Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 30, 2010


Total: 103, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Nikon D7500: Should I upgrade from my D7200? (256 comments in total)
In reply to:

leonardotonin: It depends, if someone has a big lens. There is no vertical grip.

If we could just buy new sensors and processors, and swap as we do with lenses...

Most big lenses I have seen come with their own tripod mount ...

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 16:45 UTC
On article Nikon announces midrange D7500 DSLR (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

p5freak: Boring, ancient mirror slap technology from the stone age. The future is mirrorless. Nikon cancels the 18-50 DL, which would have been unique, but releases this dinosaur. USB 2.0 ?? No 4k/60fps ?

@wetsleet, I spent the weekend with a friend's Hasselblad H6D/100c kit and I can tell you Hasselblad is still far more than just a company who slaps exotic wooden grips on cheap cameras. They learned that lesson, and their current offerings are amazing.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 13:02 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: $200 a day pay is way too low for a job like this. It's barely above the minimum wage in Australia. How on earth are people supposed to accumulate wealth in the US? Do you all just accept that wealth is limited to the top 2% or top 5%?

According to Wikipedia, Australian minimum wage for 2014 (most recent year shown) is $16.87/hour. That is just a bit more than AUD$33,000, not $52,000.

While the average worker may make at least $52,000/year that is not what "minimum wage" means.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2017 at 06:19 UTC
In reply to:

Mr Bolton: I wonder if they'd consider doing 126 cartridge film. I have a couple of old cameras including a Rollei C26, which would be worth priming with some of these films.

Well ... the worst case scenario is that you ask and they say no.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 06:21 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)

When I was 8 I bought a half-frame 127 plastic camera at a general store in Waverly, KS while on vacation with my parents. I think it cost sixty-nine cents. My dad, who had done pro work earlier told me that he would pay for B&W film to process in our home darkroom but not color.

First serious camera was a 35mm Voigtlander Vitrona with a fixed 50mm lens. No rangefinder so I got pretty good at estimating distance.

Having grown up around really film good cameras (dad had a full Hasselblad 500c kit I started using at 11) I didn't buy a digital until 2001 when resolution finally approached 35mm. It was an Olympus 3.2MP job with 10x zoom and a "resolution enhancement" technology. I remember using it to do a last-minute banner for a trade show booth when FedEx missed a shipment. Amazing that in two hours with Photoshop and Kinko's I could save the day. What would that have been like even five years earlier?

Today I use a Nikon D7100 with several Nikkor zooms and primes.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 13:51 UTC as 230th comment
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Luisifer: ... i prefere
(it looks like electronic, isn't it) ,-)

Ooh. A trivial argument to commemorate the day we trivially switch to DST. I'll bite!

A viewfinder is just a mechanism to see what the camera will record. My Rollei and Hasselblad both had ground glass, waist level VIEWFINDERS.

And your 4x5 with its focusing screen? You're under the light shield peering at it to FIND the right VIEW, and you're at ... wait for it ... EYE LEVEL! You must be because your eyeball is only 15cm from the glass.

Take THAT for a reply, sir! Respond at your peril.


Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 16:31 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tom K.: I guess I'm not really qualified to answer the question because I haven't used an OVF since I quite using my Olympus film SLR. I can say that I'm very happy with the EVF on my Panasonic FZ1000.

The few times I've looked through an OVF on a DSLR that I could potentially afford, it's been like looking through a dim tunnel. Maybe on a pro level body they're worthwhile.

I have to laugh at this comment by Carey Rose: "There's a lot to be said for being able to preview your results with an electronic unit, but I still enjoy that brief 'moment of discovery' when I see an image on the back of the camera." It seems like DSLR users chimp every shot which I find ridiculous.

Tom K: "chimp every shot?" Not sure what you mean. Are you denigrating photographers who check the image they just took to ensure they got what they wanted? For action obviously you have to get it right at the instant, but to me the ability to determine that I need to reshoot a scenic is one of the greatest time savers I have ever encountered. No more shooting five rolls, bracketing the heck out of things to ensure that five days later when the proofs come back I probably got it right - I love being able to see instantly what worked/failed.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 16:21 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

gcbodie: OVF is better because I can tune it to my eyesight with the diopter whereas the EVF requires me to be wearing my reading glasses to use that screen.

Gcbodie, are you confusing the large LCD panel on the back of the camera with an electronic eye-level viewfinder? Every digital camera has the former but that is not what this article is discussing. This article is discussing electronic replacements for a true eye-level, pentaprism optical viewfinder. Like the other respondent, I have never seen an EVF that did not also have the same diopter adjustment as an optical viewfinder.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 16:16 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: Perhaps you asked the wrong question. Do we even need a viewfinder at all anymore? A good high resolution LED or OLED screen that remains usable in sunlight is much more convenient to use than either an EVF or OVF. The availability of histograms, focus peaking, virtual horizons, rule of thirds grid and most importantly an accurate live view of the image that gives instant feedback of how your exposure choices will look in the final image make makes LED screens, for me at least, the most convenient way to shoot. I do realize that, in certain bright sun situations, a viewfinder may be necessary but I find that 95% of the time I prefer the LED screen for shooting. It frees me to see more of what is going on around me when I'm shooting. I also find that using a viewfinder, particularly on a small DSLR or mirrorless camera, can cause problems when my nose touches either the control buttons or the touchscreen and unexpectedly changes settings while I'm shooting.

I use Live View all the time when shooting scenics or other static content from my tripod. It's a real back-saver for low angle work or for other situations where using the viewfinder would be awkward.

That said, I also struggle with my glasses sometimes because I have a hard time focusing on the LCD in close quarters. For this reason and for eye-level shots I generally use the OVF.

Has anyone else found it awkward to get used to figuring out how to frame with the LCD away from the face? With an OVF at my eye the camera is just an extension of my vision. With an LCD I find I have to rotate the camera a lot to get things right - frustrating.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 16:09 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Luisifer: ... i prefere
(it looks like electronic, isn't it) ,-)

Luisifer, "ground glass" - that is still optical, it's just a different manifestation.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 15:58 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)

Two waffles, four prefer OVF, one adamant about EVF. My read and my experience is that OVF is still better - there isn't much argument here.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 15:57 UTC as 303rd comment
On article Things we found at CP+ 2017 which had been cut in half (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shlomo Goldwasser: Disassembled equipment I can appreciate, but seeing relatively expensive gear cut in half less so.

Every manufacturing process has defects. I wonder if they use such for these.

That said, manufactured cost for most things like this is only about 1/5 or 1/4 MSRP. So even for a $3,000 camera the actual cost is only $600-700. When you think about every other marketing and sales cost then these become relatively low-cost promo and training tools.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2017 at 20:49 UTC
On article LG G6 comes with dual-cam and 18:9 FullVision display (69 comments in total)

I remember when the iPhone 5 with its wide screen debuted. There was a post somewhere of the new iPhone Xsomething that was about three feet tall. 2:1? This is kinda like that ... a bit. What's the point?

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2017 at 20:32 UTC as 17th comment
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (426 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mr Sellars: When you see the results projected on a screen, you will see its charm.

From the text it sounds like not. Slide 7: Processing "... will include film development, scanning and uploading to the cloud." That implies to me that you don't get your film back as a movie roll but as a movie format file. Anyone know if you actually get back the processed film?

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 23:57 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (426 comments in total)
In reply to:

FLruckas: And Fisker should start selling horse and carriages.....
At least Digital Bolex was a good idea, all be it expensive, in this genre.

Apologies ... the word is "albeit," not the three-word phrase "all be it."

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 23:53 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Quite an unexpected pick, Allison.
I think the biggest challenge to Fuji is to find a way, or a process, that will drastically cut down on the cost per print for a new generation of this type of cameras.
If they can slash the cost (some day) to 20 cents per image, many more pockets would be carrying this type of cameras almost all the time.

If I remember correctly, prices for Polaroid film were in that range if adjusted for inflation, and their cameras sold well for a very long time.

This may be a novelty that goes away "soon" but it won't be price that does it in.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2017 at 21:09 UTC
In reply to:

Lotzy: I want foveon type sensor, curved, with global shutter, with 16 million usable ISO and non mechanical lens aperture... Please?

What do you mean by a non-mechanical lens aperture?

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 19:40 UTC
On article New 20mm F2 4.5x macro lens released by Mitakon (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leonp: It took me ten seconds or so but THAT is the front element :-)

Crikey, you're right! Thanks for pointing that out, I totally missed it.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 14:14 UTC
On article Handy tool helps you say no to work for 'exposure' (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vik2012: If a prospective client receives more than one of those template replies from designers that they are "reaching out" to, the senders can consider themselves off the list for "reaching out" to in future.

Yes, I dislike the "reaching out" phrase for anything other than when looking for help in desperation from a charitable organisation. As a business person, I don't "reach out", I enquire or get in contact.

Combine it with exclamation marks and the chastising tone and you have a letter than looks less than professional. As someone who has hired or contracted many people over the years, I spot these things.

On the question of doing work for free, I have made it a point of not having anyone work for me for free, even if they offer to. But, i can see how a photographer or designer can benefit greatly from exposure that can only be gained by doing an unpaid project. It only becomes an issue if you don't know when to start charging.

"... can benefit greatly from exposure that can only be gained by doing an unpaid project."

You imply that had they been paid for that project they would not have benefited as much. Why not?

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2016 at 16:53 UTC
In reply to:

MarcelloDl: Tennis ball look for this one.
Ping pong paddle rubber look for the leica.
Wooden handle for the hasselblad.

I guess you are supposed to glue two hasselblads handles on two leicas and bounce this one from one to the other.

It's baseball. Baseballs have the stitched seams. Tennis balls just have rubber seams.

Oh, wait. You weren't being serious! 🤓

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 03:27 UTC
Total: 103, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »