Teila Day

Teila Day

Lives in United States FL, United States
Has a website at www.teiladay.com
Joined on Apr 5, 2005

Comments

Total: 668, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

analoggrotto: This article right here is why my new 5d4 and 300/2.8 II will NOT be purchased from Amazon. Take the space, the exposure and status of the web's #1 photoblog to add more confused rubbish to an already confusing hobby. What a sponsored fraud, the readers deserve better. Instead of focusing on every camera's disadvantages, how about a more positive edge? Photography is emotional and rewarding for the interested and dedicated hearts and mind yet this website wants to prove otherwise time and time again.

@analoggrotto, ecka84 hit the nail on the head... photography for the most part isn't remotely confusing, he also made a very important point that some people can allow themselves to become confused by taking to heart the opinions of others instead of using his/her own eyeballs.

@David Mantripp.. you're right about the stitching vs. pixel shift comment.. I'm not sure where @ecka84 was going with that, as I view the two things as two very different tools for distinctly different purposes.

Best in photography to all of you!

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 02:05 UTC
In reply to:

Jon Porter: Wow, lots of comments but none stating the obvious! Since the porn industry is usually the first to apply new personal technology, I could see someone offering this to drone around a private estate or beach staffed with frolicking naked bodies. They'd make a lot more money than offering drones over a desert.

... or maybe we need to legalize some drugs, drive the prices down and make it a business not worth big 'crime' getting into. Fighting the ridiculous battle on "drugs" is like trying to kill the wind using a Katana. How 'bout we use those billions of dollars on U.S. infrastructure instead? I remember when "gated community" was an option, now it's an imperative with the rapid declination of many neighborhoods.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 01:41 UTC
In reply to:

Bernie Ess: Hmmm, the d810 may or may not be up to MF level in terms of noise and DR, but the skin tones in the first portrait above are awfully bad. Regardless of format, I could not live with those ugly Nikon skin tones. They were the reason why I sold my d700 years ago. No profile/ custom profile/ Raw converter could help it.

@Bernie Ess, for some reason there's a misconception that one can shoot raw on any camera and quickly equate it to the colours generated by another camera shooting raw. The truth is depending on the camera's manufacturer, and what the subject matter is (skin, foliage, sky, grass..) one may or may not be able to easily match colours to their liking, effortlessly or otherwise. Seems like you at least realize this, irrespective of what camera is being used.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 01:33 UTC
In reply to:

Jon Porter: Wow, lots of comments but none stating the obvious! Since the porn industry is usually the first to apply new personal technology, I could see someone offering this to drone around a private estate or beach staffed with frolicking naked bodies. They'd make a lot more money than offering drones over a desert.

@Jon Porter you're right. The porn industry usually takes advantage of technology before mainstream businesses and the general public does. This technology though will benefit drug dealers the most I suspect. I can already hear the attorney in court... "So what you're saying is that it ISN'T impossible that my law abiding client's drone was hacked, especially in the light of the f-a-c-t that our nation's military drones have been hacked on several occasions?" Assuming a real drone is being flown. Which is safe to assume in the future, since the rudimentary tech has been field tested by drug dealers already.

Drug dealers can fly a misdemeanor amount of drugs x multiple trips so when the drone gets "caught" it's not carrying a load. ** The reality is the likelihood of a drone getting intercepted is remote; even if a few drones make it to their destination carrying a pound of crack, coke, smack, x, weed, etc., makes it 'worth it'.

The nefarious possibilities are endless.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 21:17 UTC
In reply to:

mezastel: Oh so NOW people are upset. When companies banned the transportation of large batteries, everyone with an e-bike got screwed overnight. Funny how there wasn't any global outrage back then.

@Greg OH... You are correct; which is the point. It makes banning electronics larger than a cell phone a strategic thing to ban if the president and or others wanted to impede certain people from certain countries from coming to the U.S.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 06:55 UTC
In reply to:

parakalien: That's a load of poo. I'll be flying back to the US from Istanbul Turkey in April coming back from shooting a documentary. I don't want to check $10,000+ work of camera gear so it can get lost of broken!

Then pay the money to ship the gear fully insured (should be insured anyway). If you're working for a company, let corporate worry about it.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

mezastel: Oh so NOW people are upset. When companies banned the transportation of large batteries, everyone with an e-bike got screwed overnight. Funny how there wasn't any global outrage back then.

I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb and presuppose that more people own and are likely to travel with, a camera as opposed to an e-bike (of all things). But I admit that I'm totally guessing..........

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: Since it has a bearing on whether it is necessary for the wife and kids to go hungry, it would be interesting to know what apertures are used most by photographers. For professionals, I am sure the tendency would generally be larger. It may also influence which camera body is chosen.

Digital results in little noise, so there is little reason to use wide apertures unlees differential focus is being employed. Of course, it is nice to have them, but how often are very wide apertures actually used?

I suspect for most people taking pictures with their cameras, certainly with most amateurs, apertures generally used are f/4 or smaller. I use f/8 most of the time.

Those who are more interested in having equipment for reasons other than taking pictures may hanker after lenses like the 5mm f/0.8 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59208794
but in the real world (not obssessed with f nos) who needs bigger than FX and moderate aperture lenses unless the pictures are to make a living?

There are very, very great practical reasons for having fast lenses. There haven't been times that I took a fast lens and wished that it was slower, but I have had the opposite ring true which is (1 reason) why I favor fast FF glass over slower versions most of the time.

When shooting MF, while there are times that I would like to have a stop or two faster lens I realize that the weight would change the situation and the cost would rise sharply which I'd gladly pay for on my wide zoom, but it probably wouldn't make sense for a *manufacturer* to research, test, and make due to such a lens perhaps not having much of a market.

The article mentions fast FF glass, which I'd stop down a stop or two anyway for better clarity. This means that using a f2.8 or 2.2 lens on a MF camera puts me roughly in the same place that I would've been using the faster FF glass anyway, but the article overall simply doesn't speak to the realities of shooting the format.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 18:20 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: Since it has a bearing on whether it is necessary for the wife and kids to go hungry, it would be interesting to know what apertures are used most by photographers. For professionals, I am sure the tendency would generally be larger. It may also influence which camera body is chosen.

Digital results in little noise, so there is little reason to use wide apertures unlees differential focus is being employed. Of course, it is nice to have them, but how often are very wide apertures actually used?

I suspect for most people taking pictures with their cameras, certainly with most amateurs, apertures generally used are f/4 or smaller. I use f/8 most of the time.

Those who are more interested in having equipment for reasons other than taking pictures may hanker after lenses like the 5mm f/0.8 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59208794
but in the real world (not obssessed with f nos) who needs bigger than FX and moderate aperture lenses unless the pictures are to make a living?

@keepreal Having a brighter viewfinder and more reliable focus (less hunting) "matters" to a lot of people, especially those with a client in front of them on location at dusk or dawn. The benefit of fast FF lenses can be huge, one stop can give a totally different aesthetic, but that's another thread.

When it comes to shooting MF, the article goes on about fast lenses and that's not something that's on the list of priorities for most using MF irrespective of the obvious benefits that have nothing to do with a blurry background.

@SmilerGrogan Were they shooting a wedding or event w/no flash or portraits at dusk? Please keep in mind that a faster aperture offers benefits that have nothing to do with the aperture that you've selected on the camera. Less hunting focus, often faster focusing, brighter viewfinder... a major benefit that has nothing to do with thin depth of field is allowing me to shoot with 1-2 stops of more light, thus keeping the iso 1-2 stops lower, etc..

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 18:11 UTC

@Chris Dodkin.. I too wonder what's next. Maybe DPR will do a piece on reasons how the 70-200 f2.8 at 200mm wide open gives a great alternative to spending over $5k on the 200 f2, and a multi-page cautionary tale warning those who might be in the market for a super telephoto lens.

Maybe DPR will write a few pages on how someone will not easily discern the difference between a $6.5k 300mm f2.8 and 300mm f4 at certain apertures.... totally missing the point that there's obviously other reasons why people spend money on the 200 f2 and 300 f2.8. seeing how both lenses provide advantages that the fast 70-200 and 300 f/4 stablemates cannot replicate.

If they would've spent more time on how numerous times hard-core processing of the Sony, Nikon, Canon files often leave a muddier/blotchier result in comparison to the larger sensors under the same processing, then they'd actually touch on one of the practical benefits of shooting MF; when the goal is getting paid/spending less time in post.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 17:13 UTC as 154th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Scottelly: Ummm . . . right now at B&H there are only 3 Fuji lenses available. Only one is f2.8. The other two are f4. One is a zoom that covers the same focal length as the f2.8 prime. The longest is a 120mm f4, and that thing is a macro. It costs almost $3,000. The cheapest lens they offer is $1,500. This system is WAY more expensive than full-frame digital, when you consider the lenses. A 50 MP Canon with a couple of good lenses is going to set you back just over $5,000. The medium format Fuji will cost close to $10,000 (about $6,000 for the camera and about $4,000 for the lenses). The Canon will give you faster operation and ten times the lens selection, while the Fuji will give you more dynamic range with a tilt screen and removable viewfinder. Sure, there are more differences, such as weight and built-in capabilities, but ultimately you need to decide if you'll spend so much extra money to get a tiny difference in image quality, while being so limited by the Fuji lens line for a few years.

@Scottelly: "..you need to decide if you'll spend so much extra money to get a tiny difference in image quality, while being so limited by the Fuji lens line for a few years."

(1) Shooting MF (med. format) isn't only about IQ (image qual.), rather a culmination of multiple advantages to a respective user. Advantages will be the difference between night and day to some and not applicable to others.

(2) I doubt Fuji will take a few years" to add lenses.Users will probably have access to existing MF lenses via adapters.

(3) Cost or "so much extra money" is relative to the person making the purchase. What's "so much extra" to you, is not for many others. Canon's lens selection isn't relevant until Canon provides a FF body that gives at least the same overall performance as a 33x44 CMOS in 'mirrorless' with a tilt screen..

Huge benefits for many using the GFX (size, rez, tilt screen, I'd expect better electronics/reliability over Hasselblad) or X1D (size, sync, leaf shutter!). :)

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: "I can say it use to take about 70 people to make a lens like that prior to automation, now we need about 6 or 7."

In the USA, there is political discussion about "bringing back" manufacturing jobs. Increasing automation is why it's not going to happen.

John, I'm fully aware it isn't the end, but it's hardly the beginning and not even remotely a shock to anyone who's paying half-attention. It's not shocking to walk into an 18 story condominium and have one person manning the desk, doing the accounting, and making the reservations on a popular beach in a popular tourist area. In 1980, that was practically impossible. Today, it's business usual as computers have replaced the other 8 people in the office and the huge calendars on large tables where reservations where penciled in and erased.

Air travel should've been gone 2 decades ago as we should've had high speed rail crawling all over the U.S. by now.

Oh I'm well aware of automation. I'm pro business. The shock is over. The only people left to be shocked are those devoid of the common sense to find another line of work. They'll be bellowing in years to come like many die hard wedding photographers that left for greener pastures far too late in the game.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

John McMillin: You didn't mention image stabilization, so useful in those low-light situations. Does the new Fuji MF have it? No other MF camera does.

John, I like definitely like the idea of in-camera stab. better, but I don't like the idea of it malfunctioning and possibly rendering the entire camera useless until fixed. When my Canon 300mm had stab., issues, I just sent the lens in but wasn't out of a camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 19:25 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: "I can say it use to take about 70 people to make a lens like that prior to automation, now we need about 6 or 7."

In the USA, there is political discussion about "bringing back" manufacturing jobs. Increasing automation is why it's not going to happen.

(cont.)

I think we're going to see a marked cultural shift because people, especially young people, are starting to understand that big money to be made is often much, much easier to achieve if you deal in, create, buy, sell, design... non tangibles. Young corporate America understands this and is why (imho) you'll not see a lot of manufacturing ushered back upon U.S. soil like the old days. The stratification between haves/have nots will continue to widen and the same will happen to housing enclaves. Undesirable housing with higher crime on one side and Desirable housing, neighborhoods, great food stores, etc., on the other.

Article: "In terms of the level of 'Lens Meister,' it would take 30-35 years. For 'Assembly Meisters", 25-30 years" ... I'm thinking most young people would like to know how 25-30 years of their lives as a "Meister" translates into pay, which brings me back to young people...

It's people thinking immigrants are "taking American jobs" that need realignment.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 19:18 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: "I can say it use to take about 70 people to make a lens like that prior to automation, now we need about 6 or 7."

In the USA, there is political discussion about "bringing back" manufacturing jobs. Increasing automation is why it's not going to happen.

@Jon Stern ahh, I see what you mean. I agree whole heartedly in the context of automation gutting the larger workforce. I think we're seeing a relative trickle today compared to many years ago when automation decimated jobs. and you might find some of my postings about people in the food industry clamoring about raising the minimum wage which in part speaks to why we'll see less hires, and increased centralized workers, in many industries. Amazing that it took this long. Payroll is one of the largest expenditures... what were they thinking?

What I see today is the *aftermath* of sweeping automation. The vacuum left from the explosion has long taken place. The problem now is that smaller businesses can't compete globally (aren't able to grow), can't afford automation, and larger corps reap greater profits not having certain facets of business on U.S. soil; something I definitely do not have an issue with. Manufacturing isn't necessarily the best way to make a profit today.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 18:59 UTC
In reply to:

chriswy: From an enthusiastic standpoint, this is a "bigger than FF" camera. Although it is a good camera for its price, to experience MF looks, it is still more practical and cheaper to use a film body.

@chriswy, ahh, I understand. Your grammar is fine. :)

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 18:42 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: Since it has a bearing on whether it is necessary for the wife and kids to go hungry, it would be interesting to know what apertures are used most by photographers. For professionals, I am sure the tendency would generally be larger. It may also influence which camera body is chosen.

Digital results in little noise, so there is little reason to use wide apertures unlees differential focus is being employed. Of course, it is nice to have them, but how often are very wide apertures actually used?

I suspect for most people taking pictures with their cameras, certainly with most amateurs, apertures generally used are f/4 or smaller. I use f/8 most of the time.

Those who are more interested in having equipment for reasons other than taking pictures may hanker after lenses like the 5mm f/0.8 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59208794
but in the real world (not obssessed with f nos) who needs bigger than FX and moderate aperture lenses unless the pictures are to make a living?

@keepreal, Quite often actually, but when using FF I'll typically stop a fast lens down to f/2. The benefit is increased image quality being able to stop down further over a slower lens.

(2) The difference between f/4 and f/2.8, let alone f/2 can be huge aesthetically

(3) The wider apertures aid in focus and me seeing the subject no matter what I have the lens stopped down to.

(4) Out of focus characteristics often favor faster lenses (e.g. Canon's 85 1.2 vs the 1.8 version; not sure if the gap closed w/a newer 1.8 model), but you get the point. There are many advantages available to a photographer by having a faster lens at his/her disposal.

(5) Leica's gaping wide apertures on their noct lens is very usable when shooting from a'far where the DOF isn't necessarily razor thin at the subject. Shooting a street scene at 30-50 feet gives you at minimum a 5ft DOF... the aesthetic value can be immediately imagined.

Best in photography to you!

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 18:36 UTC
In reply to:

John McMillin: You didn't mention image stabilization, so useful in those low-light situations. Does the new Fuji MF have it? No other MF camera does.

John, Pentax offers several digital medium format image stabilized lenses. 90mm f/2.8 macro and the 28-45 f/4.5 zoom.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 18:23 UTC
In reply to:

chriswy: From an enthusiastic standpoint, this is a "bigger than FF" camera. Although it is a good camera for its price, to experience MF looks, it is still more practical and cheaper to use a film body.

@chriswy, I definitely wouldn't call using a film body of any kind more "practical" or cheaper today, especially when you're using the camera primarily as a money making tool. Shooting MF film today is probably the antithesis to being practical and proves a marked demand on ones time with less options in the field compared to MF digital.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 17:28 UTC
In reply to:

krassphoto: "it use to take about 70 people to make a lens like that prior to automation, now we need about 6 or 7."
...yet the prices are going up.

@krassphoto: "...yet the prices are going up."

And so is the quality.

Of course the prices are going up. The point of being in business is to make a profit and automation (especially after it's paid for) really helps the bottom line which is the point. The point of automation isn't (usually) to drastically reduce the cost of doing business and to pass the huge savings onto the customer (aka 'losing money') unless a business in inclined to do so as a competitive move. It's all about money and I don't have a problem with Canon or any business doing whatever they have to do to make it! :)

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 00:31 UTC
Total: 668, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »