Lives in United Kingdom Norwich, United Kingdom
Works as a Aerial Photographer
Joined on Mar 25, 2004
About me:

Photographer looking for a plan "B"


Total: 242, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

rajaramki: I moved away from Vari ND set up to Lee Big Stopper + Little Stopper set up due to severe banding issues.
I am not sure if banding is an inherent property of Vari-ND technology or that particular brand I used.
I am curious to know how this brand handles banding issues when shot against the sun in bright day light..all the examples shown in the demo are under cloudy skies where banding is not an issue.

I just bought the Syrp ND filter, It didn't take long for me to realise it's of no use. two corners way darker than the centre plus a colour shift. It's going back. If all variable ND's do this then it's a pointless bit of kit

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 15:22 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photomonkey: Far too many are plastic cameras from the 90's.
Let's look at real metal.
Nikkormat, Nikon F, F2,F3,F4.
Minotla SRT-101., Pentax Spotmatic, Fujica ST-701, Topcon Super D
Canon FT or Pellix or Canon A-1. Leicaflex SL2 is not even too expensive. Zeiss Contarex Super.
Even an Exakta VX 1000 is more amusing and fun than this lot of largely white bread gear.
As for film, that is what kept people out of the hobby. Too expensive! Too much learning about exposure!
Digital removed the barrier to those technically indifferent and allowed more people to have fun making images.
Film will be interesting to many raised on digital but the number remaining true devotees will be small.

Being lazy is what kept people out of the hobby, learning exposure was not difficult, what you couldn't do was correct mistakes easily. Photoshop is difficult to learn properly but that hasn't stopped millions from learning enough because they are prepered to make a mistake then do it again.
My father in law took up photography as a hobby in the 50's, they were far from rich, he bought a cheap camera and made an enlarger out of biscuit tins and made every shot count. Compared with satellite subscription and mobile phone contracts people are prepared to find the money for, a couple of rolls of film and developer are not expensive. We spend far more on entertainment these days than 20 years ago, it wasn't cost or difficulty that kept people away it was having to make an effort.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 13:35 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)
In reply to:

KAllen: I would say go for the quality film cameras, top end stuff not budget. You will pay more upfront but I'm finding it increasing in value. To the point that my Rolleiflex has increased so much I hardly dare use it!
I have other cameras on my list I think will become collectable that at the moment you could pick up for less price than some fast cards.
I would also say darkroom equipment of top quality is very cheap...but slowly increasing in value too.

yeah well I also have others, the Rollei wasn't bought as a museum piece or as an investment. When I consider what my top end Canon would fetch second hand on the market and how that tumbles in value compared with supposedly obsolete film cameras, I find spending money on classic cameras more palatable.
There are many cameras that will be looked upon as classic you can buy for not a lot at the moment, you can use them which is fun and not feel its cash down the pan. I buy digital for work and film for fun, with film you own every square inch of what you create. The point is buy quality it works out cheaper in the long run, it's up to you if you use it or keep at home.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 13:06 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)

I would say go for the quality film cameras, top end stuff not budget. You will pay more upfront but I'm finding it increasing in value. To the point that my Rolleiflex has increased so much I hardly dare use it!
I have other cameras on my list I think will become collectable that at the moment you could pick up for less price than some fast cards.
I would also say darkroom equipment of top quality is very cheap...but slowly increasing in value too.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 17:20 UTC as 299th comment | 3 replies
On article Leica SL Review (1091 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: In the days of film to show off your camera and lens then put some Kodachrome 25 in it. With the best film in the you could argue your Leica was delivering the best results, better than a Nikon or whatever with the same film. There was no tweaking post processing either so the film showed the lens characterises up.

Now you can’t put the best “film” in your digital Leica. The best “film” only exists in other cameras such as the 42mp sensor in Sony’s.

I think this is why Leica’s are seen as bad value of money. People understand the fine mechanical engineering costs money and will pay for it but to have inferior results from the built in “film” you can’t change? No one should find that acceptable. I think the best Leica quality is going to be a Leica lens on a Sony A7RII and it will be much cheaper which is a problem Leica.

I used to lust after a Leica but not now. I know despite the lenses the results will be worse than with another make and that should never be true of Leica.

Yeah but Sony cameras are pig awful to use. As for quality of the image more than good enough. How many famous pictures taken since photography began are judged by the grain or lens resolving power etc. None in my view, so it comes down to what camera works best for you, what gets the job done with minimum fuss. I don't own a Leica of any description neither do I feel a need for one, but judging a camera by the numbers it produces on paper is missing the point. If a Sony works for you OK well done, but honestly to me it gets in the way of photography.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 11:38 UTC
In reply to:

DamianFI: I finally got to shoot a Leica recently and whilst I will never buy one because as a tool it was archaic and unperformed, I understand why Leica customers like them.

The same way Ferrari enthusiasts buy the products to collect, the don't drive them, just talk about them amongst circles of similarly well heeled collectors.

When I talk to them I find they don't know as much about the products as they think they do and don't know how to drive either. Leica owners in my experience are mostly camera enthusiasts with deep pockets and similarly low levels of skill and photographic knowledge after only the experience of having an expensive bit of kit hanging from their shoulder.

The products are impressive though in the sense that they are different, extremely well built and designed and beautiful to look at.

I always find it odd that people critise the judgement of those that have been the most successful in life.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

King of Song: This is an esoteric boutique camera.

Leica is no longer what it used to be, because the Germans are the greatest at mechanical engineering, not electronic. Todays cameras are basically computers with lenses attached, and unfortunately Leica can't build the best computer. Compare the specs of the new Sony A99 II to this (perfect, as they claim) Leica. It's like comparing the performance of a superbike motorcycle, to a bicycle,

But the Leica is the most gorgeous, the most prestigious, and revered, Maybe that's what they meant by "perfect?"

As computers the Sony wins on paper, as a machine to pick up and take pictures with, the Leica is the better.
I will admit I have a bias against Sony, on paper they promise so much, pick one up and have a quick check to see what pointless features are turned off then it all goes horribly wrong. Great sensors, good as a computer, dreadful as a camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 16:34 UTC

I'm not sure Kodachrome would live up to peoples memories of what it was really like. I enjoy film, especially the Kodak neg films Portra, I like the fact it's full of colour but not saturated, just gentle with lots of tonal range.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 17:30 UTC as 4th comment

But but but film doesn't work does it, I mean you can't take pictures without huge DR can you?
Whatever next....clockwork cameras?

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 12:09 UTC as 6th comment
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)

I just bought one with the 24mm -70mm f2.8. I used yesterday on a job alongside my 1DX mkI.
Somewhat impressed, the only fault being when I filled the buffer up it took time to clear. I am pricing up trading in my Canon gear to get a second K1 body (might even get two more) plus the other two recent zooms. The 24-70mm at 24mm performs as well as my 24mm f1.4 mkII Canon L. When I look at what my 1Ds and X cameras are worth now, these Pentax make a lot of sense. I can't fault the construction or picture quality comparing with other products at any price point. I have it set up so I can pick it upand use without needing to search menu's. Well done Pentax, great camera and the 24 - 70 is looking like being a knock out, f2.8 and stabilised by the body 5 axis, Canon have nothing to compete. Not a sports camera but half the price of a 5DIV and better spec for my needs, your needs may differ of course.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 14:54 UTC as 87th comment

The last couple of weddings I've attended, it would not of mattered if it was shot on the latest Phaseone, there would still of been over 1000 crap images per wedding.
How many back of head shots, pictures of flowers, shoes and cake do you need to take to cover a wedding these days?
I'm sure there are many decent wedding photog's out there but they look like the wood you can't see for the trees. Not cheap either.Honestly a decent photographer with a point and shoot could do a decent job, the camera is way down the list on what makes a good wedding photographer.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 11:19 UTC as 86th comment
In reply to:

Snapper2013: The Leica Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH, would make a great stocking stuffer!

.......or stocking.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 19:03 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: The medium format look, lol! Nice camera, I'm sure, but not a single one of you could tell it from a 36-54MP pic.

It's the other stuff that makes a difference not the mp count. 50mp would be nice to have but not essential most of the time.
I would hope Hassy quality has been passed on to this little camera and accessories to make it a complete pro package.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

PamlicoKid: Some things can't be improved on. A near mint Mamiya 7 ll can be had for $2500 and it provides 6X7cm negatives. Much more bang for the buck.

Film is brilliant, don't scan it print it.
But it's two different types of media, you choose one over the other depending on the goal you have in mind. I shoot both, digii for clients film for fun.
The Hassy is a different end product that film, no matter which film or how you scan it.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 18:53 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: Mhmm...if i would own 8 Grand, i'd get the Fujifilm X-T2, or X-Pro2 plus the 35/1.4 XF R Lens, and put all the saved money on my bank account then. Of course, the Fuji isn't Leica, but it would be way good enough for my needs. :-)

5 years down the road what would your fuji be worth? Now will the red Leica be worth more or less than it's price today?
So which one is cheapest?

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 10:39 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: Its OK as with a black lenshood you wont be able to tell really, but the interesting note about the sharpest lens and the comments here suggest a topic.

However sharp a lens is edge to edge and corner to corner- (like my Lg G4 24mm f1.8 is) , there is no image stabilization in an M Leica , so to realize its resolution you need still subject, very high shutter speed etc. At the low shutter speeds an available light reportage camera tends to use, you will notice the increased micro-contrast relative to a cheaper lens, but little else IMHO.

Am I missing something?

That and the fact IS can take the edge off lens quality. A tripod is still the best IS solution most of the time.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 10:34 UTC

Many things in life can be expensive or cheap, you can walk into a diy store and but a cheap plane or you can seek out something more individual. You don't have to justify your choice to anyone (apart from the Wife), if it does it for you and it doesn't kill the ability to buy food why not. I couldn't make anything better with a £2000. plane than I could with a £70. plane, but I can see why you might want a £2000. one.
Me I chuck my wood through electric ones, I'm not great with hand tools no matter how pretty they are. http://www.holteyplanes.com http://www.holteyplanes.com/prices.html

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 09:59 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

princecody: Why not 50mm? Is 28 the new 50 for street photography?

I think 28mm is a pretty good choice, what would be nice is if they also made one with something like a 70mm and a 21mm. A Leica Q portrait and a Landscape .

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 09:45 UTC

No doubt if I scrolled down, there would be the usual banging on about price and how much better a Sony or Fuji is for the money.
I don't have Leica I have Canon, the value of my Canon gear over the years 1D's and X is laughable, Leica do a lot better.
Also I viewed the Leica range at a show in 2015, I thought it the best range of any company there.Really simple to use, not stuffed full of pointless settings and options etc great build quality, stunning lens range and a joy to hold.
I am very tempted with a Q, I looked at the little Sony, for many reasons it doesn't hit the mark for me as a camera to pick up and take pictures with.
So long live Leica it gives a choice in the market, even if they produce the odd oddity just for collectors, probably a better return on your investment than a bank gives. So maybe not that expensive in the end.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 13:35 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply

I'll wait for the Snooker edition, covered in green baize with a handy pocket to keep your balls in.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 12:09 UTC as 71st comment
Total: 242, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »