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: 436, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: Not being sarcastic at all. At last, a lens with "endearing character." I haven't seen the word "character" used to describe a lens in forever it seems like. Thank heavens Nikon continues to release lenses that are more attuned to the needs of art than they are to commerce.

Smiler... actually the "kids" in the 18-25 group are mostly shooting digital Apple/Nikon/Canon or another readily identifiable digital brand/cell phone/tablet and rarely printing anything at all. The older photographers are definitely not using lenses from their youth because those lenses are by and large horrible on today's digital bodies and devoid of modern lens coatings. However, you do have the "glad to be alive" part right.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 22:00 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: This is nice :D
At last, something to compete with 85/1.2, kind of.

I've shot the stew out of the Canon 85 1.2, Nikon 85 1.4, and the Zeiss 100 f/2 makro (which I love)... given then choice between this new 105 and the fast (and competent) 85, I'd take the 105. I also shoot fast lenses in this range mostly at f2. When the ink hits the paper, they all do well; I wouldn't say Canon had a leg up.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 21:53 UTC
On article Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review (516 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stuckabroad: Nice review, keep up the good work.
I do find all the negative comments bizarre. I'm lucky enough to own one of these (D3 packed up) and, genuinely, it's magnificent.
I'm rank amateur so can someone please explain why I'd shoot iso 100 when i can shoot between 3000-12000 and get a better quality photo? This seems to be the main criticism.
My daughter plays county cricket and I was shooting handheld in overcast conditions with a 300mm. f10, 1/1000 with the iso cranked up. I don't go higher than A4 and I would defy anyone to criticize the quality.
Later the same day I was taking photos of my son in a school play. The high iso allowed me to get photos my D3 would never get and the autofocus is staggering, even in the dark.
About 99% of the time I don't shoot RAW (quite frankly I've got better things to do with my life) so I want the shot there and then. With a half decent lens even someone as untalented as myself is going to shine.
BTW, the battery. 4000 shots so far, same charge. Wow.

You really need to get the "HDR" stuff out of your head, since the most useful reasons for being able to recover up to 5 stops or so, has absolutely nothing to do with the stereotypical HDR "look". I don't think most D5, 1Dx, etc., are being bought by "pros" shooting sports or reportage; which brings us to another point. These camera aren't "sport" cameras- but rather fast shooting cameras that are used in a myriad of situations that exploit their strengths whether that be sports, action portraiture/life style, industrial use, scientific use, etc.. More DR would definitely help a lot of actual owners/would-be-buyers of these cameras whether those buyers shoot sports/reportage or not.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 04:01 UTC
On article Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review (516 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stuckabroad: Nice review, keep up the good work.
I do find all the negative comments bizarre. I'm lucky enough to own one of these (D3 packed up) and, genuinely, it's magnificent.
I'm rank amateur so can someone please explain why I'd shoot iso 100 when i can shoot between 3000-12000 and get a better quality photo? This seems to be the main criticism.
My daughter plays county cricket and I was shooting handheld in overcast conditions with a 300mm. f10, 1/1000 with the iso cranked up. I don't go higher than A4 and I would defy anyone to criticize the quality.
Later the same day I was taking photos of my son in a school play. The high iso allowed me to get photos my D3 would never get and the autofocus is staggering, even in the dark.
About 99% of the time I don't shoot RAW (quite frankly I've got better things to do with my life) so I want the shot there and then. With a half decent lens even someone as untalented as myself is going to shine.
BTW, the battery. 4000 shots so far, same charge. Wow.

Rishi, now you're speaking my language. There is no such thing as "properly exposed". People will often assume something is underexposed, when in fact the light, or lack thereof, actually depicted the light as it actually was. The flip side is that often "properly exposed" per the light meter, is boring, and a bit of a push, etc., can make things pop. It's all a subjective exercise.

Best in photography to you Rishi

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 04:05 UTC
On article Nikon D500 versus D750: Which one is right for you? (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joed700: Lens Choice...although you can always use FF lenses on DX sensors, you can comprise IQ with some lenses. A crop sensor basically can magnify the imperfections of a lens that's designed for FF. It's always better to get dedicated lenses for DX bodies.

Joed700... You buy FF glass because better build, faster apertures & usability.

(1) faster apertures help the AF irrespective of what aperture you have selected. (2) fast aperture helps you manually focus with a brighter viewfinder since you and the AF focus the lens always with the widest aperture before the camera stops down to the selected aperture. (3) The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 can be *very* obvious as I've illustrated over the years. This difference is often 'night and day' if you're shooting portraiture, etc., on location. Translation? You're paying a lot more, because in many cases, you're getting a lot more for your money in practical performance that you can readily notice (less AF "hunting", easier manual focus, and the difference a full stop can make).

The 18-200 lens against 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8? Colour accuracy difference + IQ difference that persists no matter what DXO reports. :)

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 03:59 UTC
On article Nikon D500 versus D750: Which one is right for you? (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joed700: Lens Choice...although you can always use FF lenses on DX sensors, you can comprise IQ with some lenses. A crop sensor basically can magnify the imperfections of a lens that's designed for FF. It's always better to get dedicated lenses for DX bodies.

Joed700, can you please show a practical example of just how much "better" using a DX lens over a FF lens on a DX sensor really is? I'm of the opinion that the Nth degree measuring isn't compelling. What is compelling are the lens choices and versatility you get with the FF lenses. I advocate people not buying into the DX lens line unless they're only going to shoot DX.

ZJ24... I agree. The FF lenses on DX sensors generally perform excellently because they are excellent on crop just as they are on FF.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 22:14 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Prices actually seem reasonable for what these lenses are. They make Leica prices look absurd. Although I wonder why the 40-80 is so much more expensive than the 75-150.

JackM, but taking a photograph, then simply printing it isn't the reality most of us are dealing with. We're typically dealing with taking a photograph, post processing it, sometimes 'till the file is about to scream, then printing it a bit large, after having cropped a bit. That's more of a realistic scenario for many photographers, and for a lot of photographers shooting primarily for pay.
Let me be clear... the Nikon D810 is a strong performing camera and easily a MF replacement for things such as catalog shooting, etc.. However, there are still areas of photography that I'd rather have a larger sensor... especially those times when I'm hand holding a lens, and trying to eek out as much shutter speed as possible, while keeping the iso as low as possible.... I'll take a larger sensor every time in that situation, especially when I'm trying to minimize the DOF.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 01:07 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: If Phase One is full frame, then the new Hasselblad X1D is something like an APS size of medium format??

Marty4650, FF is simply in respect to whatever format/size you happen to be discussing as it relates to the closest film negative size.

1Dx digital camera? Then FF is based on 35mm negative size.
6x4.5 digital MF kit? Then FF is based on the respective 645 negative size.
*6x7 digital MF kit? Then FF is based on the respective 6x7 negative size.
*6x9 digital MF kit? Then FF is based on the respective 6x9 negative size.
*5x4 digital LF kit? Then FF is based on that respective film negative's size.

(* no such thing I know)

The phrase "FF" is relative, just like the word "fast". Leica's 50mm Noct. F/.095 is considered "fast" (gross understatement). But so is a 600mm f/4 lens. It's all relative.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2016 at 00:52 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Saxon: Lord, are we now calling not-quite-6x4.5 "full frame medium format" because of the 33x44 sensor? So obnoxious and misleading. If we've got to call a medium format full frame I'd say it ought to be 6x6. Maybe 6x7, but that's starting to get into the "specialty camera" territory (which 6x9 and larger definitely is). If it turns out these lenses don't cover full 6x4.5 I'm going to roll my eyes pretty hard.

landscaper1, I appreciate what you're saying and I agree that it doesn't make sense to call something FF if it doesn't cover at least the same minimum area of the standard that it's measured by. Perhaps articles would be more clear if they just start stating the % of the film size in relation to the respective film format being discussed; 6x4.5, 6x7, etc.. (e.g. "The 645Zii sports a 250mp sensor that generates a frame that's 1.2% *larger* than a 645 film frame...")

Can't hurt to dream right? ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2016 at 00:34 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Can someone explain to me what's the difference I will see beside higher resolution between this camera + 80mm f/2.8 and a A7R II + 55mm Otus.

Max print size would be different but what else? Thanks

fmian... I suppose if you think the typical $500 medium format film camera sold today is a good deal then rock on... and that's in addition to having to send your film in to be processed along with a lot of hand written notes, buying film, storing film, loading film, mailing and picking up processed film. That's not impressive, it's a pain in the rear is what that is. A 100mp sensor means that we're that much closer to finally getting large format film performance in a medium format form factor (or smaller). It's not about egos.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 23:31 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Saxon: Lord, are we now calling not-quite-6x4.5 "full frame medium format" because of the 33x44 sensor? So obnoxious and misleading. If we've got to call a medium format full frame I'd say it ought to be 6x6. Maybe 6x7, but that's starting to get into the "specialty camera" territory (which 6x9 and larger definitely is). If it turns out these lenses don't cover full 6x4.5 I'm going to roll my eyes pretty hard.

Lars V, The Hy6 (remember that one?) was prepared for such backs though. Too bad those guys didn't get in bed with Canon, Apple or Ricoh years ago. Rollei, Leaf, Sinar... What a mess!

"A medium format SLR camera for the discerning user, the Rollei Hy6 was developed in Germany with full cooperation of premium digital back manufacturers, and is at home with either film or digital capture. The "Hy" stands for 'hybrid', and the Hy6 was designed with the future thinking that 48 x 48mm digital backs would one day be obsolete. Indeed, there are now 56 x 56mm backs, and this size cannot be incorporated into the bodies of competing popular Japanese-made medium format SLR cameras. The Hy6 is the only modern AF medium-format SLR which can accept this larger size."

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 23:07 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Prices actually seem reasonable for what these lenses are. They make Leica prices look absurd. Although I wonder why the 40-80 is so much more expensive than the 75-150.

JackM, "normal" size is a size relative to the sensor. For example take the sensor dimensions and divide each side by a number typically between 270 and 300 (ppi) and you get a pretty good real-word idea of how large you can print while still getting a stellar print. Divide by 300 and that cuts straight to the chase. Do the same for each 50mp sensor, print at the same size, then compare the print.

Why do people keep thinking that you need to print "big" to see the difference in resolution? Try taking shots in the opposite direction. Small. Take a shot of a bees face using a 100mp MF sensor. Then take the same using a Nikon D810. Crop the frame to around 16x24".... and see the difference in detail.

Larger sensor affects everything from light falloff to the transition quality from in focus to out of focus areas. We're also talking about an entirely different aspect ratio as well.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 22:51 UTC
In reply to:

fotopizza: For sure you get a Pentax 645 Z for these prices, but Pentax is a system without any leaf shutter lenses, and the existing lenses are not flawless in terms of IQ- only some of the lenses keep up with the 50 MP sensor, which is fixed, with no chance to upgrade, since Pentax 645 is, opposite Phase One or Hasselblad, not a modular system. The lens pricing of these lenses here seems absolutely ok- a Rodenstock HR-W 32mm lens is 6000€, so the prices stated here seem very ok.

fotopizza... actually you "upgrade" the Pentax 645Z , by buying the next version, which usually costs considerably less than buying a single Hasselblad medium format digital back. At least with the Pentax, you can buy *two* entirely new medium format cameras, thus get new materials, new electronics, new weather sealing, new UI, for less than the price of a single Hasselblad digital back.

How's that for "upgrading"? ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Prices actually seem reasonable for what these lenses are. They make Leica prices look absurd. Although I wonder why the 40-80 is so much more expensive than the 75-150.

JackM, quite simple, you just view it at normal size and compare that side-by-side. Most working photographers aren't overly concerned with superlatives as they are real world differences gained for the amount of money they spend. Spending $10,000 more, doesn't make good business sense if the only time you can see the difference without using a loupe, is at 100%.

Now if a photographer just wants bragging rights and feels that's worth $10k, then hootie hooooooooo! :)

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Prices actually seem reasonable for what these lenses are. They make Leica prices look absurd. Although I wonder why the 40-80 is so much more expensive than the 75-150.

The price rises with the wider lenses relatively rapidly across the board when shooting MF. This is one area that people really need to price before taking the leap. If find the Pentax 645 28-45mm f/4.5 (stabilized) lens a much better deal than what Phase and Hasselblad has to offer. $6,200 for a Hasselblad 35mm f/4 lens ($4.9k for the 28-45mm Pentax)? $5,700 for the Hasselblad 120mm Macro (about $1500 for the Pentax version)? ... starting to see a trend yet? Hasselblad and Phase will gouge your pocket book every time you buy a lens.

Put the prints or processed files from each camera side-by-side, and then tell me if the difference is worth the cost premium. Forget that 100% crop ridiculousness, let's have tests basked in reality... ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

odpisan: For that price I can buy Pentax 645 Z with best lenses.

I think that quality of photos wouldn't be worth mentioning.

Odpisan, you'd be correct. The difference between using a Hasselblad X1 and the Pentax 645Z is a wash as far as IQ is concerned when the rubber hits the road (that means after post processing, or in a print). Next, what is the price of a wide angle lens for the X1D, other digital Hasselblads, and the Phase? The bottom line is that you're going to spend a lot more for a smidgen (if any) increase in performance. If spending nearly $10k more for a pittance of performance means that much to a photographer then "rock on!" I say! The only difference worth stating is sync speed, extension tubes, t/s lenses and such- Pentax is horribly behind the power curve in that regard.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 20:33 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Saxon: Lord, are we now calling not-quite-6x4.5 "full frame medium format" because of the 33x44 sensor? So obnoxious and misleading. If we've got to call a medium format full frame I'd say it ought to be 6x6. Maybe 6x7, but that's starting to get into the "specialty camera" territory (which 6x9 and larger definitely is). If it turns out these lenses don't cover full 6x4.5 I'm going to roll my eyes pretty hard.

I'm rolling my eyes at the way people can't seem to let go of the obvious. Yes, we know MF *film sizes* 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9... don't match what is commonly called MF digital. But those with common sense gather that the term MF in a digital context, is just a term that let's us know what a person is talking about.

Kinda like saying Apple or a PC.... when we all know an Apple computer *is* a PC. (insert obligatory eye roll here) ;)

I would also like to see the lenses cover at least the 6x4.5 film standard.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 20:21 UTC
On article Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review (516 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stuckabroad: Nice review, keep up the good work.
I do find all the negative comments bizarre. I'm lucky enough to own one of these (D3 packed up) and, genuinely, it's magnificent.
I'm rank amateur so can someone please explain why I'd shoot iso 100 when i can shoot between 3000-12000 and get a better quality photo? This seems to be the main criticism.
My daughter plays county cricket and I was shooting handheld in overcast conditions with a 300mm. f10, 1/1000 with the iso cranked up. I don't go higher than A4 and I would defy anyone to criticize the quality.
Later the same day I was taking photos of my son in a school play. The high iso allowed me to get photos my D3 would never get and the autofocus is staggering, even in the dark.
About 99% of the time I don't shoot RAW (quite frankly I've got better things to do with my life) so I want the shot there and then. With a half decent lens even someone as untalented as myself is going to shine.
BTW, the battery. 4000 shots so far, same charge. Wow.

ghost wind, Rishi actually hit the nail on the head. There are many situations having nothing to do with HDR that benefit from underexposing in order to save highlights... where a D5 or 1Dx would be more ideal over a D810 or 5Dsr. Likewise, pushing 3 stops today isn't eyebrow raising and is but another viable tool in one's real-world post processing arsenal.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2016 at 09:46 UTC
In reply to:

peterstuckings: Wait, are you telling me there are still people out there who think a photograph represents 'reality'?

"Wait, are you telling me there are still people out there who think a photograph represents 'reality'?" .... well just look at the number of overly impressionable young women out there that have to be told that a model with obviously pore-less skin, perfect eyes that radiate green or blue colour, sculpted bodies, elongated necks, not a strand of fly-a-way hair while modeling a handbag in downtown Chicago is fake or "photoshopped" as they say.

You would think that even a person with a single digit IQ can look at near pore-less skin and overly brightened eyes and assume the photo has been altered; especially since such a human has never appeared naturally in nature. These are the same kids and adults that actually need to be told that certain ads are "simulations", even though what's depicted in the ad/commercial is obviously not real to most reasonably intelligent individuals.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 17:57 UTC
On article Sony prices 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS G Master at $2600 (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

Teila Day: Hmmm. $2600? Here's how I look at pricing. When shooting portraits of all ages, what would I rather use invest in, a Sony $2600 70-200 f/2.8, or a used Nikon/Canon lens for less than half that amount and get the same practical performance? Further, would I rather shoot with the 70-200 or pay $1k or so more and buy a used Canon/Nikon 200mm f/2?

If I was starting out and buying lenses, that would be my thought process and I'd jump on the latter before the former and get more for my money. I realize that a big prime isn't for everyone, but $2,600 for a Sony 70-200... I wouldn't bite unless it offered something far and above competitors; e.g. a real-world 6 stop stabilization, built in 1.7x teleconverter, etc..

tkbslc... ALL OEM lenses are part of a "system". You've stated the obvious and reiterated my point exactly.

Do you spend what would amount to thousands more for system A, when you can get the same practical performance from system B, with more third party support, maintenance facilities, universities that use the same equipment, etc.. Looking at it from a "system" standpoint, do you find such a good business decision based on price/performance ratio? My point exactly.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 02:45 UTC
Total: 436, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »