SirSeth

SirSeth

Lives in United States Hagerstown, United States
Works as a Teacher
Has a website at wallygoots.smugmug.com
Joined on Feb 8, 2004
About me:

My plan is to ever improve my trade, my hobbies, and my relationships with family, friends, and my God. My trade is teaching Math and Computers. My primary hobbies are lutherie (guitar building) and photography. My God is slow to anger and abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor His anger forever; He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us for our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth so great is His love for those who fear him. As far as the east is from the west so far has he removed our transgressions from us. If you have questions or gripes about my God, I always enjoy talking with someone who is a seeker. Rock throwers are rarely convinced of anything spiritual and I can respect their desire to believe differently than myself.

Comments

Total: 726, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On a photo in the Flickr Top 15 Photos of 2017 sample gallery (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

SirSeth: How long did he have to stay motionless in the boat?

I agree, the Child by Train is a great "image" that is strongly manipulated. I agree, but I am not sure that CGI is bad or even avoidable for any "photo" taken digitally. It seems that more skill goes into visioning and creating an image like the Child by Train than just being in a beautiful place.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 05:27 UTC
On a photo in the Flickr Top 15 Photos of 2017 sample gallery (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

SirSeth: How long did he have to stay motionless in the boat?

SteveAnderson, have you never seen newly fallen snow. It's even more stunning than this where I live. Wait, are you only wanting to count film photography that hasn't been retouched in any way? That's hard to believe.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 06:42 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mateus1: Pricely, big glass with f2.4 depth of field and paired with tiny sensor in big (almost FF) body... Too many reasons to not buy it.

But not buying a premium FF with premium lenses could free up significant money for a nicer lens for those on a budget or those who value a smallish, durable, convenient package with great IQ. I use FF with legacy glass because of a few of my high priorities but at times I wonder if I would have been better off staying with a smaller format and buying nicer AF lenses. The cost difference for system "equivalence" is in the magnitude of nearly 6 grand for what I do. FF is just a lot more expensive when you price out the entire system that gives me similar equiv. focal lengths. I also have realized after a couple of years with FF that some make m4/3rds the disease and FF the cure. It's just not a panacea. Confirmation bias leads many to believe that it is.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 03:24 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Let me explain the part people don't really "get" with these premium m4/3 lenses. An FF lens cannot keep look of its bokeh when stopped down to gain more workable DoF: you gain DoF, but kill the bokeh. And if you like bokeh, the DoF is so thin it is impossible to work with; or must move farther away, which, again, changes the composition and needed magnification.
Premium designs for m4/3 solve those problems, and such lenses deliver best of both worlds. (1) More DoF is better to avoid errors when shooting dynamically, with less focusing mistakes especially in portraiture. (2) Bokeh at f/1.2 is made NOT to match f/2.4 bokeh of a conventional aspherical design, which is very messy, but SURPASS it by far. The lens allows optical design (with more elements but with less thickness of glass) to render bokeh as if made with a much faster portrait lens of a classic design with fewer elements.
For those who really understand this, the m4/3 becomes best thing since sliced bread!

I won't explain how people don't really "get" confirmation bias. But, yes, the lens in it's own right is really nice and the body lens combo showed well in the gallery.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 03:11 UTC
On a photo in the Flickr Top 15 Photos of 2017 sample gallery (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

SirSeth: How long did he have to stay motionless in the boat?

Jesus Cam?

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2017 at 01:04 UTC
On a photo in the Flickr Top 15 Photos of 2017 sample gallery (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

SirSeth: How long did he have to stay motionless in the boat?

I mean to let the water return to mirror smooth. ;)

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2017 at 03:00 UTC
On a photo in the Flickr Top 15 Photos of 2017 sample gallery (4 comments in total)

Magical moment for one of them. Neeeemmohhhhh!

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2017 at 20:18 UTC as 3rd comment
On a photo in the Flickr Top 15 Photos of 2017 sample gallery (1 comment in total)

So cute.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2017 at 20:17 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Flickr Top 15 Photos of 2017 sample gallery (12 comments in total)

How long did he have to stay motionless in the boat?

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2017 at 20:17 UTC as 1st comment | 11 replies
On a photo in the Sigma 14mm F1.8 Astrophotography Samples sample gallery (6 comments in total)
In reply to:

SirSeth: Impressive. I'd like to get results anywhere close to this good and I just don't know how yet. Maybe I just need to try a faster wider lens, but I usually try to use my A7+OM28mm f3.5 and I either get star tails from rotation of the earth or not enough light to illuminate the foreground. Or too much noise, or Sony is sucking up stars with the star gobbler. I don't know. But these are inspiring and make me want to try again.

Great! I'll try with my 50mm f1.8 next and see how it goes. Narrower field, but much faster.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2017 at 19:31 UTC
On article Nikon D850 vs Sony a7R III: Which is best? (1079 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wubslin: As a non-owner of both I can say that the non-ownership experience is exceptional, with the minor caveat that my wallet is weighing me down quite a bit.

Have you looked into the new mirrorless wallet. It's all about not learning from the past and making the same financial mistakes when it comes to quickly depreciating products. Objects in this view may be closer than they appear. :)

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 15:10 UTC
On article Nikon D850 vs Sony a7R III: Which is best? (1079 comments in total)

Oh, I want both. No questions there. ;)

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 15:08 UTC as 182nd comment | 1 reply
On article Gear of the Year 2017 - Richard's choice: Sony NP-FZ100 (248 comments in total)

I couldn't agree more. For those who wanted DSLR like battery life and dual slots, things are looking up.

Boring choice for gear of the year, but practical, and it does mark the narrowing between mirrorless and DSLRs--a gap that will live on in many minds even after it has closed.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 16:04 UTC as 62nd comment
In reply to:

ttran88: But yet Canon sells more cameras than the two companies COMBINED!!!

People don't develop as fast as technology.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 01:50 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1234 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thomas Kachadurian: I'm looking at the in depth resolution page and truly realizing that we have come to the point where enough is enough. The detail crops are amazing, but who will ever look that deep into an image other than a forensic photographer.

It's time to stop increasing megapixels, 25 is enough for most everything, as we near 50 we're cover for the most demanding applications, but I can't think of them. Whats the point? 80 on the new Panasonic G9, for what?

Let's talk about 20 megapixels at 128,000 ISO without grain or noise and I'll get excited.

Tom

Forgot to mention that for those of us using large MF glass, framing with a wider FOV and cropping after sometimes makes it easier because you can locate the subject in the viewfinder without needing to optimize framing. There is also an assumption that people shooting with a crop sensor are cured of wanting to crop afterward--which just isn't the case. No matter what format I am using, I'm often cropping the to the full extent that the file can handle (and nearly always cropping for composition at the least).

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 16:06 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1234 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thomas Kachadurian: I'm looking at the in depth resolution page and truly realizing that we have come to the point where enough is enough. The detail crops are amazing, but who will ever look that deep into an image other than a forensic photographer.

It's time to stop increasing megapixels, 25 is enough for most everything, as we near 50 we're cover for the most demanding applications, but I can't think of them. Whats the point? 80 on the new Panasonic G9, for what?

Let's talk about 20 megapixels at 128,000 ISO without grain or noise and I'll get excited.

Tom

@Thomas Kachadurian Having a constrained hobby budget is more real excuse for not having the "right" camera or lens. ;) If reach was my only priority, there are super zooms with ultimate equiv. mm reach. There are other drawbacks of course to those systems. I have a FF because of other values, but I purchased the FD500mm f4.5L because it was a bargain--the biggest glass I could afford. The main reason I purchased that lens is because I can't afford AF big glass like a 400mm or 600mm prime. Those would be the right lenses. :) But for me, I'm just going to buy a XT-1 or G7 to act like teleconverters on my 500mm. I think an A7rii might be in the cards someday as the price is pushed down. The cropping room would be similar to using a 16mp crop sensor on my lens. Bottom line is that us folks wanting to do wildlfe on a budget have to use every tool we have to maximize value--that includes trade offs.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 16:00 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1234 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thomas Kachadurian: I'm looking at the in depth resolution page and truly realizing that we have come to the point where enough is enough. The detail crops are amazing, but who will ever look that deep into an image other than a forensic photographer.

It's time to stop increasing megapixels, 25 is enough for most everything, as we near 50 we're cover for the most demanding applications, but I can't think of them. Whats the point? 80 on the new Panasonic G9, for what?

Let's talk about 20 megapixels at 128,000 ISO without grain or noise and I'll get excited.

Tom

I'd like more MP than the 24 in my A7 because I want more cropping room for shooting wildlife. The down side is there are no really good very long glass for FE mount. I currently use a 500mm f4.5L and put up with manual focus. I could adapt Canon or Alpha lenses I suppose, but I wish I could afford the A7Riii now. The alternative (not a bad one really) is a smaller sensor that "crops" for you and narrows the field of view. The G9 looks good, but actually thinking about trying a G7 or XT-1 with my 500mm. The down side is the smaller sensor has more noise as the light fades. The upside is that it's faster, lighter, smaller, cheaper, and actually has several reasonably priced native lenses that give over 500mm equiv. FOV. I don't see why sensor makers wouldn't continue to improve senor resolution, DR, high ISO, and read speed. There is no end in sight because they are made with the same fundamental technology as CPUs which roughly follow moore's law---doubling in power every two years.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 18:30 UTC
On a photo in the Sigma 14mm F1.8 Astrophotography Samples sample gallery (6 comments in total)

Impressive. I'd like to get results anywhere close to this good and I just don't know how yet. Maybe I just need to try a faster wider lens, but I usually try to use my A7+OM28mm f3.5 and I either get star tails from rotation of the earth or not enough light to illuminate the foreground. Or too much noise, or Sony is sucking up stars with the star gobbler. I don't know. But these are inspiring and make me want to try again.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 15:30 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 first impressions (411 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: I'm surprised Panasonic or Olympus do not make a 300mm f2.8 for the m4/3 system. Such a lens would bring this camera into its own and attract professional photographers. Panasonic makes a 200mm f2.8 O.I.S., which is MUCH cheaper and smaller than a Canon or Nikon 400mm f2.8 lens (mounted on full-frame cameras), but a pro can put a body like a Nikon D500 or Canon 7D Mk II on that 400mm lens and have a 600mm f2.8 equivalent. That isn't a possibility with the m4/3 system. Still, with a $4,500 lens (300mm f2.8 O.I.S.) and a $1,700 body they might be willing to get the m4/3 system just to try it. That would be a lot cheaper and lighter than an $10,000 400mm f2.8 lens.

Thanks fmaxell, You see, I would certainly own an A7Riii and a few choice Zeiss primes if I could rationalize a much higher hobby budget. But, really, with more money why not sample the best from all systems. In other words, if you can, why not go polycameraist? A7Riii, XT-2, G9, FZ300 for me please. It's beats trying to convince everyone that your single choice is better than theirs. This ain't marriage, though you'd think that some have said vows to FF.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 05:00 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 first impressions (411 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: I'm surprised Panasonic or Olympus do not make a 300mm f2.8 for the m4/3 system. Such a lens would bring this camera into its own and attract professional photographers. Panasonic makes a 200mm f2.8 O.I.S., which is MUCH cheaper and smaller than a Canon or Nikon 400mm f2.8 lens (mounted on full-frame cameras), but a pro can put a body like a Nikon D500 or Canon 7D Mk II on that 400mm lens and have a 600mm f2.8 equivalent. That isn't a possibility with the m4/3 system. Still, with a $4,500 lens (300mm f2.8 O.I.S.) and a $1,700 body they might be willing to get the m4/3 system just to try it. That would be a lot cheaper and lighter than an $10,000 400mm f2.8 lens.

Insistence that every other system must compare directly to FF in every way in order to rate at all is a forum constant. Anything else is not as good which must mean bad. How might we judge cameras differently in a way that is not fraught with such confirmation bias? Surely, this new camera has enough of the right ingredients to make it the best choice for some professionals and many amateurs. I'm guessing they judge the camera differently (as the video on the front page demonstrates). Use tripods less, smaller lighter lenses, environmental seals and ruggedness. Video capabilities... But it's not as good as a D850.... but at what? We shouldn't all measure our preferences the same.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 20:14 UTC
Total: 726, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »