jjcha

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 22, 2006

Comments

Total: 29, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Leica announces APO-Summicron-M 35mm F2 ASPH (420 comments in total)
In reply to:

BobT3218: I love it that the focussing ring turns 300°. A lens I have has a focussing scale turns only about 90° making the scale next to useless.

Agreed. This seems to solve the problem of needing to keep street shooters happy, with the usual ~100 degree turn of the focus tab to go from infinity down to ~0.7 meters, then giving a ton of precision to meeting the needs those who use the close up focusing ability.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2021 at 05:33 UTC
On article What you need to know about the new Leica M10-R (510 comments in total)
In reply to:

PC-dot-Com: Still waiting for Leica to make an M camera that is void of an LCD, and Image App and EVF options. One with a REAL mechanical shutter recock lever, not some marketing gimmick (and completely redundant) thumb rest as the M10-D has. Grow a pair and make it Leica, you'll see them fly off the shelves.

I had an R-D1 and occasionally think of repurchasing it. Even selling my M10-P as part of that, as I wouldn't need it. The M10-P is the superior photographic tool, but I miss the joy I had with the far "lesser" R-D1. But, the R-D1 is very much limited and a no go today.

I'm not holding my breath for a "true" M10-D with a real recock lever. I would imagine there is a meaningful cost to developing, for the M digital sensor, a manually cocked shutter. Which is a shame, because you guys are right, there are many of us who would buy it. Even at a stupid price.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2020 at 14:19 UTC

As a zone focusing night street photographer, I wouldn't want one. The current Fuji APS-C sensors (especially the one in the X100F) feel like they have above average high ISO performance for APS-C, which negates the ~1 stop advantage that my full frame M10-P in theory should have. Because of that I feel much more comfortable shooting with my X100F and now X100V at F5.6 at ~ISO6400 than I would with the M10-P at F8.0 at ~ISO12800. This is why I'm hesitant on a camera like the Q2 and any other full frame camera. Photographers are all different, but for me and my style of shooting, my question really is why would you even want a full frame X100?

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2020 at 23:44 UTC as 78th comment
In reply to:

Rhaegar: Hard decision for me. Have both Fuji and Nikon cameras. Had an X100S previously and would like to get another fixed lens compact. But since getting the Z6, the differences in IQ are not easy to ignore. Compare this gallery against the Nikon Z 35mm 1.8s and you’ll see what I mean. That lens gets put down quite a bit in certain quarters but it just blows this out of the water. Wish I knew if Sony was planning on updating the RX1R series.

Everyone's different. I think if the X100V's image quality isn't there for you, it's not there for you.

Here's to hoping for the compact 28mm and 40mm Z lenses on Nikon's roadmap to come out soon. I'm sure they will be excellent and small, even if they're not pancakes. The Z6 body really isn't that large when you think about it, it's the lenses that make it feel massive, at least to me. And the X100 series isn't really that small either.

Recently, I had this exact dilemma where I found myself leaving the Z6 at home because it's just too big for certain environments. I brought the X100F or M10 instead. But I can see using the Z6 had I had a compact lens available to me.

Still, sadly, the perfect camera/system seems not to exist for most of us. But at least for you, I think there's some hope on the horizon. And yes, dealing with a 40mm or 28mm (crop?) for a 35mm shooter isn't ideal, but I don't think it's the end of the world. At least you're not a 24mm shooter like me :)

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2020 at 01:20 UTC

Just another super happy customer. These guys are great.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2020 at 03:04 UTC as 24th comment
On article DPReview TV: Leica Monochrom M10 review (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlanG: The entire point of b/w photography is to interpret colors as abstract shades of grey plus white and black.

So why would anyone want to use a method that limits you to using crude color restricting filters in front of a lens to achieve that, when a far better method exists?

I own a M10-P and understand AlanG's point. I like B&W, but manipulate the color data from my M10-P in getting to the black and white I want.

You can use old school color filters to do that with the M10-Monochrom - but I have to believe that this more than negates the ISO advantage it has by not having its Bayer filter array.

I guess the M10-Monochrom still has more megapixels than my M10-P. But sooner or later they'll come out with the M10-R or whatever they want to call it that solves for this.

Unless this is an M10-D play, where having less somehow allows you to create more. Fine, I get it. That's why I own an M10-P not M10-D.

But to Alan's point, it's not like any M has an EVF, and I believe you can set your LCD on the camera to show only B&W, and ditto when importing files at home.

At the end of the day, as long as someone buys this and it makes business sense (like those crazy expensive limited editions), I don't care. As long as it helps them get to that M10-R.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2020 at 05:56 UTC
In reply to:

jjcha: So many dumb comments.

1. No, the vast majority of the time, no one punches or gets physically violent with a photographer shooting like that. You only get a very very small minority that might physically grab you or otherwise get back in your face in some way.

2. You do often get people, police, upset and demanding you delete their photos, or yelling at you in some way. But the vast majority of the time, people either ignore you or at most give you the evil eye.

3. To think that someone taking your photo in your face justifies getting physical in return shows something seriously wrong and a lack of proportionality/morality with the person who wants to get violent.

4. You're an idiot if you think Suzuki's photos are good solely because he just "spray and prays" or just random luck coming from taking tens of thousands of photos. You try what he's doing and I can guarantee you, out of tens of thousands of photos, you won't have photos as good as his good ones.

5. So many weak people, such thin skin. Oh no, how horrible, someone took your photo in the street. Oh no! Horror! Someone invaded your personal space! That person should be beat up!!! Toughen up. Believe me, it's not the end of the world. You'll survive. Hurt feelings, a sense of invasion of privacy for all of 2 seconds? This is so harmful to you that you're so outraged?? For this the mob comes crashing down on Suzuki in such a hurtful and threatening way??

6. The world is a better place for having Suzuki's photography. The cost of having some people have their personal space briefly "invaded" or being bothered for all of 1-2 seconds in their day is far outweighed by the existence of this art.

7. You don't like it? Great, there's a lot of crap we deal with when we go outside that we don't like. Most of us are tough enough/adult enough to shrug it off. It's called going outside in a city like Tokyo or New York or other public busy places.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2020 at 10:56 UTC

So many dumb comments.

1. No, the vast majority of the time, no one punches or gets physically violent with a photographer shooting like that. You only get a very very small minority that might physically grab you or otherwise get back in your face in some way.

2. You do often get people, police, upset and demanding you delete their photos, or yelling at you in some way. But the vast majority of the time, people either ignore you or at most give you the evil eye.

3. To think that someone taking your photo in your face justifies getting physical in return shows something seriously wrong and a lack of proportionality/morality with the person who wants to get violent.

4. You're an idiot if you think Suzuki's photos are good solely because he just "spray and prays" or just random luck coming from taking tens of thousands of photos. You try what he's doing and I can guarantee you, out of tens of thousands of photos, you won't have photos as good as his good ones.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2020 at 10:56 UTC as 75th comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

Windeguy: A couple comments.

The video is boring.

The guy looks like he is quite pompous.

But if the camera is actually focusing correctly for the majority of his photos, I’m impressed!

"But if the camera is actually focusing correctly for the majority of his photos, I’m impressed!"

Do you not understand aperture and depth of field? F8-F11, focused at 1 meter, 1/500 of a second. Learn how to use a goddamn camera and learn the craft.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2020 at 16:08 UTC
In reply to:

PascallacsaP: A great artist is a graceful artist. That's not what I see here. As for his technique and results: It's mostly hit and miss. Some photos look damn good. However, this is not necessarily thanks to a good eye, but rather a combination of rudeness and pure luck. Not sure this defines genuinely good photography. This must be street photography at its ugliest.

"However, this is not necessarily thanks to a good eye, but rather a combination of rudeness and pure luck."

I don't agree with this. Try it sometime. Yes, just by taking thousands of photos trying to mimic that shooting style, you will get some pretty interesting shots.

But I can guarantee you that without an eye for a situation, a certain way of stepping in just a bit further, aiming the camera a certain way, and yes dedicating tons and tons of time and energy doing it, you won't get one that's as compelling as one of Suzuki's good photos.

It's not dissimilar to looking at a good Winogrand. Despite having taken tens of thousands of photos, I have yet to get one as good as one of Winogrand's lesser works.

You can take my hundred best photos and I doubt even one of them would be a keeper for guys like them or Bruce Gilden.

All we can do is keep shooting and trying and getting better. There is a lot of work to this.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2020 at 16:01 UTC
On article Hands-on with the new Fujifilm X100V (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

dmartin92: I bought the original X100 in the spring of 2011. I had thought about upgrading before, and now I am happy that I didn't. The time to upgrade has arrived for me.

Even as a happy owner of the X100F, your sticking to the X100 makes perfect sense to me. It does seem like X100 through X100F are a bunch of nice but incremental improvements. I got to handle a X100V at the Fujifilm showroom yesterday for about 5 minutes. With the X100V -- new OVF (it's nice!), tilty screen, weather sealing, real autofocus with face detect (from what I could tell in only 5 minutes with it, it's a lot better), etc., I think you're absolutely right.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2020 at 12:51 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm X100V hands-on preview (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Xerien: This video made me settle on Ricoh Gr iii - the preview itself is great. It's just that the camera seems to be too big compared to GR - and the IQ is not that different, if anything, I assume that the Ricoh is much more sharper. Apart from the differences that come with lens and the awesome jpeg fuji cameras produce, GR still stands as a true "pocketable" camera.

I have the GRIII and X100F. The GRIII is definitely sharper than the X100F. I dunno about the V because of its newer lens, but I suspect the GRIII remains sharper.

The ISO performance/dynamic range on the GRIII isn't as good as the X100F. I think there's something special about the Fuji sensor that just makes it better at ISO6400 and above, and allows it to get pushed in post more without falling apart. The GRIII at ISO6400 is okay, but I think the Fuji is market leading in this respect.

And yes, the GRIII is absolutely truly pocketable in a way the X100F is not.

I love both cameras, but honestly, I use the GRIII more. In part because it's smaller and lighter, but mainly because I prefer 28mm over 35mm.

I suspect you will be extremely pleased with your decision, and if I _had_ to choose one, there is no doubt the GRIII is the one I would keep. But fortunately, I don't, and enjoy both :).

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2020 at 04:37 UTC
In reply to:

Old Cameras: There’s no good excuse for this camera not to have a truly massive viewfinder. 0.52x is a shameful let down, should be 0.75x. That alone would greatly improve the real world shooting experience every time you lift the camera to your eye, far more than 4K specs the average user will seldom utilize. The 4K just came along with the new sensor, they didn’t go out of their way to add this feature - it’s not a video camera! This cameras entire reason for being is to mimic a film cameras retro range finder experience and look the part and it fails at job 1.

I can use my X100F with my glasses on. I can't do that with my 0.7x Leica M10 and 35mm lens. That's why when I'm wearing glasses, and not my contacts, the Fuji goes out with me, not the Leica.

It's very clear that Fuji designed the viewfinder with glasses wearers in mind. The first time I brought the X100F to eye with my glasses on (after owning it for like 6 months) was a shocking revelation.

I've owned the Epson R-D1 (1.0x magnification), M (~0.7x), and the X100F (~0.5x), and each viewfinder works well in its own way.

Also the X100F is light and can be shot one handed. The M10 even with a lighter lens, is intended to be shot two handed. The size has a lot to do with that.

There are clear design decisions being made here. I'm sure you're more than happy not having spent money on design decisions not targeted towards you. In the meantime, I'm considering whether I want to buy the V (tilt screen and many other small but meaningful improvements) over my very capable X100F.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2020 at 04:00 UTC
In reply to:

Newbie4Life: I love dpreview TV but this whole video is "barking up the wrong tree".

Based on pricing this is a "starter zoom" or "first zoom". We all know the optical formulas are close enough that this and the $400 lens will be similar, you are literally wasting your's and our time on that coverage. But what you don't answer and what just about everyone in the market for this lens will want to know: Is this lens better than the kit lens and if so how is it better.

This and every other one of the 8 dpreview articles covering this lens fails to answer that basic question important to the core targeted market for this lens.

Is it better than the kit?

Oh, it's you again. I guess the adage "don't feed the trolls" comes to mind.

But I will take this opportunity to comment at how awesome I think the Fuji 18mm-55mm F2.8 - F4.0 OIS "kit" lens is. There's actually something of an argument there, on whether this little 35mm F2.0 lens is "better" than that "kit" lens. Of course that "kit" lens is an excellent $700 lens, and this little F2.0 lens seems (to me) to be an excellent sub-$200 lens.

As to why this 35mm F2.0 lens is better than the $300 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 powerzoom kit lens, 2.5 stops (or so) at 35mm speaks for itself.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2020 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

Newbie4Life: Another hipster camera good for nothing but walking around and taking pictures of stationary objects.

If you can afford a special use case like that awesome for you. If you live in the real world there are 10000 other cameras better suited for everyday life.

I wouldn't shoot a kids soccer game with the GRIII. A 28mm equivalent lens is not the right tool for the job.

But if the sole issue is focusing, snap focus is actually perfect for this. Set aperture for F5.6, focus distance to 2.5 meters (about 8 feet), and pretty much everything more than 5 feet away from you will be in focus.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2020 at 14:18 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: 100F wins

"but I see a lot of people looking directly at the camera. that’s cool if that’s what you’re going for, but I can tell you it’d be less successful in other places like NYC"

I really don't know what to make of your statement. Are you suggesting that taking photos of people, directly in front of them, stealthy or not, where they realize you are taking their photo, isn't successful in NYC?

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2019 at 14:05 UTC
In reply to:

Newbie4Life: Another hipster camera good for nothing but walking around and taking pictures of stationary objects.

If you can afford a special use case like that awesome for you. If you live in the real world there are 10000 other cameras better suited for everyday life.

Agreed. Being "stealthy" really doesn't matter.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2019 at 13:19 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: 100F wins

illdefined - believe what you want, but I have learned that it really doesn't matter.

https://flickr.com/photos/jjcha/49059677106/in/dateposted-public/

https://flickr.com/photos/jjcha/48453809886/in/dateposted-public/

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2019 at 13:09 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: 100F wins

I use a lens hood with no lens cap with the X100F. Taking off a lens cap with any of my cameras is too slow.

I think it's great that you palm and stealth your GRIII. My hands are not so large.

I agree that bringing the X100F to the eye absolutely broadcasts your intent. So does bringing the GRIII up to face level if that's the angle you want.

You can shoot from the hip somewhat stealthily with either.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2019 at 03:52 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: 100F wins

@illd3fined: yes, if you don’t mind using two hands and drawing attention

I disagree with this. I use both the X100F and GRIII one handed, and I find both draw the same amount of attention.

Let's make no mistake, the GRIII is small and black and "stealthy" - but people absolutely have a sixth sense to when a camera is pointed towards them. Just because the GRIII is more "stealthy" than my chrome X100F, I've never had a situation where I felt the GRIII wouldn't be noticed but the X100F would.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2019 at 03:26 UTC
Total: 29, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »