Irakly Shanidze

Irakly Shanidze

Lives in United States Grosse Pointe, United States
Works as a creative
Has a website at www.shanidze.com/en
Joined on May 21, 2004
About me:

I am a founder of International Academy of Photographic Arts that provides
online classes and live workshops in fine art photography ith an emphasis on creative approach and lateral thinking in the US, Canada, Western Europe and Russia.

Comments

Total: 217, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: The things are going now, there is no need for faster lenses anymore, although I understand the desire. 2.8/135 is plenty fast when ISO3200 looks better than Fuji Provia 400F back in a day :)

@Dan_168 I shoot with 1/50 on a daily basis for work. Would you like me to tell you what it takes? As to ISO100 vs 3200, I would love you to tell the difference looking at two Leica M10 files. At this point there is absolutely no reason to shoot at ISO100, unless you have too much light for what you are trying to accomplish

@AngularJS - do not forget about convenience. I have Zeiss 1.8/135, and it is humongous. Now, with Leica SL, or Sony a99-II the difference between 1250 and 3200 is nominal effectively making this monstrosity unnecessary

@John C Tharp - yes sir, Captain Obvious sir! Theory is a wonderful thing until you start implementing it in real life. As to AF accuracy, do not forget about a trade-of: faster lenses = shallower DOF = higher tolerance. If you do AF at 1.8 for 2.8, your precision is excessive, as the greater DOF of 2.8 will swallow an error. On the other hand, faster glass = more glass to move = slower, unless it is an internal focusing lens

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 02:58 UTC

The things are going now, there is no need for faster lenses anymore, although I understand the desire. 2.8/135 is plenty fast when ISO3200 looks better than Fuji Provia 400F back in a day :)

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 17:09 UTC as 10th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: This is crazy. At this price point, Carl Zeiss 1.8/135 ZA seems much more attractive.

Not only A mountbalivw and well, but Sony made a successor to a99 that kills competitors in pro sector hands down.
Zeiss lenses are not rebadged Minolta. Before making claims this preposterous, you might want to try them out to see the difference.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 09:32 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: This is crazy. At this price point, Carl Zeiss 1.8/135 ZA seems much more attractive.

when a99-II is out, who needs canikon? :)
this is a portrait lens, lots of glass to move. not sure if sigma's AF any faster.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 23:19 UTC

This is crazy. At this price point, Carl Zeiss 1.8/135 ZA seems much more attractive.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:38 UTC as 39th comment | 5 replies
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (818 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: I remember testing X100 when it just came out. Within 5 minutes I found conditions that made the lens look like it was born to produce chromatic aberrations. I wonder how this lens that has not changed since the X100 handles even a higher resolution sensor.

it was pretty bad

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:25 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (818 comments in total)

I remember testing X100 when it just came out. Within 5 minutes I found conditions that made the lens look like it was born to produce chromatic aberrations. I wonder how this lens that has not changed since the X100 handles even a higher resolution sensor.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 04:14 UTC as 111th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: What a bizarre crime... it is either sheer stupidity, revenge is done kind, or a calculated inside job. Hopefully not insurance fraud :)

misgruntled :)

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 20:45 UTC

What a bizarre crime... it is either sheer stupidity, revenge is done kind, or a calculated inside job. Hopefully not insurance fraud :)

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 19:40 UTC as 31st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Sirandar: You have to wonder what this article has to do with photography.
There is some implication that a photographer did this.

It is incredibly unlikely that this van was left there by anybody who would call themselves a photographer.

If we had real news instead of fake news we would know if the van even had plates (probably not) and if the VIN number was traced, or even if the van was reported stolen. In Canada, out of province people routinely buy old junker vans to travel the west coast to save $$. When they no longer work they are abandoned.

Because being an actual reporter is no longer a viable occupation, there is nobody to "report" these little details.

Lol no, who needs pictures of the stupid salt deposits, he just came there to reflect on existence.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 15:36 UTC
On article Video: Leica M10 First Look (23 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: The best things in life are free, it gets progressively worse as you up costs. Doubt me? consider your labours finance all tragedy-arms for your wars, your futile space explorations, your large hadron collider, chernobyls everywhere, and on a personal note ferraris, bugatti veyrons, Leicas, Hasselblads, hi-end hifis and computets and iPhones and Macs etc. And then there's jewellery cosmetics and high fashion-none of which are necessary and which consume vast earthly and spiritual resources, and all of which enslave mankind in general. and us gearheads in particular.
If A Leica 10 and a 50mm, 35mm 21mm and 24mm and visoflex cost me 10 per cent of my annual income I would certainly be tempted- though sensor reliability is a problem with Leitz.
But is not and right now I can listen to Angela Hewitt playing Bach French Suites on the radio and it costs NOTHING, not a year's salary AND my peers respect and favour. Why photography indeed!! Even her piano costs less than an M10!

That's why the most perspicacious people buy Leica M and carry a very small and light shoulder bag :D

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 04:16 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (487 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: It is just too bad that nobody explained to the author that focusing with a rangefinder is faster and more reliable than AF when done right. All you have to do is to set the lens to infinity after each shot. That way, there is only one direction the focusing ring can go.

When it comes to guessing and zone focusing, the simplest and most reliable technique is positioning a standing person between horizontal frame lines and focusing on it. After that, any person of approximately the same height will be at approximately the same distance. No need to recompose.

patrocal, the focusing scale is logarithmic: it is much wider at the short end and gets progressively narrower towards the infinity. that is why turning the focusing ring from the infinity to 10 feet on a 1.4/50 lens will require only a 15-degree turn, while from 2.5 feet (minimum focusing distance on most modern leica lenses) to 10 feet it would take at least 50 degrees. Some exotic lenses like 1.4/75, or 1/50 have a very long through, and it may take 100 degrees to go from 1m to 3m

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 04:14 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (487 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: It is just too bad that nobody explained to the author that focusing with a rangefinder is faster and more reliable than AF when done right. All you have to do is to set the lens to infinity after each shot. That way, there is only one direction the focusing ring can go.

When it comes to guessing and zone focusing, the simplest and most reliable technique is positioning a standing person between horizontal frame lines and focusing on it. After that, any person of approximately the same height will be at approximately the same distance. No need to recompose.

Simon, yes, it is faster and, what is even more important, more reliable in low light. What you probably do not know (just judging from your comment) is that when focusing with an optical rangefinder, there is no guesswork whatsoever whether the object is in focus, or not. When focusing through the lens with modern SLR that has a matte focusing screen, you spend time on figuring out whether you are in focus or not by defocusing slightly and then going back. It works reasonably well with fast lenses, but not as much with slower ones that make a viewfinder darker. With the rangefinder, it is always bright, regardless of the lens used, and there us no guesswork: if you see two images, it is out of focus, if only one, you are in business.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 04:08 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (487 comments in total)

It is just too bad that nobody explained to the author that focusing with a rangefinder is faster and more reliable than AF when done right. All you have to do is to set the lens to infinity after each shot. That way, there is only one direction the focusing ring can go.

When it comes to guessing and zone focusing, the simplest and most reliable technique is positioning a standing person between horizontal frame lines and focusing on it. After that, any person of approximately the same height will be at approximately the same distance. No need to recompose.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 15:37 UTC as 120th comment | 13 replies
On article Video: Leica M10 First Look (23 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: The best things in life are free, it gets progressively worse as you up costs. Doubt me? consider your labours finance all tragedy-arms for your wars, your futile space explorations, your large hadron collider, chernobyls everywhere, and on a personal note ferraris, bugatti veyrons, Leicas, Hasselblads, hi-end hifis and computets and iPhones and Macs etc. And then there's jewellery cosmetics and high fashion-none of which are necessary and which consume vast earthly and spiritual resources, and all of which enslave mankind in general. and us gearheads in particular.
If A Leica 10 and a 50mm, 35mm 21mm and 24mm and visoflex cost me 10 per cent of my annual income I would certainly be tempted- though sensor reliability is a problem with Leitz.
But is not and right now I can listen to Angela Hewitt playing Bach French Suites on the radio and it costs NOTHING, not a year's salary AND my peers respect and favour. Why photography indeed!! Even her piano costs less than an M10!

is it? :)

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 15:06 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (890 comments in total)

Used to be a no-brainer. After Leica SL came out, it became evident that EVF can be actually better than optical. This is me saying, a rangefinder camera user of 35 years

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 14:39 UTC as 319th comment
On article Video: Leica M10 First Look (23 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosinaphile: its kind of lovely ,

but I wish they didnt use the rebranded olympus evf .. i would rather they devised a way to what fuji did in the xe1\2 xpro1\2 and have optical and electronic VF switchable in camera in the corner position , beyond that , its screams solidity and quality ..... mmmmmmm leica [ homer simpson voice ]

Visoflex Type 020 is not made by Olympus. It is a third-party OEM accessory not used on any other system, except Leica T and Leica M10.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 03:08 UTC
On article Video: Leica M10 First Look (23 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: The best things in life are free, it gets progressively worse as you up costs. Doubt me? consider your labours finance all tragedy-arms for your wars, your futile space explorations, your large hadron collider, chernobyls everywhere, and on a personal note ferraris, bugatti veyrons, Leicas, Hasselblads, hi-end hifis and computets and iPhones and Macs etc. And then there's jewellery cosmetics and high fashion-none of which are necessary and which consume vast earthly and spiritual resources, and all of which enslave mankind in general. and us gearheads in particular.
If A Leica 10 and a 50mm, 35mm 21mm and 24mm and visoflex cost me 10 per cent of my annual income I would certainly be tempted- though sensor reliability is a problem with Leitz.
But is not and right now I can listen to Angela Hewitt playing Bach French Suites on the radio and it costs NOTHING, not a year's salary AND my peers respect and favour. Why photography indeed!! Even her piano costs less than an M10!

Report back to you? Personally? Why should they extend such a courtesy? :)

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 03:07 UTC
On article Leica M10 in Japan: Updated samples gallery (151 comments in total)

Without commenting on photography itself, I can say that the test is fair: it shows M10 capabilities well. Skin tones, contrast, saturation, resilience (exposure latitude): everything the way I see on my camera.

Also, remember, this set of images is about the camera, not about lenses. So, I would abstain about commenting on differences of Summiluxes and Elmarits. The only thing that is really missing is extra wide shots (WATE, SEM, 21mm Summilux) to show how M10 sensor's offset microlenses work.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 03:01 UTC as 21st comment
On article PDN announces its 30 emerging photographers of 2017 (27 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Nasty Sapon, my congratulations! :)

Stupid autocorrect. It was supposed to be "Nastya", short for Anastasya". She is #6, an apprentice of my former student.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 22:58 UTC
Total: 217, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »