Lives in United States AK, United States
Joined on Jul 10, 2010


Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1622 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frank Ciccone: This opinion is well presented, but one has to remember that many photographers who were involved in photography as recently as the early 2000s had film cameras, and high quality lenses, that were full frame 35mm. There was no viable sub-35mm film format. Also, when digital first arrived, the APS-C sensor and format had as much to do with the cost and technical aspects of chip manufacture as anything else. It is perfectly natural for a photographer to want a digital format that would allow him to use his existing full frame lenses without having to go through the process of mentally recalculating that the 24-70mm lens he just mounted on his camera was really in fact a 35-105mm. I for one waited until a full-frame digital camera that I liked came along just so I could get the full benefit out of lenses and a format I had all along.

Whadda mean, no viable sub-35mm film formats? I shot Minox (spy) 8x11mm cameras loaded with Techpan. 5x7" prints looked pretty awesome! :)

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 23:49 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1622 comments in total)
In reply to:

Petar Veliki: today upgrading means jumping from FF to m4/3.

Don't agree. Don't care about video, but I like the size and handling of m43 over larger gear. Are all FF shooters looking to get into a LF back for an even greater leap into "best quality" or do they think their FF cameras are "good enough?" I think it's mostly because they feel their FF cameras are good enough so they don't all feel like losers for not shooting MF or LF digitals (FF shooters, is this correct?). Anyway, my m43 gives me results that are good enough in a package that I really enjoy shooting and carrying with me everywhere I go!

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 23:20 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1622 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Tuccillo: IMHO, Richard Butler is coming from the wrong prospective. Going to cropped sensors was a serious downgrade coming from FF film. The transition from my F100 and the many manual focus and auto focus lenses I have to the D100 was just plain ugly. There were very few DX lenses and although I picked up reach I lost the wide end, not to mention the great handling of the F100. MY AI-S 20mm f2.8 was no longer useful, and the 24-120mm was no longer the great travel lens it had always been. With the D200 the handling issues were addressed, but I needed to buy the 16-85mm to get a decent travel setup.

For me, going to the D600 was not an upgrade, just a return to the way it was. And make no mistake, FF will always have better image quality.

First off, moving down to your crappy FF film camera from LF and MF film cameras was already a huge sacrifice in quality. How did you live with your grainy crappy results? Seriously, I only shot FF film for the economy and small and faster acting gear. I transitioned from Canon crop to Olympus Micro 4/3 and couldn't be happier. My photos are good enough to hang in galleries and I love the small gear -- just a fraction of the size and weight of my Canon bag. Yes, if I decide that I want to start selling huge prints, I'll have to upgrade to FF at a minimum, but huge prints are not the point for every photograher. Anyway, the prints from my 12MP m43 camera far surpass most of what I could get out of typical 35mm films -- ok, Techpan, Velvia and maybe even well developed Tmax 100 can match it, but other than that, a good prime on a m43 body beats 35mm film on most levels once you get above 8x12" prints.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

drummercam: Mr. Slater owns the work. Once he saw what was happening and allowed the macaque to continue what it was doing, the macaque became a mere assistant. This is a shameless power grab by a huge organization with money to pay a slick lawyer to present a wholly specious argument if it comes down to a court case. Wikimedia should take the photo down, and Mr. Slater should pay the macaque a banana.

So if you allow a fellow photographer to shoot photos with your camera (maybe because their's malfunctioned), just because you allow that other photographer to keep shooting your camera makes their work your's???

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 16:37 UTC

When someone grabs my camera and snaps photos that end up on my memory card, I do not consider them my creative property. It doesn't matter that I am the one who owns the camera. Actually, I think it would be unethical to claim credit for photos someone else took.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 16:34 UTC as 289th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

NZ Scott: Peiasdf:

I'm sure you're correct.

The 1.8 is superior in every way except for two - it's slightly bigger and it's quite a lot more expensive.

It's probably also losing a lot of sales to the Panny 20/1.7, which is also a pancake.

Don't know about "loses badly," but sure, when pixel peeping, I can see the difference. At half the price, I think it competes pretty well though... If I just wanted the "best," I'd get the P/L 25 over either.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2013 at 14:54 UTC
In reply to:

neofx19: The biggest pro I found with the 17mm 2.8 was its size. Thats about it. It was loud to focus, slow to focus and when not in sale the price was a bit high. The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 or even the 14mm f/2.5 were better choices. The 17mm f/1.8 is arguably the superior of the bunch but is not considered a pancake. If money weren't an option I would get the 20mm 1.7 if I wanted to purchased a pancake lens, if money was an option the 14mm f/2.5 (from ebay) is a great buy.

The 17 focuses faster than the 20. The 14 isn't as nice as the 17 IMO. Here is a comparison of the two:

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2013 at 06:06 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: Not such a bad deal... Of course there are better lenses in the form of Panasonic 20mm-f/1.7 and Olympus' own 17mm-f/1.8, but you can't argue with 'free'! The pancake is a pretty decent lens that can surprise with the resolution it's capable of. Chromatic aberrations and being prone to flare let its side down - it needs a good editing program to remove CA and a lens hood.

Yes, I have hung similar photos from my 17 with my girlfriend's prints from her 20 and framed in a gallery, my photos completely hold up to her's. Personally, I prefer how the 17 flares to the 20 and the wider view. Timmbits, how much experience do you have with the 17? Just curious if you had owned it and it let you down or if you are simply repeating dpreview 17 bashing?

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2013 at 06:02 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: combining cameras that don't sell anymore with a lens that doesn't sell?

(blame it on the epl6 having been released and on the existence of good lenses)

at least they are doing something to help retailers unload dated inventory of cameras (and themselves to get rid of a glut of a high CA lens), contrary to the past, where inventories were saturated with old Olympus 12mp cameras retailers couldn't give away.

The CA isn't nearly as bad from this 17 than as from the Panasonic 14... and much easier to fix as well.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2013 at 05:58 UTC
On photo 14v17v45_test in mh2000's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

tripod mount, self timer.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2012 at 02:39 UTC as 1st comment
On article Olympus PEN E-PL5 and PEN E-PM2 Hands-on Preview (146 comments in total)

I dont care about orientation sensor, find it kind of annoying in camera viewing anyway... but man, this little thing is ugly! The E-PM1 was pretty cute IMO.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 21:04 UTC as 48th comment | 1 reply
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11