deep7

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a writer/photographer/ecologist
Has a website at deeppics.com
Joined on May 10, 2008
About me:

God makes it, I see it and photograph it. Sometimes that works well!

Comments

Total: 976, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (723 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reactive: I think Sony's attempts to gain a foot in the sports arena could possibly be flattened when Canon and/or Nikon release their own mirrorless offerings, which would of course accept existing lenses. The pros will happily wait around a year or two for a few extra fps. As for Olympus' attempts to use the word 'pro' all around the E-M1 MkII, that must surely be doomed if a pro's prime [sorry] concern is having the same subject separation as their current combination.

It's a little amusing that there is so much being said about the A9's modest 20 frames per second shooting speed when Olympus can shoot 20Mp RAW files at 60 frames per second! The difference is (proportionally) even bigger if you use mechanical shutters.

The one thing that has hurt Olympus is the (unwarranted) snobbishness around sensor size, though more and more people are coming to understand the significant advantages that size sensor brings, especially in terms of lens design and quality for your money.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 21:37 UTC
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (723 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thermidor: A professional setup often means doing extended shoots, and trying to shoot all day at a sporting event through an electronic viewfinder puts a lot of strain to your eyes, no matter how good the EVF is. The A9 may be built with professionals in mind, but people simply don't have the endurance to look through an EVF or LCD screen for that many hours.

That depends entirely on the optics and how the brightness/contrast etc. is set. An optical viewfinder can be terrible too. I can shoot my EM1 all day no trouble at all but not my FZ1000. There's a similar screen inside each but the optics of the viewfinder are very different.

You will find a lot of misinformation and distrust around electronic viewfinders but the reality is that the best ones have surpassed all but a very few optical viewfinders - at worst.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 11:56 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: A mate and I tried one of these just before they hit the market. I remember loving the shutter, the viewfinder and the new Zeiss lenses. My mate was so impressed he bought right into the Sony system and dumped his Nikon gear immediately. He has gone on to take hundreds of thousands of photos with his and even published books with images from the A900, not to mention having many photos in music magazines. While he has moved on to an A99, that A900 keeps on trucking!

There were a few premature shutter failures in the A900, though I understand that others went for a very long time. I never tried an A850 but the A900 shutter just felt and sounded proper, like an old-school film camera, not a computer. Totally subjective, of course! It didn't seem to cause any shutter shock.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 20:26 UTC
In reply to:

OlyPent: Even with a price tag $5000 less at the time than Nikon's D3x, this camera wasn't exactly a sales winner, was it? The D850 was the downmarket version as I remember.

Thanks, Photosbyhank. That seems more reasonable than OlyPent's wild exaggeration!

Personally, I never see a 35mm format Nikon outside a shop but have seen a few 35mm Sonys. That is totally because of the circles I move in (Canon being dominant, I should add, with quite a few using Olympus).

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

OlyPent: Even with a price tag $5000 less at the time than Nikon's D3x, this camera wasn't exactly a sales winner, was it? The D850 was the downmarket version as I remember.

I'd be very surprised if it didn't outsell the D3X!

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 20:01 UTC

A mate and I tried one of these just before they hit the market. I remember loving the shutter, the viewfinder and the new Zeiss lenses. My mate was so impressed he bought right into the Sony system and dumped his Nikon gear immediately. He has gone on to take hundreds of thousands of photos with his and even published books with images from the A900, not to mention having many photos in music magazines. While he has moved on to an A99, that A900 keeps on trucking!

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 19:58 UTC as 41st comment | 2 replies
On article Sony announces FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS lens (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

GabrielZ: Why does it need image stabilization, if the cameras it was designed to be used with, already incorporate it in their bodies?

People who say in body image stabilisation doesn't work with longer focal lengths need to get out and try some long Olympus glass on an Olympus body! It words VERY well and has done since the days of the E3.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Soo, what's wrong with the mechanical shutter that the specs regarding it were not released?

20 fps is all fine and dandy until you look at the footnotes. Not to mention it's just 2 fps more than E-M1 Mark II.

Also, did Sony do something about rolling shutter? It is pretty severe even on their APS-C cameras, worse than competition. It really needs to be better than that if they are pushing it as the main feature.

Um, that's actually 42 frames per second LESS than the EM1 Mk2 (when both use electronic shutter)!

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 20:55 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm F2.8-4 (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

dansclic: Again, 8 pages for 30 sentences. Couldn't you defitineley not present a hands on on ONE page ? What's the use of making 8 pages ?

It is one page! Just use your right arrow to move to the next picture. Nothing else changes. Weird complaint.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 07:21 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm F2.8-4 (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

h2k: How i wish there'd be a fully native ultrawide prime, say with 8 mms. I can then still zoom easily with my arm and feet. Not sure why ultrawide needs to come as zoom.

(Aware of uw primes from Laowa, Lamyang etc.)

What is 16mm? We both mentioned 8mm.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 07:20 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm F2.8-4 (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

h2k: How i wish there'd be a fully native ultrawide prime, say with 8 mms. I can then still zoom easily with my arm and feet. Not sure why ultrawide needs to come as zoom.

(Aware of uw primes from Laowa, Lamyang etc.)

Olympus 8mm/1.8?

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 05:42 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm F2.8-4 (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: What is “splashproof”? Splash has a disturbingly non-quantitative definition in English.

There are IPX standards. "Splashproof" means you can spray water at the lens (in this case I assume from any direction) but you cannot submerge the lens, which would have to be "waterproof" to allow that.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 05:40 UTC
On article Fujifilm GF 120mm F4 Macro sample gallery (111 comments in total)
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Those new medium format lenses are amazing. This is no exception.

But what does Fuji have against macro lenses? This is yet another Fuji "macro" lens that isn't all that macro. Why not 1:1?

A fixation with "1:1" is less relevant these days. Considering the resolving power of lens and sensor, cropping to your magic number will still yield excellent quality.

I think it very likely that going that extra bit closer, while still maintaining the same maximum aperture and quality would be very much harder to achieve (without using extension rings or close-up filters), adding substantially to costs.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 20:13 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D final production sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: That dog portrait shows perfect depth of field control. A breath of fresh air in this age of nothing-in-focus mania and a lovely example of the potential quality of the system.

Najinsky, agayardo, I think we all strongly suspect the photographer was just blasting away with the lens wide open and it was just lucky that shot worked out perfectly! However, the irony is that the "limitation" you both hint at has meant a considerably better photo than might have been the case with a camera/lens combination capable of giving away more depth of field, if also used wide open.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 03:11 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D final production sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

OrdinarilyInordinate: It's interesting just how ordinary the results look. Kind of grainy, not particularly sharp. I don't get the same "wow this is very nice, clear, and with great tonality" impression that I get when looking at Fuji's GFX results. Although supposedly more or less the same sensor. Must be the difference in lenses and RAW/Post Processing.

Actually, I note many such samples over the last year or so have had the shadows excessively lifted too, which makes everything worse!

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 05:28 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D final production sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

OrdinarilyInordinate: It's interesting just how ordinary the results look. Kind of grainy, not particularly sharp. I don't get the same "wow this is very nice, clear, and with great tonality" impression that I get when looking at Fuji's GFX results. Although supposedly more or less the same sensor. Must be the difference in lenses and RAW/Post Processing.

We appreciate that, Dale, but isn't the point of using a RAW converter, rather than relying on the camera's processing, to make the most of the file's potential? No need for fine art (though some of the images are pretty nice!) but we want to know what the camera can do, so a little use of the sliders to tidy things up would be very helpful.

Adobe's "default" is not a level playing field as every camera seems to need a slightly different approach.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 21:03 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D final production sample gallery (142 comments in total)

That dog portrait shows perfect depth of field control. A breath of fresh air in this age of nothing-in-focus mania and a lovely example of the potential quality of the system.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 20:40 UTC as 11th comment | 5 replies
On article Hasselblad X1D final production sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

OrdinarilyInordinate: It's interesting just how ordinary the results look. Kind of grainy, not particularly sharp. I don't get the same "wow this is very nice, clear, and with great tonality" impression that I get when looking at Fuji's GFX results. Although supposedly more or less the same sensor. Must be the difference in lenses and RAW/Post Processing.

Out of camera jpg files aren't full sized. Yes, fedway, you can do it yourself if you have the patience to wait for such a large file to download. However, I think it likely that most people here won't bother and will rely on the poorly processed examples posted here.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 20:36 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D final production sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

OrdinarilyInordinate: It's interesting just how ordinary the results look. Kind of grainy, not particularly sharp. I don't get the same "wow this is very nice, clear, and with great tonality" impression that I get when looking at Fuji's GFX results. Although supposedly more or less the same sensor. Must be the difference in lenses and RAW/Post Processing.

It's rare for the staff here to process photos with any attempt to control noise. I have no idea why but, luckily, the internet is a big place and you will find much cleaner examples elsewhere.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 01:40 UTC

I am amazed this is even a story. This clearly isn't some urban/interstate super rail line with high speed, whisper-quiet super trains and 99.xx% of people shooting something like this (especially when you look at who actually posts on that page) won't be that stupid not to consider the whole picture. And the stupid people won't give a toss what armchair police tell them anyway.

It's a sad world where everyone assumes the right to interfere endlessly with everyone and everything. The orange jacket brigade are getting way too opinionated!

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 01:53 UTC as 47th comment | 3 replies
Total: 976, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »