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: 540, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »
On photo Evening Flight in VanGabriel's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

Superbly taken youngster!

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2015 at 07:41 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: Loved the video!

My wife's instant question was: Have they tried the same using a Nikon V3 and the glorious 70-300CX?!

Same qualities that make the Nikon V2/V3 outstanding, applies to the a6000: small MILC camera, with outstanding AF, and brilliant lenses.

OOps! I didn't check, just believed what I read elsewhere. Chris is sponsored by Nikon, so they must have given the OK! This from Wikipedia, the often correct source!

Egg on my face.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2015 at 13:47 UTC
In reply to:

fakuryu: Nice video real world review of Sony A6000. It never did feel like a product advertisement since they are reviewing guess what? A Sony camera!

It is also refreshing that a professional who knows what to do with it reviewed the camera and came back with excellent results in contrast to the keyboard warrior posts who probably don't know half the capabilities of their own system. There I said it! :p

Anyway, I hate the horrid EVF of the A6000.

It was almost entirely (for practical reasons, Barnaby tells us) filmed with a7s, which were used to take all those love video snips, not the a6000!

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2015 at 13:36 UTC

This video is a lovely one, very professionally made, and made almost entirely with a7s cameras.

But that was not the impression it gave silly ol' me.

It, sadly, gave me the impression that it was made with the help of the a6000, the camera the movie was about. But that was not so, Barnaby tells us. Now.

How easily we are fooled.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2015 at 13:32 UTC as 37th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: Loved the video!

My wife's instant question was: Have they tried the same using a Nikon V3 and the glorious 70-300CX?!

Same qualities that make the Nikon V2/V3 outstanding, applies to the a6000: small MILC camera, with outstanding AF, and brilliant lenses.

I know that the DR of the V3 is supposedly worse, and that the a6000 is a DX camera, but the reason DPReview used said camera and said photographer is that he is paid by Sony, thus wouldn't touch a V3, ever, nor give it a fair test.

Guys like Joe Marquez, aka 'TheSmokingCamera', is not paid by anyone, and does very well with his V3:

http://www.thesmokingcamera.com/nikon_1_v3_photographs

DPReview wouldn't use him as he costs money to employ.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2015 at 13:21 UTC

Loved the video!

My wife's instant question was: Have they tried the same using a Nikon V3 and the glorious 70-300CX?!

Same qualities that make the Nikon V2/V3 outstanding, applies to the a6000: small MILC camera, with outstanding AF, and brilliant lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2015 at 15:24 UTC as 46th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: I wonder whether DJI will source its camera technology from Olympus? Might even be able to do away with the expensive and cumbersome external 3-axis gimble, if they employed Oly's E-Mx 5-axis IS sensor!

It makes a lot more sense to jiggle a sensor about, than to jiggle the entire camera (as at present on, for example, the Phantom Vision +).

And I would LOVE to be able to use rectilinear lenses with normal fields of view (say 35mm in full-frame terms), rather than the omnipresent fish-eye lenses of today's "action" cameras.

Brian

Let us hope DJI and Olympus starts to cooperate!

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 21:02 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1623 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: Nikon have definitely put the DX lens production on idle, as they continue to produce new full-frame lenses, and CX lenses in great numbers.

And for me DX DSLR cameras are dead, or nearly so (still got one or two), but DX lenses work very well on the CX range, so I have a few DX lenses, some of which works OK on my FX camera.

In low light the FX does wonders, not possible with a DX, or CX, camera, but in good light I love to use the CX cameras, as they are tiny, have excellent DOF, and correctly treated can take almost noise-free shots. Their dynamic range isn't wonderful, but good enough in most circumstances.

For me, APS-C/DX and similar formats, are dead, while FX is thriving, and MF is the ultimate goal!

Naturally, but a 1:1 shot with a CX is not the same as doing it with a FX camera, as the crop factor comes into play here, too!

So in real life it is easier to take nice, good, macro shots with a camera with small sensor, say a 1/2", than one with a big one!

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 20:11 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1623 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: Nikon have definitely put the DX lens production on idle, as they continue to produce new full-frame lenses, and CX lenses in great numbers.

And for me DX DSLR cameras are dead, or nearly so (still got one or two), but DX lenses work very well on the CX range, so I have a few DX lenses, some of which works OK on my FX camera.

In low light the FX does wonders, not possible with a DX, or CX, camera, but in good light I love to use the CX cameras, as they are tiny, have excellent DOF, and correctly treated can take almost noise-free shots. Their dynamic range isn't wonderful, but good enough in most circumstances.

For me, APS-C/DX and similar formats, are dead, while FX is thriving, and MF is the ultimate goal!

The micro-Nikkor 40 works great with my CX cameras, which then becomes a lens very comparable to the 105 on my FX camera, but its best aperture is far bigger than that you can use to get the same DOF, thus much easier to use in real life.

Bigger aperture means more light reaches the sensor, means shorter exposure speeds, and lower ISO can be used, a delightful situation!

I'd never use f/8 on my CX cameras, unless by mistake, and I loved to use f/22 on the Hasselblad!

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 23:15 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1623 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: Nikon have definitely put the DX lens production on idle, as they continue to produce new full-frame lenses, and CX lenses in great numbers.

And for me DX DSLR cameras are dead, or nearly so (still got one or two), but DX lenses work very well on the CX range, so I have a few DX lenses, some of which works OK on my FX camera.

In low light the FX does wonders, not possible with a DX, or CX, camera, but in good light I love to use the CX cameras, as they are tiny, have excellent DOF, and correctly treated can take almost noise-free shots. Their dynamic range isn't wonderful, but good enough in most circumstances.

For me, APS-C/DX and similar formats, are dead, while FX is thriving, and MF is the ultimate goal!

Problem is, if you want a huge DOF, as in most macro situations, with a big sensor camera, say a 645D, you need f/22, or smaller, and then you need a hell of a lot of light (Daylight is not enough, unless the insect you're photographing is dead).

So it isn't practical for outdoor macro photography, thus cameras with small sensors, with many pixels, are far easier to work with. Like a mobile phone, but they have other disadvantages, of course.

So I use FX (excellent for landscape, and portraits), and CX (for all the rest), using lenses from 8 to 400mm focal length. Plus TCs. And spotting scopes (about 800mm, or over 2 meters equivalent focal length).

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 10:55 UTC
On article Am I missing something here? (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

J S Lima: NO hotshoe = dealbreaker

Many use their Nikon 1 cameras with flash using the optional flash as a trigger (manual mode).

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2015 at 12:36 UTC
On article Am I missing something here? (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

CHEAW HON MING: My 2 V1s' LCD monitors are out after a year and repair costs a bomb. Luckily I can still use the EVFs. Bye-bye Nikon quality.

We have four Nikon 1 cameras (two V1, and two V2) and none have had any problems of any sort over the years.

I do know LCDs may be harmed if the cameras are stored somewhere in direct sunlight (been there, done that).

Considering the cameras originally cost about $1,000 (at full price, like I paid), I'd not be surprised if a LCD, including installation, cost around $200?!

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2015 at 12:29 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1623 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: Nikon have definitely put the DX lens production on idle, as they continue to produce new full-frame lenses, and CX lenses in great numbers.

And for me DX DSLR cameras are dead, or nearly so (still got one or two), but DX lenses work very well on the CX range, so I have a few DX lenses, some of which works OK on my FX camera.

In low light the FX does wonders, not possible with a DX, or CX, camera, but in good light I love to use the CX cameras, as they are tiny, have excellent DOF, and correctly treated can take almost noise-free shots. Their dynamic range isn't wonderful, but good enough in most circumstances.

For me, APS-C/DX and similar formats, are dead, while FX is thriving, and MF is the ultimate goal!

Yes, I know, that DOF is dependent on the focal length, so a 13mm lens is always the same, no matter what camera you mount it on, but I do like the excellent DOF you get from a 13, which is the CX's equivalent to a 50 on a FX.

I wish Nikon would make a 13/1.2-1.8 (in that range), then they have superb normal for the CX range ;-) !

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2015 at 11:43 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1623 comments in total)

Nikon have definitely put the DX lens production on idle, as they continue to produce new full-frame lenses, and CX lenses in great numbers.

And for me DX DSLR cameras are dead, or nearly so (still got one or two), but DX lenses work very well on the CX range, so I have a few DX lenses, some of which works OK on my FX camera.

In low light the FX does wonders, not possible with a DX, or CX, camera, but in good light I love to use the CX cameras, as they are tiny, have excellent DOF, and correctly treated can take almost noise-free shots. Their dynamic range isn't wonderful, but good enough in most circumstances.

For me, APS-C/DX and similar formats, are dead, while FX is thriving, and MF is the ultimate goal!

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2015 at 00:47 UTC as 154th comment | 11 replies
On photo DSC_0125_BW_large2 in the Museums of Flight challenge (8 comments in total)
In reply to:

Voncreutz: Haven't seen a Viggen for a long time. Need to check this museum out next time I get back home to Sweden.

The Swedish Historical Flight flies Viggens, as well as Drakens, Lansens, and Flygande Tunnan (the Flying Barrel, the fastest fighter there was for a few years), and some older SAAB types!

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2015 at 22:16 UTC
On photo DSC_0125_BW_large2 in the Museums of Flight challenge (8 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: The Viggen had a few problems, not least the fighter version that was much heavier than the attack version, thus the latter was more agile, and easily accelerated away from the fighter version, although the latter had a much more powerful engine.

The basic problem was using a turbofan engine in a fighter, which by default isn't the best if you want to add an afterburner: The increase in thrust is dependent of the temperature rise in the exhaust, and on a fan engine you mix cold air with the hot gases, before injecting the extra fuel in the afterburner. So the Gripen gets more thrust out of a smaller turbojet engine, and can therefore carry higher weapons load.

I've seen a lot of the attack version, not least when training for the Farnborough show, and one even crashed, just 100 meters from where I was in my truck. It crashed on take-off, when the afterburner pumped, just after the pilot had retracted the landing gear. Shells and bits flying everywhere, and the fighter, but no fire.

As a STOL fighter it was unique, and was the inspiration to Burt Rutan's all canard aircraft (beginning with the Vari-Viggen).

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2015 at 22:15 UTC
On photo DSC_0125_BW_large2 in the Museums of Flight challenge (8 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: The Viggen had a few problems, not least the fighter version that was much heavier than the attack version, thus the latter was more agile, and easily accelerated away from the fighter version, although the latter had a much more powerful engine.

The basic problem was using a turbofan engine in a fighter, which by default isn't the best if you want to add an afterburner: The increase in thrust is dependent of the temperature rise in the exhaust, and on a fan engine you mix cold air with the hot gases, before injecting the extra fuel in the afterburner. So the Gripen gets more thrust out of a smaller turbojet engine, and can therefore carry higher weapons load.

I've seen a lot of the attack version, not least when training for the Farnborough show, and one even crashed, just 100 meters from where I was in my truck. It crashed on take-off, when the afterburner pumped, just after the pilot had retracted the landing gear. Shells and bits flying everywhere, and the fighter, but no fire.

One other problem is that a Viggen is an excellent radar reflector, with a lot of right angles, while the Draken originally was invisible for Swedish Air Defence radars, so it was the first military plane here that had to carry transponders!

And the pilot waited till the aircraft came to a standstill, a mile or so from where I stood with my truck. Then eventually he opened the canopy with the normal electric system (quite slow), smiled, talked to the fire crew, and started the long walk back to the officers mess.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2015 at 22:13 UTC
On photo DSC_0125_BW_large2 in the Museums of Flight challenge (8 comments in total)

A fantastic shot, though!

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2015 at 22:06 UTC as 1st comment
On photo DSC_0125_BW_large2 in the Museums of Flight challenge (8 comments in total)

The Viggen had a few problems, not least the fighter version that was much heavier than the attack version, thus the latter was more agile, and easily accelerated away from the fighter version, although the latter had a much more powerful engine.

The basic problem was using a turbofan engine in a fighter, which by default isn't the best if you want to add an afterburner: The increase in thrust is dependent of the temperature rise in the exhaust, and on a fan engine you mix cold air with the hot gases, before injecting the extra fuel in the afterburner. So the Gripen gets more thrust out of a smaller turbojet engine, and can therefore carry higher weapons load.

I've seen a lot of the attack version, not least when training for the Farnborough show, and one even crashed, just 100 meters from where I was in my truck. It crashed on take-off, when the afterburner pumped, just after the pilot had retracted the landing gear. Shells and bits flying everywhere, and the fighter, but no fire.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2015 at 22:05 UTC as 2nd comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon D750 Review (2018 comments in total)

This camera seems to be an outstanding game changer for a lot of people, not least photopraphers who shoot outside studios!

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2014 at 09:24 UTC as 334th comment
Total: 540, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »