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: 496, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

endofoto: Flash sync 1/8000. You can shoot f2 and 1/4000 on the beach middle of the day.
Medium format lenses can sync only upto 1/800. This is the solution for portraitscapes.

endofoto... Various Med. Format lenses have been syncing 1/1600 for at least a decade if I recall. Hasselblad was restricted to 1/800 in their "H" series digital camera until recently. Today the revamped Hasselblad LS lenses (H series and the new mirrorless) sync at 1/2000.

Dialstatic and RPJG... The use for a fast syncing studio strobe is IMMENSE! If I'm shooting a portrait of a ballerina, leaping in the surf kicking up sand and water; I want her, her hair, water droplets and sand coming off her hands, hair, and feet to be perfectly frozen. 1/250th flash sync is too slow, but 1/1000th + sync, with the ISO set at 6400, will freeze a lot of the action in *broad daylight* Now do you see why people pay $$,$$$ for MF and pricey studio strobes? Power at high sync speeds using speed lights is very low!

The B2 & D2 allow more creative freedom *outdoors*, adding "pop" to the photograph while your settings darken background. Basically it brings MF flash capability to Nikon and Canon.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2016 at 20:20 UTC
On article Zeiss adds super-wide and tele- options to Milvus line (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

mgblack74: Nikon: "Announces 105 1.4, $2200 USD. Otus level sharpness".
Public: "Whaaaaat? So expensive! Crazy! Who is Nikon?"

Zeiss: "Announces facelift of existing lenses. Still no AF. $2200"
Public: "ooh! Can't wait! Sounds great! Me likey some Zeiss Miley Cyrus!"

mgblack74, it's not about where they're actually made geographically (that doesn't affect anything) but rather to what spec.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 07:19 UTC
On article Zeiss adds super-wide and tele- options to Milvus line (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidB2: Anyone know if the 135mm is optically identical to the Zeiss 135mm f2 zf.2 APO?

LJ - Eljot, that's basically what the new Milvus line is. The outgoing lenses with new housings and new lens coating if I recall. When I looked into the Milvus line (specifically as far as the 100 makro and 135 APO were concerned), the Milvus and the discontinued line are optically *practically* identical... Hopefully they've tamed the CA on the 100mm.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 21:15 UTC
In reply to:

Light Pilgrim: Why Apple calls it waterproof if they will not replace a water damaged phone?

ET2... Still doesn't change the definition of "water proof" and "water resistant". ;)

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

SimenO1: 1-9 + 10,5: totally irrelevant for me. Choosing a phone are more then getting a good as possible bad camera.

10: Thats the thinnest argument I ever heard. "Buy a Fuji-X, because maybe the SLR industry benefits from it".

The author plainly states that it's reason to *care* about the new technology and changes ... (the author is right by the way, it does affect what you see in dslrs). The author isn't making a case to buy one.

You're incorrectly relating to an argument or statement that was never made to begin with.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 16:35 UTC
In reply to:

davev8: its a very poor do if Apple can't make a waterproof phone with head phone jack..my Motorola G 3ed gen is waterproof for 30min at 1 meter and has a headphone jack and cost 1/4 of the Ifail ..i mean Iphone...they are making lame excuses for not including 0ne

..dave8, if your Motorola G 3ed gen is "waterproof" for 30 minutes ... then by definition, it isn't waterproof. That is the definition of water resistant.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 16:23 UTC
In reply to:

Light Pilgrim: Why Apple calls it waterproof if they will not replace a water damaged phone?

Kevin... Apple isn't being "cagey" at all as opposed to being accurate. The iPhone isn't waterproof. When something is resistant to water, it's commonly called 'water resistant" and the distinction between the water proof and water resistant have been consistent for decades *before* smartphones. Few people need or care about having a waterproof phone. People most just want their phone protected from spills and accidental immersion (phone accidentally dropped into the kiddie pool, etc..) and 'water resistant' fits those situations just fine.

Companies are smart. It's not their darn job to cover you possibly having butterfingers... that's what insurance is for-- and it's the consumer's job to cover their own behinds if they want to protect themselves against their own clumsiness or irresponsibilities. ;)

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 15:33 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Why not eliminate all ports?

Make them "wireless chargeable" and sell your customers $200 charging pads.

Wireless headphones
Wireless charging
Wireless file transfer
Wireless system upgrades

The Apple fans are so brand loyal they would probably line up four days before release to buy them.

.. then what do they offer in the next iteration of the iPhone or the one after that? What makes perfect sense for the consumer doesn't always make better business sense. While many (not most) customers might not blink at a $200 or even $400 charging pad, It's about whether such has a financial benefit to apple now, or more of a benefit later. I think apple does a fine job metering their successes, and that's what business is all about.

wireless charging - no (for me sitting my phone on a pad isn't much better than plugging it in) If it could charge while in a clutch or pocket then that would be of interest to me. .... wireless headphones - check. Wireless file xnsfr- isn't that what iPhone users have been doing for the last "for i don't know how long" anyway?" via iMessage, iCloud, email, etc.? ..... wireless system upgrades??? How else do people get them? (seriously asking)

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

Gray Photography: Pixel peeping taken to the extreme. A solution looking for a problem?

I fear DP Review has lost themselves in the world of examining belly button lint with a microscope.

None of this has anything to do with photography.

Gray photography... "Pixel peeping taken to the extreme. A solution looking for a problem?"

I think the tech. is horribly lame in *this* camera, however the technology IS interesting and very relevant.

"I fear DP Review has lost themselves in the world of examining belly button lint with a microscope."

Actually DPReview's job is to report on what it's members want to know about. Frankly, a lot of people (including myself) are glad the DP staff took the time to review this feature. Even if the article was on 'examining belly lint', I'd be interested from a macro point-of-view.

"None of this has anything to do with photography."
... Well, I'd say the technology has everything to do with photography; if you practice looking past the end of your nose, you might appreciate the technology and concepts that are shaping up to affect photography in a big way.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2016 at 14:41 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: I was going to buy this camera, but decided to use that money to buy a new car instead. :-)

I suppose... if you think a $12k "new" car is worth buying ;)

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 00:25 UTC
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 (816 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 (816 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 (816 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 (816 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 (816 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 (816 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 (816 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
Total: 496, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »