better specs - SD does everything XQD promises. Its about making consumers buy more memory cards.

I hope the camera manufacturers stick to SD... but I'm not counting on it.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2011 at 22:48 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11