Tord S Eriksson

Tord S Eriksson

Lives in Sweden Gothenburg, Sweden
Works as a bus driver/retired
Joined on Jul 3, 2003
About me:

Like to draw, paint, and photograph nature, and identified
flying 'objects', like the moon, bumblebees, aircraft, and, not least, birds!

Comments

Total: 521, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: Seven grand for a lens on a $400 camera . . . hmmm! Decisions, Decisions!

A Canon C700 cost a bit over $400 ,,,

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

mais51: This news makes Leica and Zeiss lenses look cheap in comparison - so the German is not that bad after all - With lenses like these do we really need to buy a camera body at all - may come as a bonus with the package.

But very few Canikon users would be interested in manual lenses in the first place, so there is really no big market, so there is no point in making them cheaper, if there are enough customers willing to pay as it is!

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 00:04 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: Pff. Made in Britain. ;)

https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/teams.html

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 11:19 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: Pff. Made in Britain. ;)

@McScrooge:

I think it is an interesting fact that so many of the teams are based in the UK. Just look at the top of the leaderboard: Mercedes (based in the UK), Red Bull (also based in the UK), and Ferrari (Italy, at least for the moment)!

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 11:11 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: Pff. Made in Britain. ;)

Most F1 cars are designed, made, and fine-tuned in the UK, no matter where they are supposed to be made. The brightest designers live in the UK, and the best builders, it is a sad fact.

I wish it was in Germany, or in Italy, but sadly not.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 21:38 UTC
In reply to:

Kamox: I didn't know this manufacturer... are they related to the man who invented the "triplet"?
The lenses seem carved out of steel, impressive.

http://www.cookeoptics.com/

A very old traditional lens making company, still thriving, whose lenses are loved by cinematographers around the world.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 21:35 UTC
In reply to:

naturetech: No Nikon 1-mount? I could use a set for my S1.

Sadly Nikon 1 is out of production, according to various sources. So no Cooke lenses, I'm afraid.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

barrym1966: 7000 for a piece of glass made in Leicester, no thanks

You evidently know nothing about classic lenses used by the movie industry. Cooke are definitely in that select gang, and not the most expensive, either.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 21:30 UTC
In reply to:

mais51: This news makes Leica and Zeiss lenses look cheap in comparison - so the German is not that bad after all - With lenses like these do we really need to buy a camera body at all - may come as a bonus with the package.

These are lenses used by the TV, and movie, industry, not intended for enthusiasts like us. A movie might cost $10,000,000 to make, then you'd want to have lenses you can depend on, wouldn't you?! When the star might get $20,000,000, a bundle of ten lenses for around $70,000 is a more nothing! ANd these lenses can be used for movie after movie, till we're all dead and buried.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: There must be a lot of idiots out there. Otherwise we would not see lenses from Cooke and other manufacturers as such ridiculous prices. I am sure they are nowhere near worth anything, even a lot less than the asking prices.

I would be a lot happier if people with more money than they know what to do with gave it to help those in the poverty trap get educated and motivated to better themselves. Some do of the own accord, but not that many can see how. The divide between the rich and poor has widened since the 2008 credit crunch, the wealthy mostly escaped the consequences but the mostly innocent less well off have faced the brunt of it.

If I thought there would be any chance of success, I'd like to see a worldwide boycott of Cooke, Meyer and other manufacturers behaving like this - not just in optics or photography, by the way.

Why should a small manufacturer, that manually makes their lenses, be banned, while the major Japanese lens manufacturers charge many tens of thousands of dollars for their more exotic lenses?!

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 21:23 UTC
In reply to:

Spectro: never gave my money to any kickstarter projects. If I have vested interest maybe, but I am not an investor and kickstarter projects aren't an investment. You might get a early pledge deal, but that isn't much. I know some fanboy like to help push nitch project or entertainment item. But it is good for small independent people, but for larger company asking for money isn't right for me.

While some projects are bound to go bust, this one from the back story had no hope or true intention in the beginning. More like a criminal transgression to begin with.

I invested in the FlashQ project, via IndieGoGo (similar to Kickstarter) and have had no issues at all! Eventually the RC flash remotes arrived, and they worked as it was said it would. No less, no more!

So it isn't always a bad idea ;-) !

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 08:09 UTC
On article Nikon D500 versus D750: Which one is right for you? (372 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: I wish Nikon, and Canon too, for that matter, would offer a full-frame mirrorless camera, because I never really loved noisy cameras or bulky bodies. I could also go for lenses offering good old automatic diaphragms but lacking auto-focus, if of course a suitable reduction in price were to be had. Giving up auto-focus isn't so awful, provided you don't have to stop down manually, ugh.

I wish mirrorless FX cameras and their lens were small, light, and with a friendly price. But the reality proves otherwise!

Not so sure there is much of a weight reduction going from DSLR to MILC. For instance consider the 85/1.4 lenses we all love: The one that can be used on a Sony 7R II (body only weighing in at 625grams), compared to the Nikon 85/1.4 (weighing in at 595 grams) on a D750 (weighing 750 grams). The Sony lens is a neat little one, but weighs 820 grams!

Overall, a far lower weight can be attained by using a D5500, or a D3300, both 24mp, and Nikon's f/1.8 85, or a Nikon 1 J5, weighing in at the same 20+MP as the D500 (both with very fast AF, and compact sized, but the J5 sadly lacks a built-in viewfinder).

The Nikon 1 32/1.2 is an outstanding lens (the size of the 50/1.4G), and it happens to be the equivalent to an 85 on the D750!

But then we have Fujifilm, where the X-T1 plus the 90/2 weighs in at a healthy bit lower weight, but alas, its an APS-C!

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 11:31 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (417 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: "This is a camera that sports, action, and event photographers will love." -DPR

A great family camera for people who have (moving) cats, dogs, or kids. :-)

For some, that warranty will be short, for some very long!

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 22:21 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (417 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: "This is a camera that sports, action, and event photographers will love." -DPR

A great family camera for people who have (moving) cats, dogs, or kids. :-)

Doubt the Second Coming will be an event where electronics work very well. Or do you think the Lord will have a mobile?!

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 18:01 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (417 comments in total)
In reply to:

MayaTlab0: "Frustratingly, you can't use the camera's dedicated exposure comp button to change, er, exposure comp in M mode (because that's reserved for giving access to aperture value in M mode, just in case you've got the rear dial locked)."

Sad to see they didn't solve that problem in the final firmware.

As far as I can recall, all cameras I've had that has M setting behave just like that. I guess the reviewer never have used M mode before, but he'll learn, eventually!

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 17:55 UTC
On article Good genes: Samsung NX500 review posted (521 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxmarra: now it is jun 2016, some shops have this camera on stock... for around 400 USD.. cheap

June?! Not in this part of the world!

Link | Posted on May 30, 2016 at 22:49 UTC
On article Pelican lightens up with Air cases (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sirandar: I have a orange smallish Pelican case I have used for a while on bush trips.

The latches are kind of a pain, but water has never got inside. The lid is heavy enough that it can tip the whole case over and dump my camera over a cliff if careless. Yes it is way too heavy. Never dropped it from more than walking height but it doesn't seem likely to break.

The inside is a little cheap with the foamy cutouts but not sure if there is a better way.

I think making it lighter is probably a good idea. If I dropped my current case from height, the momentum of the camera components inside the case crashing against each other would probably destroy everything anyways ... foamies or no.

And I wouldn't use a Pellican case on a plane unless it never left my hands. May as well put a big sign saying "steal me" on it.

In Europe we have B&W cases, that superficially looks much the same, but the innards are pretty different. In most cases a soft inner box, with dividers that attach with Velcro tabs.

These never fall over, due to the weight of the lid, that's for sure, but they are otherwise just as sturdy.

Not sure if they come in as many variations as Pelikan, though.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 08:09 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony RX10 III (308 comments in total)
In reply to:

kaiser soze: Dpreview: You're really getting on my nerves. What is the point of mentioning the "equivalent" f-number (f11). Have you all lost your senses? All this is going to do is cause confusion. All this is, in total, is a way of saying that the total amount of light captured is the same as it would be with a 35mm camera and a lens at f11. Why do you think that it is meaningful to point this out? I think it is bizarre.It has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that matters. Nothing at all. The camera exposure value is the same as it would be 35mm camera and a lens at f4, correct? So it has no relevance to exposure settings, and the angle of view, expressed comparatively, is determined by the relative difference in sensor size, i.e., the "crop factor". So what is the point? I find it downright BIZARRE. You have simply come up with something that you think makes you look smart. It doesn't make me think you are smart. It makes me think you are a bunch of WEIRDOS.

Excellent summing up, Rishi!

Hope it clears the fog elsewhere!

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 08:31 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony RX10 III (308 comments in total)
In reply to:

ashokvashisht: Wildlife shooters would love to see such a fixed lens camera with 100-600 zoom with a fast lens ? Is there a market for such a product ?

The V2 + the 70-300CX is an excellent kit for wildlife, loved for its good grip, fast AF, and that lens is just something extra! Can be had for a little over $1,000!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/128994023@N05/25145841946/in/photolist-Ej41K5

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2016 at 15:38 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony RX10 III (308 comments in total)
In reply to:

ashokvashisht: Wildlife shooters would love to see such a fixed lens camera with 100-600 zoom with a fast lens ? Is there a market for such a product ?

The 70-300CX is an amazingly sharp lens, even in its long end, so I think it would beat the FZ1000 with ease. On the other hand, the J5 and the 70-300CX is a difficult mix, as you have no EVF, unless you invest in something expensive, like a Zacuto EVF!

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 23:27 UTC
Total: 521, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »