Joined on May 8, 2012


Total: 35, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

MBWay: I know many people to are serious about photography. I know many more who are more casual about taking photos. But I know no one who shoots on film. Where are these people?

Sometimes, it is me. 40 yo from Germany (Berlin). I love photography and I take lots of photos. Most of the time digital (Nikon D800, Oly EM-10). Sometimes I take photos on film (Nikon F90 and some old Praktica from east Germany).

Why? I am not one of these people who think film has better dr, resolution or whatever. At least for film formats I can afford, this discussion is over for 10 years (or more). In every technical aspect digital wins. So..why bother?

Many people (and I also have that bad habit) switch to 100% on the monitor within a second. We want perfect sharpness at pixel level, even if that is a ridiculus magnification (esp. with the D800). Technical aspects became very dominant.
With analog I get the picture from the lab, look at it and like it for what it is... a nice picture! Nobody would inspect the neg under a microscope, yet that is what everybody is doing these days.
I think it also helps to take better picture with digital: Look at pictures, not at pixels!

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2018 at 19:35 UTC

I think calling this "computational photography" is bulls*** bingo. 10 years ago you could have used any 1/2.33'' sensor compact camera. Load the picture into photoshop. Create a layer mask that protects the face and blur the rest, you get pretty much the same result. It even looks as if the masking was done in a hurry (check the hair). That is what this feature does.
The f/1.4 example is way to extreme. A razor sharp face with a washed out background. A real portrait lens would produce a sharp eye and everything else would get progressively (!) softer.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2018 at 16:48 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Gesture: So many exciting things being done in imaging. Travel. Adventure. Action sports. Vlogging. 360 degrees. GoPro stuff. Nikon just didn't see the possibilities and move with trends. Connectivity. Video.
The APS-C/Full Frame DSLRs are great. But there's so much more out there.

Lot of VLoggers out there on You Tube seem to be using the 1" sensor cameras. Whither Nikon. My first digital camera was the Coolpix 995-superb.

They have action cameras and also a 360 deg as well as some rugged/waterproof compact cameras. They also have the 1 system with a 1 inch sensor.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 19:37 UTC
In reply to:

turvyT: Nikon should get a deal with some phone company. For camera only companies that's going to be the way to survival.

Huawei is actually pretty significant. They sold 139 million phones in 2016 and growing very fast. They are market leader in china and they are quite strong in Europe as well.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 19:12 UTC
In reply to:

Osa25: The problem is not rise of smartphones but rather failure of camera makers to improve image quality and features of "compact cameras" , a term which is in fact a euphemism for C-grade camera.

Many phones actually take better photos than cheap compacts. I think the reason is they have quite fast prime lenses (maybe f/1.8) while typical compact cameras have slow zoom lenses while sensor size is about the same. People who were shopping for a compact camera usually were impressed by a huge zoom range in the store and did not understand the meaning of lens speed. So -with the exception of some enthusast models- nobody sold a fast prime compact camera any more. Even though for many of them a fast lens is much more usefull than long focal length (think of social snapshots in low light).

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 18:54 UTC
In reply to:

tabloid: Time for Nikon, Sony, Canon etc etc to put a way of sending pictures and texting on the back of some their cameras . Thats the future. Not difficult to do if they put their mind to it. Or maybe a complete phone working on voice recognition.

Do really want it to be automatic? I often take many photos of the same subject to try things etc. Even if it was really quick, I don't want them all on the phone.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 18:47 UTC
In reply to:

yahoo2u: If Nikon go APSC/FF mirrorless with an adapter for the DX/FX lenses, i'm in.

This weould be a weak compromise. Nikon mount used lots of mechanical coupling in the past. Nikon has only three options here:

1) The adapter only workes with the latest lenses (all electronic focus & aperture). Lots of lenses have mechanical aperture, but no aperture ring. Such lenses would not even work in manual mode.
2) Once again put mechanical control for aperture (and for 'pro bodies' probably also AF) into the body. Making the body more expensive, heavier, more complex and bigger.
3) Put all that into the adapter, making the adapter heavy, big, complex and expensive.

All 3 options are bad.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 19:10 UTC
In reply to:

PieterB: The main problem with Canon's and Nikon's mirrorless offering is that they don't want to cannibalise their d-slr line-up and thus making cameras that are blown out of the water by other mirrorless camera manufacturers.
This may be a successful short-time strategy but in the long run, people will switch to another brand.

Yes, this is a common management mistake. Steve Jobs once said, if you do not cannibalize yourself, someone else will.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 18:56 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (352 comments in total)

Cameras for "boys" and "girls" (PEN vs. OM-D)? Seriously?

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 08:54 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

scotthunter: It's sad how people these days put convenience above image quality. Who cares about pixel count, shadow detail and dynamic range if all people want to do is upload a picture of their dog on Instagram with a filter so that their friends can like it on their 4" phone screen.

I have use a Canon G7X Mkii - slightly less pocket friendly but it's a brilliant little camera and cost me £200 less than my phone. I can print huge canvas photos of the images I take with it, and even mount it on a triod to take pictures of the stars. In almost every respect, a dedicated camera is a better tool for the job.

For many people an iPhone /Samsung S /Xperia etc. is actually the best camera they ever had.
During film days most cameras were not SLRs or enthusiast compacts. They were single use cameras or simple compact cameras that were not much better than single use cameras. Often with a f/10-ish fixed focus lens, maybe some primitive zone focus. Many did not have any sort of metering, maybe two or three exposure settings ("sun","cloud", "shadow") and a flash (without any control beyond on/off). They had viewfinders that only gave a vague impression of what will be on the pic.
Most people never cared. They were only interested in small prints and the machine in the lab did its best to auto fix wrong exposure and wrong colors.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

SharkManEXR: This lens also does NOT work with anything before the d3300, it may only work with the d3300 with a firmware update but it is not stated on the firmware page as it only lists the 18-55mm AF-P lens.

buyer beware! no idea why Nikon did this.

Conrad... Absolutely.... I am going to upgrade from D800 to D3300 to get this lens... ;)

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 21:01 UTC
In reply to:

trungtran: When will manufacturers make budget telephoto primes. Simpler than zooms to build and better IQ and they can even charge the same price.

A $400 "budget" 100/5.6? No. There are several 90/100/105 f/2.8 macro lenses in that price range. 85/1.8 also is not that expensive. F/5.6 would be pointless.
Even a 200 should be much faster than f/5.6. A Tomron or Sigma 70-200/2.8 is not that expensive, at least if you look at older versions w/o stabilization. At that lens speed you can live without it, especially if you have to use fast shutter speeds anyway (sports).

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 20:50 UTC
In reply to:

digiart: Nikon is braking the compatibility of it's DSLR gear time after time. First they dropped the built-in AF motor in the D3XXX and D5XXX range. Then, camera firmware updates stopped third party batteries from working. Now, they release AF-P lenses that don't work with almost all of Nikon bodies, denying it's loyal customers the benefits of AF-P. I feel this is like an abusive relationship. So infuriating! I don't think I will buy Nikon gear again.

I bet they can't make AF-P lenses to work on most of the camera bodies because it probably draws more power than what the cameras can deliver. If that's the case, it was bad decision to design without accounting for use of different type of AF motor.

Really a power limitation? Does it take less power to focus a 70-200/2.8 etc? These things are HUGE!

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 20:39 UTC
In reply to:

MShot: If they make a really great mirrorless camera, what do they say to their DSLR customers? We were only kidding?

There is a big difference: 4/3 was a weak compromise for an SLR system since the beginning. The viewfinders were small, dark and 'tunnel like'.The only option to improve was to go mirrorless. The original 4/3 SLRs were not very popular and competetion (Canon, Nikon, etc.) was tough. So there was nothing to lose.

For Nikon it is very different.
APS-C and (even better) FF work very well for an SLR. There is no reason Nikon could not make SLRs and mirrorless cameras (or even some 'hybrid') with F-mount. Nikon would face tough competetion in the mirrorless world. The large lens collection they have tody would be an asset. But only if they work out of the box. Adapters tend to be expensive and they are usually a weak compromise. So F-mount right on the camera. Who wants another system that only has a 5.6ish kitt zoom, a consumer 5.6ish telezoom and the ultrawide/macro/portrait/fast tele 'next year'.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

Zoron: Good price....competitive product that all the FF owners can upgrade to.

All of MFT/APS-C/FF were 'hot' when they arrived:

APS-C was the first practical dSLR. Larger sensors were too expensive. Smaller sensors would make the viewfindet too small. One of the reasons why the original (non micro) four thirds failed were 'dark tunnel' viewfinders. APS-C could use many old lenses from the analog aera with an acceptable crop factor.

When FF CaNikons arrived, many people -millions- had FF lenses for these. Remember, 36x24 had dominated the photography market for decades. It made sense to continue that format in the digital age. Get rid of the 'APS-C compromise'.

MFT was also 'hot' because it started the mirrorless age. The market was waiting for mirrorless cameras for years and MFT was the first to deliver.
Yes, I think this camera will deliver better quality than FF. Somewhat, at least. But there are only 3 lenses available. Nothing really fast. Old MF ("analog") MF gear could only be used with compromises (crop factor, manual focus).

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 18:41 UTC
In reply to:

Bryan Costin: It's not so different from how snapshots were taken pre-digital. Finish a roll of film, send it off to the lab to get it developed and printed, maybe with a note for the darkroom tech describing any special requests. And when you got back the prints it could be a bit of a thrill seeing how your photos came out.

This seems prohibitively expensive, particularly since they've apparently automated the retouching process. I guess they'll find out if there are enough people with spare money who find this appealing.

Its very different. I still use film every now and then. My camera lets me controll exposure and change lenses. I get the entire film from the lab after processing. I can decide what is good and fail for myself. If I don't like the way the lab prints a picture, I still have the negative that can be scanned, printed in a different way etc.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2016 at 20:53 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1393 comments in total)
In reply to:

nokinonacynos: Looks like an amazing cam. However, I think MFT will continue to struggle. Once the cam is not pocketable, size becomes less of an advantage. People are realizing that a certain size is required for comfort and ergonomics. With a Pro lens, the package is similar to APC. So no advantage. In fact, the 25mm 1.2 is bigger, heavier and much more expensive than a 35mm f/2 for APC let alone a 50mm f/1.8 for FF.

This camera will have to sell on inherent qualities rather than size and weight.

I don't think we will see 1'' sensors in phones in the near future. Of course it is possible, the Nokia 808 had a sensor that was even a little larger. But marketting dicates all flagship phones have to be thin. Thin is more important than everything else.
Some Sony phones have 1/2.33'' - the same as cheap entry level compact cameras. That's big in the smartphone world. Expensive phones like iPhone 7 have even smaller sensors. Even if the IQ was there smartphones would not be good not enough enthusiasts or pros for many reasons : No viewfinder, no controls other than touchschreen, no long focal lengths, weak LED instead of a xenon flash, af and shutter lag disappoints even when compared with entry level slrs...

I think there is a market for mft. It is the smallest system that has IQ better than phones/simple compacts (Pentax Q doesn't) and a reasonable lens selection (Nikon 1 doesn't, nx-mini doesn't).

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 19:39 UTC

Why are all these instant cameras so primitive? Zone focus? f/12.7? Come on!


Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 07:09 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

moawkwrd: Who is buying these lenses without VR? People who don't know better, complain about their terrible photos and then end up buying the VR version or more expensive lenses anyway. Cha-ching for Nikon. Why can't big companies NOT be complete douchebags?

Its easily possible to get decent handheld shots at 1/500s or 1/1000s handheld at 6.3 in daylight.
For sports you need fast shutter speeds anyway. Yes, even soccer mom needs fast shutter speeds. VR would not help much.

VR may be a substitute for a tripod or monopod, but to get faster shutter speeds in low light you need a faster lens (much more expensive).

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 11:42 UTC

70-300/4.5-6.3 ??? Do we really need even slower consumer zooms? Come on, 6.3 is for cheap third party travel zooms only. Does the AF even work at 6.3 on an entry level body?
And no, VR does not compensate for any moving subject.


Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 05:18 UTC as 98th comment | 2 replies
Total: 35, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »