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

Nikita66: Kind of surprises me that sunstars are "revered." They appear contrived to me, unnatural.

Starburst under certain atmospheric or exceptional conditions yes, even a somewhat shallow DOF when my eyeball is inches away from a subject.... of course that's not what I mean. I am of course describing the typical course of the day or night, where most of us aren't noticing starbursts from streetlights, or the same shallow DOF that I can easily generate at a distance with a 400mm f/2.8 lens :)

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 03:14 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frank C.: I think any 2nd grader can draw up a nicer looking camera, you just gotta keep the orange crayon away from him that's all

Looks better than the 645Z to me... I'm still getting over its ugliness.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 03:08 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alex Efimoff: Who are the people who will be buying this camera? Professionals? Enthusiasts? Beginners?

@DenWil... What in the world do "Advertising professionals" have to do with anything? Advertising photographers are not the barometer for whether or not a camera will be well received (chuckle). Professionals shoot ads with cameras ranging from 80mp (now 100mp) Phase to a Canon 7D, etc.. The bottom line is that there are many working artists, portrait shooters, etc., who are interested in the camera.

Many professionals need the sensor and one or two lenses, not all the other trappings. This camera will give a lot of professionals that at a relatively low price. Some don't care about "newness" wearing off or whether 10 lenses are ever offered- some working photographers just care whether the camera and lens(es) available can be beneficial to them as a tool... or not.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 03:07 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

mikeodial: It's a lot smaller than my D810. Very impressive.

@ Denwil, Less functionality for you or others? Let's see, higher colour range (DR), likely better high iso performance which is excellent for indoor natural light shots, and most especially leaf shutters with a 1/2000 sync. I would take that with only the 45mm lens, over a D810 (awesome camera by the way) for my use. What's not so "functional" for others is what makes a camera most attractive to the target market.

I'm not a mirrorless fan, but this is the only mirrorless camera thus far that I'd even remotely seriously consider.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 02:55 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

StevenE: This thing is barely medium format. The sensor is only 22% wider than full frame.
For perspective, full frame is 62% wider than APS-C, and more than 100% as wider than MFT sensors.
Previous Hasselblads were 50% wider than full frame

"This thing is barely medium format. The sensor is only 22% wider than full frame. "

That's right up there with your date telling you she's "barely" pregnant. It either is or isn't medium format. :)

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 02:42 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

magneto shot: rightname would be "C-medium format" or cropped medium format since that is what it is. its nowhere near the size of medium formats as reference in film days.

... technically there's no such thing as a "cropped" MF.. whether or not it matches a film size has no bearing on whether it's a MF camera. Larger than 35? Smaller than 5x4? It's medium format.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 02:40 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

endofoto: The camera is great but the lenses are too slow compared to their price tags. f3,5 for 45 mm is not acceptable any more.

3.5 or even 4.5 is totally acceptable for 45mm. It might not be your preference, but it's readily "acceptable" by a myriad of people actually buying medium format cameras and lenses.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 02:38 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Hand made in Sweden?

utterlyotter: "If it´d been made in the U.S it would be built out of either cheap plastic or cast iron, have a whiteheaded eagle and the stars and stripes on the front and be called "The Thunderbolt"... " That's utterly ridiculous... and so *TRUE* that I had to chuckle! :)

Jaygeephoto: "What would it made of or called if it were made in the UK? Or does it matter because it would most likely fall apart and be worthless after a few years."

..... it would be called Range Rover! ;) ;) ;)

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 02:34 UTC
In reply to:

Nikita66: Kind of surprises me that sunstars are "revered." They appear contrived to me, unnatural.

... When was the last time you looked at a chair and everything behind it, and inches in front of it was masked in a buttery blur? Never?
When was the last time you looked at a bird on a branch and everything, except the bird, was reduced to a buttery smooth foggy colour palate? Never?
Shallow DOF is just as unnatural as holy stars spewed from a streetlight on a clear night. ;) (warm smile + friendly poke to your ribs)

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 01:01 UTC
In reply to:

Funkyd3121: 16-35 III & NO IS??? NOT! Plus the price. Gonna save up $$$ to replace my old 24-105L with the new one. One repair bill on my 24-105 in 2012 was $302.00, & Canon wanted $484.00 for the 2nd repair(different issue). Got them down to $270.04, & later found an authorized repair shop that will do it for $250.00 - parts & labor!!

... because stabilization makes a difference even if you're shooting at 22mm with a medium format sensor. Many people say there's no need for stabilization on a wide lens, but the *fact* is, for those finding themselves shooting at really low shutter speeds and in whatever particular "vibration zone" you may happen to subscribe to, stabilization makes the result of shaky hands and or vibrations less apparent in the resulting photograph. So while what isn't "necessary" for one, is a usable feature for many others shooting on the edge. If you do a lot of WA shooting indoors in natural light, 1/50th isn't exactly "slow" no matter what format you're shooting.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 00:51 UTC
On article Canon EOS-1D X Mark II: What you need to know (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: With Canon falling behind compared to Nikon in AF, in additional to the well established disadvantage in image quality, what reason (except for prior investment) do photographers have left to choose Canon over Nikon?

@DualSystemGuy, keep in mind that irrespective of whether you shoot raw, skin tones, colour of grass and the sky will not necessarily be the same even after a 'white balance'. This was very noticeable in the old Nikons when compared to Canon's raw files. All this going on between D5 and 1DxII is mere hair splitting for most work.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2016 at 18:35 UTC
On article Canon EOS-1D X Mark II: What you need to know (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nobby2016: why don´t you let a working professional, someone who has a real clue, write such articles?

get a canon pro sports photographer to write about his experience with the 1 DX II.... get a nikon pro sports photographer to write an article about the D5.

i doubt that you guys at DPreview, sitting at your desk most of the time, have as much experience with the cameras as they have.

@Chris Yates "that's not really photography, that's spray and pray technique used by sport shooters."

Actually it's a common sense technique used by professional photographers shooting a myriad of things including sports, street, event and wildlife, because it's easier and more likely to get the intended shot using short bursts than it is being futile in nailing what you think, is going to be, a "decisive moment".

When humans can see into the future and tell where hair is going to fall, when water droplets will get between the camera and the subject's eyes, or when a group of 5 people will have their eyes beautifully open as opposed to someone blinking, then, a fast fps will matter less. While "spray-n-pray" is a cute phrase, it doesn't represent the realities of shooting "action" (any action from a wedding to rodeo to birds in flight). Irrefutably, a fast frame rate usually translates to the professional capturing more sales and or more note worthy content.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2016 at 14:15 UTC
On article Getty employs robots for underwater shots in Rio (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

Quisquis: Does anyone else get pis$$ed (apparently mild expressions of anger are verboten here...) off that the people who get rich off of photography aren't photographers, but rather website intermediaries like Getty?

Dichotomy. ah yes, the general naivety that exists regarding at least one reality that too many photographers are seemingly oblivious to, such as the generally huge monetary gulf between *most* people trying to make a living solely off their "art" in contrast to small businesses who've learned to conduct their business as big business conducts business. All of which would be a "false" dichotomy and overall "falsehood" if such a monetary gulf between the two, generally didn't exist. Most people in business (and the bank loan officer approving your signature loans) knows it does ;)

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 01:23 UTC
In reply to:

image360by180: The big difference between using a drone and a light plane or small helicopter is the height you need to shoot at. Drones are great for heights below 400-600 feet and small helicopters are great for 600 to 1,500 feet. Small planes are better for 1,500 to less that 10,000 feet.

If you want to use small helicopters you should really do your homework and talk to other aerial photographers that work in the area to find the best pilots. It may come as a surprise but most R44 pilots can not hold a hover in a position. It's takes a very skilled pilot to do this. Most pilot's needs to be moving or have a good head wind to hover. And if you have very specific locations and heights you will want to talk to the pilot before hand about these as a really good pilot knows what they are comfortable with and most likely know if they are willing to do what you are asking. They are looking to see if they have a "safe" out if they need to try and auto rotate down.

Small helicopters are great for basically any altitude up to their hover out o ground effect alt. which is easily over 1,500ft. for most helos. Premium drones can easily fly well over 600 ft. and remain in stabilized flight. Licensed helicopter pilots don't have an issue hovering irrespective of the wind. It takes skill to *learn* to hover, just like it took you skill to 'learn' to walk... but once you learn it, that's basically it. If you encounter a pilot who can't hover, then s/he shouldn't hold a license. Stability varies per helicopter/airplane model.

Why do you think "small planes" are better for less-than-10,000 ft.? The truth is that the capability of small planes are just like cars, they vary depending on the model, not whether or not they're small. Many small planes don't perform optimally unless they're flying *above* 10,000ft.

My advice to photographers is to let actual pilots worry about the aviation part of arial photography. :)

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 01:01 UTC
On article Getty employs robots for underwater shots in Rio (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

Quisquis: Does anyone else get pis$$ed (apparently mild expressions of anger are verboten here...) off that the people who get rich off of photography aren't photographers, but rather website intermediaries like Getty?

That might be applicable had I actually "complained" about anything (I haven't), said that I didn't "like what's being posted" (I don't mind what's posted), or was "whining" about anything on this site (I never whine).

Nothing you said was actually indicative of "my logic".

My "logic" is, be a wolf and focus on getting well paid, or be an "artist" eating ramen 4 nights-a-week. Choose one. No one is stopping any of you from being wealthy and commanding your own financial destiny. Either play the game, own the game, or get played. Businesses small / large, do what businesses do in order to get paid. So? I don't blame wolves for acting like wolves and I expect a wolf to bite; sometimes wolves get bitten back, by the law... (price of being a wolf).

It'll be interesting seeing how the issue legally pans out. If Getty is wrong, I hope they face stiff monetary penalties. If Getty is legally right then Getty isn't the problem.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 00:37 UTC
On article Getty employs robots for underwater shots in Rio (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

Quisquis: Does anyone else get pis$$ed (apparently mild expressions of anger are verboten here...) off that the people who get rich off of photography aren't photographers, but rather website intermediaries like Getty?

Why would I even care? Many engineers who design aircraft aren't pilots, make more than the pilots flying their design. So? Most stores that sell goods didn't have a hand in making those goods, yet the owners/stockholders of the stores often make more than those hand making the goods. So? No one is stopping anyone here from creating their own "Getty" and paying photographers 75% of the profits... but Getty probably understands that you don't run a business that way.

Don't like Getty? Don't contribute to Getty.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 23:50 UTC
In reply to:

scottfc: It would have been fair to specify how much more a helicopter is than a plane.
I my area, southern Oregon, a helicopter costs $900/hour, but a Cessna 172 is "only" $120 to rent. I'm a private pilot and thus can't make a profit, but if you buy me lunch (don't tell the FAA) I might take you up just for fun and we would split the rental cost, so it would only cost you $60. I doubt that'll happen with a copter. But even if you don't have a pilot friend, maybe the Cessna pilot will charge $150/hour.
The point is, helicopter rental may be ideal, but it's too expensive for most people unless they're a commercial photographer. So I suppose the helicopter is for the Leica crowd, and the Cessna is for Canon/Nikon?

Sounds like a piston helicopter. A Bell 206 (turbine) cost over $900hr. back in the 1990's. to rent., and a piston twin airplane was generally near $200hr. A Cessna 172 would go for close to $100hr. If you're a private pilot, you better get used to splitting the rental costs and getting a CFI ((cringe.. someone's gotta do it right?)) on your ticket just to gain hours if you plan on flying for a living. If you have the cash, skip the CFI stuff, get on with a cargo or mail service, get checked out, and fly 2nd seat (non paid position) for free and pickup turbine PIC time.

Photography: You nailed it-- relatively few will have the financial power to go flitting about in a helicopter, (let alone a turbine helicopter), to take photographs of rocks, ice, waterfalls, lava, fjords and gorges for no other reason than to satisfy a personal itch to take and have, personal photographs of such. A Cessna 206, 180 or 185 with a window/door in the floor. Best in aviation / photography to you.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2016 at 22:43 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: I love aerial photography. Thanks for the article.

I still haven't done it from a proper aircraft yet (except horrible pics from commercial jets while traveling). Around here it can be done in an airplane for a little under 200 for an hour with pilot. That's not bad if you have a really good plan.

Unfortunately, there's not a lot to shoot from the air in Atlanta, but I still want to try it anyway. Looks fun.

For most things today, I'd spend several grand, and use a *high quality drone* hands down. I used to fly into the Charlie Brown airport there in ATL often as a teen, and finally realized that the tiny amusement park under our flight path was Six Flags! Looks so compact from the air.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2016 at 22:14 UTC
In reply to:

RolliPoli: Question: Isn't there a lot more vibration in a helicopter than in a fixed wing aircraft?
Further to that, wouldn't the fixed wing machine be smoother still, throttled back and nose down in a glide attitude? I'm asking based on previous reading, my limited understanding of powered flight and, of course, a photographer's desire to have a stable platform from which to shoot.

Yes; far more vibrations (typically) when flying in rotorcraft compared to an airplane, but the vibrations aren't an issue from a practical standpoint. The issue is that an airplane doesn't offer nearly the versatility when it comes to getting a great view of the subject matter. With most helicopters (military and civilian) having the ability to fly doors-off without cumbersome (flt.) restrictions is common. You just don't want any straps or lens hoods out in the open air which can possibly come off & get into the tail rotor.

A R44 is a cheap (wonderfully successful) piston helicopter (most successful helos are turbine or "jet" driven.. e.g. Bell 206 "Jet" ranger), which offers more power and reliability. There is no way in ---- will you get me flying around volcanic action in a low-powered piston aircraft! Helos suffer from lack of endurance, so if you want to shoot for 2.5 hrs, multiple locales, loiter, or it's a distance to fly to the aerial shoot location; take a plane :)

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2016 at 22:07 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1607 comments in total)
In reply to:

bolt2014: I'm tired of hearing "You need a full frame camera to get maximum resolution". Unless you are going to do wall sized murals I doubt that more than 1 in 100 photographers need the resolution of full frame cameras! I think the full frame myth is perpetuated by camera manufacturers to keep people buying cameras!

Likewise, I'm tired of people thinking that a lot of resolution is only good for wall sized, or billboard sized prints. The reality is that if you shoot a macro using my 20mp Canon 5D2, and you shoot the same using a 100mp sensor and print an 16x20in., you'll see noticeably far more detail in the latter... and that's before you crop. Resolution is just good for "large prints".

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2016 at 02:35 UTC
Total: 446, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »