Tord S Eriksson

Tord S Eriksson

Lives in Sweden Gothenburg, Sweden
Works as a bus driver, soon 100% retired
Joined on Jul 3, 2003
About me:

Like to draw, paint, and photograph nature, and identified
flying 'objects' (no UFOs), like the moon, bumblebees, aircraft, and, not least, birds!


Total: 606, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom (106 comments in total)
In reply to:

NCB: Seriously considered the C-8080, was highly impressed with the specs. Was into landscape photography and wanted something convenient to take up mountains. While dithering the Nikon 8400 came out, 24-85 lens but less than 2/3 the weight and it would easily fit in a rucksack pocket; I bought it, still have it and use it. I know of people who bought the C-8080 and likewise still have it and use it though. Both cracking cameras.

Often wondered why Olympus didn't continue to develop that line. Nikon brought out the D40 and decided that that was the way to go rather than high end compacts.

It sold so badly that they never recuperated the investment they put into it. Nearly turned Olympus to a part of history, but the older C-7070 sold well, and continued to do so for years, saving the company from a fate worse than death!

Link | Posted on May 18, 2017 at 21:36 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom (106 comments in total)

Oh, my C-8080 is still with me, and it still get some use, not least with flash. But try a back-lighted subject and the LCD and the EVF turns to rivers of lilac rivers, flowing down from top of the screen to the bottom.

Macro and flash was its best side, but panoramas and JPEGs were not that bad.

Took mine to the US, and it died the first day over there, and had to be sent to Switzerland for a firmware update, before it could be used again.

Very much a one-hand camera as pretty much everything could be operated with your right hand, things like focus, zoom, exposure compensation, and so on.

Have taken wonderful longtime exposures with mine at night, and that was kind what it was, slow, and mechanically superb.

It could take RAW images, rare in those days, and was blindingly fast, with an average of over 3 fpm on a good day (yup, 3 frames per minutes, no kidding!). That was really good. Then!

Max useful ISO was 140, normal was 100, or lower. ISO 400 was the upper maximum limit!

Link | Posted on May 18, 2017 at 21:31 UTC as 37th comment
On article Poor piloting causes terrifying cycle crash (10 comments in total)

Hope the drone owner will be forced to pay all hospital expenses, lost income, damage to the bike, and be banned from using drones near people!

Link | Posted on May 8, 2017 at 18:19 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

(unknown member): Obviously a switch won't be financially viable for the individual photographer unless the new camera does something that couldn't be done before and fulfills a need.
The A9 has to prove itself in the field first by outdoing the competition by a significant margin in every important aspect.
Also, You can easily​ upgrade technology and specs but it is hard to gain trust and a good reputation among pros.

And the number of pro grade lenses is still so much smaller than for the Canikon guys!

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 02:37 UTC
In reply to:

MaxiMax: You will always "lose money" when switching over to a completely new system, no matter if it is to Sony, to Canon, to Nikon or any other system. It always depends on how much equipment you have, how old it is, and what is the minimum you need to get in a new system.

I lost around 10K when I switched from Pentax to Nikon (I did try Sony for a while, too), but I got so much for free when switching, a true technology jump, but sure I'd love a Nikon with IBIS!

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 02:30 UTC
In reply to:

Anyblunder: I use Canon and Olympus as a semi-pro enthusiast. My main issue with Sony has always been durability. As a manufacturer Sony is always on the cutting edge of technology and innovation, but their stuff is only good when some other manufacturer implements it and makes it. If it is from Sony we always use their slogan from the eighties: "It's a Sony". Meaning: "It will break down or have serious issues". Like the fact that their sensors are actually vacuum cleaners. They attract so much dust that you only have to switch lenses to clean an entire room from dust. It will automatically gather on your sensor. Aside from that every piece of Sony equipment I ever owned in my life broke down on me. Customer service from Sony is a "no such thing" and I always ended up with a rather expensive state of the art piece of technology that didn't work. In that case the A9 has a long way to go to prove itself as a reliable system for pro users who have perfectly good working system.

My Sony amplifier is still as new after 40 years, the controls just as they were when I bought it! We have two Playstations, and they are also close to new in function, if a bit dated compared to the present generation.

Sony makes good video gear, but their lenses were at first a pretty mixed bunch, but things got better with the aid of Zeiss.

The worst thing with Sony cameras are their menu system, and the company's employees have not yet solved that!

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 02:16 UTC
On article Ming Thein joins Hasselblad as Chief of Strategy (346 comments in total)

Love both Hasselblads, and Ming Thein's photography! Bodes well!

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 18:44 UTC as 27th comment
On article Pentax KP sample gallery (96 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: I'm a former Pentax enthusiast, who sold everything I had (20+ lenses, and a handful of bodies), when I found that my then new toy, the Nikon 1 V1 was just as good at shooting as my K5 (I was on my second by then, the first having failed totally, got a new for free).

But this little fellow, the KP, and the photographer taking these shots, impresses me a lot! And, as LensBeginner points out below, the shots cover a lot of different lighting situations and ISOs.

Definitely! The 32 is a really nice lens, very, very sharp. Lately I've been using the Sigma 30/1.4 Art instead, and that is nearly as good (and just a little heavier), and works excellently on my DX, and FX cameras as well. You'll need the FT1 adapter, of course.

I do the same with my Sigma 150-600 Sport, use it on all three systems.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 09:14 UTC
On article Pentax KP sample gallery (96 comments in total)

I'm a former Pentax enthusiast, who sold everything I had (20+ lenses, and a handful of bodies), when I found that my then new toy, the Nikon 1 V1 was just as good at shooting as my K5 (I was on my second by then, the first having failed totally, got a new for free).

But this little fellow, the KP, and the photographer taking these shots, impresses me a lot! And, as LensBeginner points out below, the shots cover a lot of different lighting situations and ISOs.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:19 UTC as 48th comment | 2 replies
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2467 comments in total)
In reply to:

gn28: Now I'm totally confused. So, if I buy an APS-C camera (e.g. d5500 so DX) and a full frame 50mm f1.8 lens (FX, because there are more options), will that mean that my 50mm f1.8 will actually take the photos equivalent to a 75mm f1.8 on a full frame camera? So if I want the 50mm equivalent I would have to buy the closest thing to a 33.3mm FX?

As Fakultativ writes, quite a few DX lenses work well on FX cameras, if you can accept some edge softness and vignetting. I use Nikon DX 40/2.8 micro, and Nikon DX 85/3.5 micro VR on my FX camera (in FX mode), with no issues at all, bar some vignetting at bigger apertures.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 10:35 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2467 comments in total)
In reply to:

MShot: Richard/posters, forgive me if this is covered by so many posts. I have not read them all.

If you have equivalent focal length and equivalent aperture on a 4/3 sensor and a FF sensor, what can you expect if the 4/3 sensor is stabilized by IBIS or, lens, or both, and the FF sensor is not?

Suppose you can shoot the 4/3 sensor camera at a much, much slower shutter speed than the FF sensor camera. What happens to image quality between the two of them?

- Does a longer exposure make up some of the image quality difference between them?

Is it true you could hand hold the 4/3 camera in light too low to shoot the FF camera without a tripod? Is it true that a longer exposure can make up some of the difference in image quality between them in low and bright light?

Most m4/3 cameras have more problems acquiring focus in low light than FX cameras, thus the fight would be lost before it began!

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 10:28 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2467 comments in total)
In reply to:

wondrouslightdotcom: A lot has been said about this being a shortcoming of smaller sensors but, while this is valid for portrait photographers who want blurred backgrounds, it is just the opposite for subjects such as landscapes and close-ups where DOF is never enough (somewhat ironically, two currently fashionable issues in photography are bokeh and focus stacking). A third question is: are there any additional pros and cons of different sensor sizes for my kind of photography? (portability is the 1st one that comes to mind). And a fourth, fundamental question is: what influence does "equivalence" have on the overall quality of one's photographic output (i.e.: a background that is more or less blurred)? I am not going to make many friends with this statement but for many photographers not so much. A lot of it is due to one's creativity and mastership of the equipment, exposure, post-processing and publishing.

I use CX (aka Niko 1) for long telephoto shots, and for macro, and as long as I can keep the noise at bay, by keeping the ISO low (often using handheld LED arrays, flashlight, flashes, lots of sunshine, whatever to increase the available light), but for normal shooting (family, street, tourist, work) I now tend to use DX; and for portraits, and landscape my FX.

So I tend to use the same lenses, on the different bodies: The Dx 40/2.8 micro is a delight on all three systems (stepped down a little bit vignetting on my FX cameras is no problem), the Sigma 30/1.4 Art likewise very useful on all three systems, not much softer than the 32/1.2 mentioned in the article.

Some lenses shine when used on a CX system, like the DX 85/3.5 micro VR, but it isn't a bad lens for portraits on the FX, if one can live with the vignetting. the Bokeh is, surprisingly, pretty nice!

My Sigma 150-600 Sport is a monster, when used with CX cameras, but what a sweet monster!

Have a good day for photography!

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 10:22 UTC
In reply to:

Shlomo Goldwasser: Nice and informative review.

All that glue makes the lens look pretty low grade, from a manufacturing quality point of view. Is glue completely essential, or is it the engineer's workaround to avoid adding more screws?

I would prefer more screws and no glue, especially at this price point.

Glue can be used to lock screws in place (Loctite comes to mind), but as a means to keep different parts of an expensive lens together, that's very a very dubious way of designing a lens that surely will be disassembled once in a while.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 00:22 UTC
On photo Nara Deer in Jon87's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Sweet shot!

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 07:21 UTC as 1st comment
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (297 comments in total)
In reply to:

jimofcan: First lens purchased should always be a 70 - 200 2.8. There should actually be a law making it mandatory

The two kit lenses for the Nikon 1 cameras are 10-30 and 30-110, in Full Format (aka FX) terms 27-81mm, and 81-297mm, a very nice mix! The latter is an excellent macro lens, if you add a extension tube, or a few ;-) !

The first FX zoom lens I bought was a 70-300 VR, not a bad one (the newer versions are better, of course).

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 08:42 UTC
In reply to:

flashcactus: For those who might automatically rate the Hasselblad over the Fujifilm, it's important to remember that Fuji have had more serious and useful camera innovations, especially in the days of film, than Hasselblad's paltry record of rejigging their old leaf-shutter dependent box- a bit like the Porsche 911, having inbuilt limitations. Fuji : GX 680, brilliant. Best studio camera ever, conceptually. All the MF roll-film rangefinder variations, the Fuji/Hasselblad X-pan. This new MF mirrorless leapfrogs the opposition in the traditional Fuji way. Their way. Can't wait to try one.

No more Zeiss lenses?!

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 08:30 UTC
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (139 comments in total)

Reminds me of DPReview that used an A77S when making an informercial about another Sony camera, how good it was when actually it was not used for the drone scenes out over the water, which were decidedly awesome.

But we all were given the impression that the other camera was used — that must be called shady practices, too!

As stated above:

“Everyone in the market must follow the rules. By protecting consumers, we protect confidence in our system of commerce.”

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 16:47 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

jerry7171: Before everyone piles on me, I'm making an observation on what seems to be a grey area.

In general, people have no right to an expectation of privacy in public areas. By extension, if a property owner/manager permits photography the same rule would apply. Isn't this how photographers are able to shoot candids and later sell their work? Do photographers chase after people they just shot in public areas to secure a signed release? What is the difference here?

I can understand the woman's point of view if she'd been photographed through a window in her home, but sitting within Chipotle's property?

We've been down this road before. We've all observed how people share everything online, but play the victim if someone else shares something that might have them in the background.

People like this woman ought to be shamed in public opinion for her self-indulgent attitude. It reminds me of the careless woman who put scalding hot coffee in her lap at McDonalds.

So Jerry, you would be at ease on figuring on their posters, with bottles of alcohol on your table, even if these are added afterwards, in photoshop, presumably?!

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 00:19 UTC
In reply to:

Nikita66: US legal system is F-ed up.
US healthcare is F-ed up.
US foreign policy is F-ed up.
US debt is F-ed up.
US politics, in general, is F-ed up.

Every empire must fall.

"Every empire must fall"
Indeed, so when will Putin fall?!

Which country isn't 'f-ed up'?

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 00:01 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Of all the explanations why you should avoid fake lenses, the funniest has to be because they fail to meet safety standards. Nikon pulls this too. We're not talking about flash units. The danger in using these lenses is to your wallet and your images, not your safety.

BTW, the fakers have gotten more bold. I recently bought some Canon electronic cable releases that were too cheap to be genuine. They said Made in Japan, and I thought the counterfeiters would avoid flat-out lying about the point of origin. But in a world where news is fake, anything goes.

Germans were not famous for their perfect English, in the old days, before spell-checkers!

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 10:49 UTC
Total: 606, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »