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

rrccad: except that D810 will most likely focus better with tracking, faster, shoot in a large scope of environments, and requirements .. have an ecosystem that will be unmatched by any MF company in terms of size, price and weight of the lenses,etc,etc.

not sure what the point of comparing the size of the camera really is.. show a 24-70 2.8 mounted on the D810 and Fuji and get back to me.

btw, it's not 1.7x bigger than full frame by any conventional measure.

@Timbuktu: “When MF gives you … compromises… lenses are very expensive without offering the equivalent aperture, you know you hit that wall.”

There’s no other benefit shooting MF? Most MF shooters care about “equiv.” apertures? Many consider it a "wall" when a prospective tool doesn't increase income or save time, etc.. You're not thinking business reality.

@Timbuktu: “2nd if wide open performance is what you want (and why would you shoot MF to shoot stopped down?) than getting good copies of lenses is a big factor in overall system performance”

There’s more to MF than a super shallow DOF. Not all buying a f/1.2 shoots wide open. A brighter viewfinder / better focusing / bokeh are the greater benefit to many photographers.

“…and why would you shoot MF to shoot stopped down?”

(sigh) .. oh for the love of peaches (shakes head); you can’t be serious (chuckle)... honestly, if you need someone to tell you that then you probably shouldn't be commenting on MF. :)

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2017 at 00:22 UTC
In reply to:

mailman30: so what is a 63mm lens in 35mm terms with a sensor size of 43.8 × 32.9mm, as opposed to 24 x 36mm for 35mm?

@John, (((chuckle))) :)

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 23:45 UTC
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (232 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlephNull: I stopped using zooms on Canon around 2008. I used nothing but primes for four years. I had to use a zoom with Nikon for a while, but then I started using Sigma Art primes (I tried several Nikon primes, but I was unimpressed), and I could stop using zooms again.

I have one zoom now: a Sigma 150-600mm. I use it exclusively to shoot animals at the zoo, and accept the limitations for that.

In the studio I use a 50mm and an 85mm. In 2008, I was using the 50mm f/1.2 and the 85mm f/1.2. Now I'm using the 50mm Sigma Art and the 85mm Sigma Art.

Makes perfect sense for your usage... in other uses a prime would be senseless in the face of using a zoom. I bet your loving your Art lenses :)

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 01:07 UTC
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (232 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaurenceSvirchev: It is not 'mind-numbing numbers' but excessive ego and hubris that makes Mr. Cicala's difficult to read. The first three sentences of the roles of quantitative and qualitative sciences demonstrate a poor understanding of their respective roles in understanding what our eyes see. Example, Einstein played piano constantly while pondering the concepts that were revealed on his three papers in 1905 ('annus mirabilis') that changed the way society looks at the world. Use of rage-filled phrases like "setting my teeth on edge" are a wonderful way to fog an issue: no one really cares about Mr. Cicala's frustrations except perhaps the author himself.

Mike... Mr. Cicala wrote: "My point simply is that zooms vary more than primes in general, and a given copy of a zoom will vary at different focal lengths."

Meaning that the complexity of zoom lenses simply mean that you're going to see more variance between copies.

"Can they still be very good? Absolutely. Can they be as good as the **best primes**? Nope. On the other hand, the best primes don’t zoom worth a damn."

Meaning a $700 zoom (at any focal length) isn't likely to best a $6000 prime. However... will you *readily* see the difference between a 300 f/4 prime shot at f/8 vs. a 200-400 lens shot at 300mm and f/8, after both files are processed and printed at 20"x30" or smaller? Absolutely not... and that's the point that many photographers realize. You also won't see a practical difference between a $1,600 300mm f/4 prime and a 300mm f/2.8 prime... both stopped down to f/8 or so most of the time.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 01:01 UTC
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (232 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaurenceSvirchev: It is not 'mind-numbing numbers' but excessive ego and hubris that makes Mr. Cicala's difficult to read. The first three sentences of the roles of quantitative and qualitative sciences demonstrate a poor understanding of their respective roles in understanding what our eyes see. Example, Einstein played piano constantly while pondering the concepts that were revealed on his three papers in 1905 ('annus mirabilis') that changed the way society looks at the world. Use of rage-filled phrases like "setting my teeth on edge" are a wonderful way to fog an issue: no one really cares about Mr. Cicala's frustrations except perhaps the author himself.

@laurenceSvirchev... I enjoyed reading Mr. Cicala's article and I don't think he was being at all too critical. The piece was definitely not difficult to read. Mr. Cicala mentioning that something "sets his teeth on edge" probably doesn't lead most people to think he's actually fitting with rage over what people say in forums about lenses... even if what many say is irritating and worth an eyeroll...

The bottom line is that most photographers would probably gain more knowledge than irritation after reading the piece.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 00:32 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1483 comments in total)
In reply to:

N13L5: I don't get Sony's inability to fix their color balance to get rid of greenish yellows etc...

Apple, using Sony's phone camera identical to Sony's Z5 or ZX has much more neutral color balance.

Not that it is hard to edit later, but is it acceptable from one of the world's 'premier' camera / imaging brands??

@Esstee... RAW doesn't solve all colour problems. RAW from my Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc.. are not equal. All camera's don't "bake" their RAW files the same.

Simply "adjusting" the greens or reds ** still ** does not produce the exact same result of another manufacturer's camera in many circumstances... which is the point of knowing these characteristics before you make your purchase and making a good purchase decision accordingly.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 23:08 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1483 comments in total)
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: I have never been a fan of Sony color or images. I look at what Nikon and others do with the Sony sensors and they knock them out of the park. I haven't looked at this camera yet so hoping they are doing better.

@Esstee... Colour is important because it can mean a LOT more time in post work which means losing money. Whether it be skin tones, gradient blue sky (can be a big issue that requires actually "painting" the sky in post under certain conditions), or green grass.. the differences can be huge. Just because you shoot something in RAW doesn't mean getting to the right colour in post is going to take the same amount of time between two different cameras whether you use a colour card or not, custom white balance or not.

The truth is that one camera's baked RAW files might keep you from getting the final colours that you want period, whereas another camera might put you where you want to be with its default RAW colours to begin with.

All RAW files are not created equal when it comes to colour, and depending on how that RAW file is "formulated" will depend on how long it will take you to correct the colours or whether you'll be able to get the colours that you want at all.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 22:32 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1483 comments in total)
In reply to:

JemRaid: 3,000 quid for a body, it's got to be a joke! Knock a zero off buy G7 lol at 4K no one can tell the difference

@jemRaid... Your comment on cropping is telling. "Filling the frame" is often exactly what you do not want to do when shooting for a client as it destroys any options for various borders when printing/matting and compositional changes that are more to the client's liking. Cropping is a very useful tool when you're shooting as your only method of eating and sending kids to college as opposed to shooting for fun. There are many reasons why this camera would make a person happy just as there are many reasons why this camera would be a liability to someone shooting only for pay.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 15:51 UTC

We made a killing shooting with this little camera (900s) back in the late 1990's. The Coolpix was one of the first cameras to have something to do with this site if I remember correctly. The Coolpix was heads above pretty much all other offerings. Sony was pushing their Mavica line at the time which didn't even remotely come close.

The 900 series was making a huge plash in internet work, when purists were still clinging proudly to shooting film and missing out on ridiculously high (and I do mean ridiculous) profit margins. It was like the "wild west" in those days and the 900 series was made a mark!

I used rechargable AA with great success, replaced the original 8mb compact flash card with a 48mb one (about $250 back then) and proceeded to make my foray into several internet industries with that camera body. I've only very, very fond memories with that swivel-camera series.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 00:14 UTC as 41st comment
In reply to:

John Bean (UK): Never owned a 950 but I did have the original 900 (awful camera) and the later 3.4Mp 995, which I liked a lot. The 950 looks a lot more like the 995 than the 900 - which is probably a good thing.

The 900s was wonderful in my experience. It allowed me to make a killing on the internet back in the late 1990's. Take hundreds of photos, and upload. Those shooting film back then and scanning were left in the dust. The Coolpix was one of the best in the business with a great price/performance ratio.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 00:05 UTC
On article Hasselblad CEO Oosting to leave next week (164 comments in total)
In reply to:

darlot: He deserved a better portrait !

@darlot, I like the portrait.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2017 at 04:48 UTC
In reply to:

filmpoet: Wishful thinking that this is the little brother preparing us for the digital version of the Pentax 67 with the 100mp Sony sensor inside. You heard it here first!

@filmpoet, I might be inclined to click the "buy" button. I look forward to the day of larger sensors.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 00:46 UTC
In reply to:

elefteriadis alexandros: I don't call a 44 x 33 mm medium format.

You can break your spell and stop referring to film, which is akin to comparing a radial engine to a turbine one. Why are you making the comparison in the first place since they don't have anything to do with the other.

If the current digital MF range doesn't fit you, then stick with FF or smaller & wait for a digital body with a sensor the size of a 645, 6x7 or 6x9 negative and be happy. Or rock your favorite film body even! ... ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 02:25 UTC
In reply to:

DamianFI: We really shouldn't be calling these medium format.

DamianFL..... Then you don't know the American definition of a truck then. A dump truck the size of a small home is a truck, the same as a "bongo" truck, pickup truck, or any other size truck meant to haul a form of cargo or material. They're all "trucks" in the English Language. :)

MF is MF, there isn't a need to change a thing. Just look at the sensor size of each camera just as you note the engine particulars of an automobile if you're in the market for one.

People need to stop making up definitions for that which is already defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 04:53 UTC
In reply to:

elefteriadis alexandros: I don't call a 44 x 33 mm medium format.

elefteriadis alex.... (eyeroll) What you call or don't call something doesn't affect actual definitions of words.

Let me guess, you don't call a 4x5 large format because you're too busy comparing it to 8x10 and larger film? Stop making yourself look ridiculous.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

DamianFI: We really shouldn't be calling these medium format.

DamianFL, yes.. we should call it MF because that's exactly what it is. You don't not call a pickup truck a truck because it's smaller than a dump truck. Some of you need to stop being ridiculous. If you want a bigger sensor, then great, whip out $40 grand and enjoy a larger sensor. If you only need 44x33 or (Leica size) and reap the benefit of noticeably more cropping room, better colour, and greater colour range (DR), fast sync (depending on camera), etc... then spend your $10k and go with that.

The bottom line is they're all medium format cameras. We don't need but another designation to denote what's already been long defined.

For the love of peaches...

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 21:57 UTC
In reply to:

arbux: Small sensor, dark lenses. Medium format in name only. Any Ff camera with glass F2.0 or brighter captures more light and is cheaper + has much more functionality.

arbux... I shoot Nikon/Canon with fast Zeiss glass, Canon 85 1.2, etc... Shooting the Pentax 645Z to be a detriment, in fact it's preferred most of the time. Actually, it allows me a lot of latitude that most Nikon/Canon/etc., can't give.

"Medium format in name only"... well, that's because it's a MF camera by definition in the first place. Kind like saying a large pickup truck is a "truck" in name only when comparing it to a dump truck. Let's not get ridiculous.

Most people shooting for pay, probably don't shoot MF for the same reasons they shoot FF. Two different tools. You're trying to compare a really good spoon to a spork.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 03:24 UTC
In reply to:

phoenix15: Pentax will reduce price 645z by 1500 USD, and they will introduce "true" medium format with 100 Mp sensor. Now the real problem for Pentax is providing the lenses. Two thump up for Fuji with "quite affordable" GFX lenses. Pentax really need to respond quickly.

Nevertheless, I believe this GFX will trouble more to the Canikon with the expensive FF DSLR. I wonder if GFX can be used for action photography with their new AF ?

Phoenix15, I'm sure there's no rush in the Pentax camp to respond to either the Hasselblad or GFX. I really like the increased number of MF offerings though. Keeps the market from stagnating! The bigger issue = lenses and what the cameras offers as a completed "set up" or "rig".

While Fuji has a great lens range, the same can be said (barely) for the Pentax 645 offering which I tend to favor (personal thing). Knowing Hasselblad, the company will nickel and dime X1D customers compared to Pentax/Fuji. But Hasselblad also offers a professional feature that the others don't... highly usable sync speed!

The GFX, Hasselblad's 50c & X1D, and 645Z offer distinct advantages to their prospective buyers and owners. Price, battery life, lens offerings, sync speed, mirrorless, SLR, varied lenses, etc.. all with a great sensor.

The only thing a prospective buyer has to do is see which fits his/her photo endeavors professional or otherwise the best. Awesome time to shoot MF!

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 03:11 UTC
In reply to:

quietrich: A lot of bitching here along the lines of "it's not proper medium format". I may be wrong but I don't remember the same volume of harumph about the X1D or 645Z which both offer the same sized sensor.
I'm definitely in the market for a new digital MF this year, so will be looking at this Fuji once they release the 45mm lens. I prefer the knobs and dials interface over the iphone-type operation of the X1D. The Pentax on the other hand offers a lovely OVF (which I much prefer), and more lenses to choose from - but is that enough to compensate for the bulk and the camera shake from that massive mirror? Looking forward to finding out.
One thing's for sure, Fuji have a long and respected history of innovation in the MF camera market; and it's gratifying to see that continued with this GFX.

mosc..."Medium Format" is no more vague than the term "sports car". If I need to know what performance, maintenance or interior appointment advantages a Porsche 911 Turbo S has over a Ferrari 488, I can delve into it. However I'm not all the sudden dumbstruck because someone says "sporting car".

For those concerned (most seem overly concerned) about the size of a MF sensor, for the love of peaches just look at the sensor dimensions and any "vagueness" should instantly be lifted ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 02:30 UTC
In reply to:

Josh Leavitt: It's now Pentax's turn to counter with a 645Z + 24-70mm f2.8 D FA for $6999. I'd also like Pentax to announce a 645Z Mark II that uses a magnesium/carbon-fiber body to shave off a pound or so, plus the inclusion of an AF sensor similar to Nikons 20K Multi-Cam in the D500 and D5. That would really set the MF DSLR apart from the mirrorless X1D and GFX, if it had a high speed wide-area autofocus system.

Josh, If Pentax redesigns the existing 645 28-45 f/4.5 lens, or create 645 24-70 f/2.8 lens, you can expect that lens to sell at a price that's more than the camera and noticeably heavier than the current premium zoom lens. Sure I'd like the lens to be faster, but that's just nit picking- for most shooting the lens, it isn't even remotely needed and is probably why Pentax won't bring a faster version to market any time soon.

Such a lens would allow many Pentax MF shooters to operate using a two lens kit. the currently imaginary 645 24-70 f/2.8 which you'd need a burro to carry, and a telephoto lens beyond 100mm.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 02:25 UTC
Total: 602, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »