disraeli demon

disraeli demon

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Nov 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 157, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Rich Evans: Panasonic seems to be real desperate to get a hit. It used to be Sony releasing cameras every 3 days. Now Panasonic took the crown.

Lower resolution, tiny sensor, not enough DR, heavier (so much for light Micro Four Thirds) and the customary unreliable Panasonic focus system? GH5 might be a good video camera but the rest is just terrible, spend your money in something better folks.

"I don't have to use a CD camera to know its terrible focusing system" - depends what your needs are. I use single-shot AF almost all the time, and Panasonic's CDAF has been more than good enough for my needs going right back to the GF1- that includes street photography at night where you need fast, accurate AF with f1.4 primes. I agree that continuous CDAF still lags behind phase-detection, but even there, I use tracking focus on my GX80 for taking handheld macro shots (think flowers blowing in the breeze) and get maybe 90-95% of shots sharp. Like all systems, μ4/3 has its advantages and drawbacks; for my use case the balance of features and limitations is favourable. For you the balance tips the other way.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2018 at 14:35 UTC

If the GX9 had held on to the GX8's weather sealing, I'd have been interested - as it is, for me, it's not a compelling upgrade from my GX80. I'd be more inclined to go for a G80.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2018 at 14:15 UTC as 172nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

left eye: Can apps like these do focus bracketing? ...to the extent that could be used for focus stacking.

Log minimum and maximum focus distance manually, i.e. manually focus at the front of your subject, log that setting to the app, manually focus the back of your subject, log that to the app, then the app works out a definable number of focus increments and shots between. Otherwise a definable number of increments either side of the current focus.

I'd pay $30 for that.

Photokhan - you don't mention that DSLR Controller is for Canon cameras only.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2018 at 10:54 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1024 comments in total)

I'd be interested to see how much "AF wobble" persists in daylight (or a continuous incandescent light source). I've used various Panasonic M4/3 bodies for about six years now, and I've noticed that the focus is vulnerable to flickering light sources of certain frequencies (the overhead lights in certain London underground trains can cause problems, and once, sitting outside a bar in Greece that was partially lit by a neon sign, the focus wobbled so badly without ever locking on, that I thought the camera was broken).

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 17:55 UTC as 210th comment

Ha ha! Now I can go from hoping Nik collection won't fade away to hoping a new update won't muck it up somehow

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2017 at 22:16 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

disraeli demon: All sneering aside, this highlights the problem with digital cameras as a long term investment. Back in. the 90's you could buy an M2 or M3 and with the most recent emulsion loaded you were guaranteed image quality pretty much on a par with the mot advanced cameras of the time. Now your camera IS your film, and with advances in technology camera bodies face the same redundancy issues as any other consumer electronics.
I always said to myself if I ever got a big enough windfall I'd invest in an M rangefinder and a set of lenses, but between the decent but not stellar image quality and my having got used to conveniences like autofocus, tilting screens and good image stabilisation, I'd no longer be willing to sink money into a kit that would hold its value reasonably but not be that great to use. On the other hand, going for a top-performing camera like a D850 or A7RIII would cost maybe half as much and give much better performance, but not hold its value in the long term.

For the sort of photography I enjoy (street/documentary) I've ended up opting for Micro Four Thirds. That gave me the option of sinking money into good, small, affordable lenses, pairing them with relatively cheap camera bodies that I can treat like computers or phones - essentially disposable over a 3-5 year lifespan. Sure I take a hit on image quality compared to the best current full-frame models, but compared to 35mm film, I'd say I've been no worse off (at least since the improved 16MP sensor that came in with the EM5/GX7).

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 14:33 UTC
In reply to:

disraeli demon: All sneering aside, this highlights the problem with digital cameras as a long term investment. Back in. the 90's you could buy an M2 or M3 and with the most recent emulsion loaded you were guaranteed image quality pretty much on a par with the mot advanced cameras of the time. Now your camera IS your film, and with advances in technology camera bodies face the same redundancy issues as any other consumer electronics.
I always said to myself if I ever got a big enough windfall I'd invest in an M rangefinder and a set of lenses, but between the decent but not stellar image quality and my having got used to conveniences like autofocus, tilting screens and good image stabilisation, I'd no longer be willing to sink money into a kit that would hold its value reasonably but not be that great to use. On the other hand, going for a top-performing camera like a D850 or A7RIII would cost maybe half as much and give much better performance, but not hold its value in the long term.

hypnotictortoise - I'm sorry, I wasn't clear, since I still have the M4-2, I can shoot film if I want. Every couple of years I give it another go, but for me personally, it's not a good way to work. I don't decry anyone else using it though.

straitouttahell - I can see how my comment could look that way; I was really just being nostalgic for the days when, as an amateur, you could make a "lifetime investment" in a camera and not end up completely passed-by. But, yes, digital is amazing; back when I was first using digital (2001, Canon Powershot G1) the big selling point for me was this - you could do a day's shooting and when you downloaded the photos onto the computer the'd sort themselves by date order and with all the shooting info already recorded! Magic!

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 14:27 UTC
In reply to:

anticipation_of: Do many people out there shoot in crop modes regularly? I always shoot at my camera’s full resolution, and then crop from there in post if I feel the image would look better with a different aspect ratio. Sometimes I have a particular aspect ratio in mind when I’m shooting, but I still crop later; in fact it’s a standard part of my workflow to pull up the crop tool right at the beginning of an edit and play around with different framings. I feel like I get more flexibility this way (e.g. if I want a little more or less sky than I thought at the time of shooting, I can have that) and have more opportunity to maximize the resolution of my photos, rather than throwing some of it away right at the beginning. Am I in the minority here?

I really like shooting in crop modes as it gives me the discipline of shooting with the aspect ratio I've picked. I spent the first half of this year shooting almost entirely in square format on my Panasonic and Fuji cameras precisely to teach myself to see compositions that work in a square.
I'll never be able to afford an X1D, but the addition of this crop function on such a high-res sensor (along with the existing feature set) makes it very desirable for my way of working. Perhaps I'll save up to try out that Hasselblad rental scheme DPR covered a while back...

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

disraeli demon: All sneering aside, this highlights the problem with digital cameras as a long term investment. Back in. the 90's you could buy an M2 or M3 and with the most recent emulsion loaded you were guaranteed image quality pretty much on a par with the mot advanced cameras of the time. Now your camera IS your film, and with advances in technology camera bodies face the same redundancy issues as any other consumer electronics.
I always said to myself if I ever got a big enough windfall I'd invest in an M rangefinder and a set of lenses, but between the decent but not stellar image quality and my having got used to conveniences like autofocus, tilting screens and good image stabilisation, I'd no longer be willing to sink money into a kit that would hold its value reasonably but not be that great to use. On the other hand, going for a top-performing camera like a D850 or A7RIII would cost maybe half as much and give much better performance, but not hold its value in the long term.

(Before anyone jumps down my throat about my not understanding "the Leica experience," I still own an incredibly battered M-42 which I love dearly, and really enjoyed using, but even in the days of film I found myself leaving it behind more and more often in favour of the smaller, AF and AE-equipped Contax T2.)

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 21:11 UTC

All sneering aside, this highlights the problem with digital cameras as a long term investment. Back in. the 90's you could buy an M2 or M3 and with the most recent emulsion loaded you were guaranteed image quality pretty much on a par with the mot advanced cameras of the time. Now your camera IS your film, and with advances in technology camera bodies face the same redundancy issues as any other consumer electronics.
I always said to myself if I ever got a big enough windfall I'd invest in an M rangefinder and a set of lenses, but between the decent but not stellar image quality and my having got used to conveniences like autofocus, tilting screens and good image stabilisation, I'd no longer be willing to sink money into a kit that would hold its value reasonably but not be that great to use. On the other hand, going for a top-performing camera like a D850 or A7RIII would cost maybe half as much and give much better performance, but not hold its value in the long term.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 21:03 UTC as 83rd comment | 5 replies

Here in the UK we're used to $100 = £100 as far as lens and camera prices go, but i'd bet foldin' money that $100 ≠ £100 for this discount :-

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 23:49 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply

I am | Outta Here

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 16:32 UTC as 42nd comment | 1 reply
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1633 comments in total)
In reply to:

lb77: "The new reality of photography [is one] where users tend to take a lot of their photos on their phones - and take a lot more images in general. [Many of them want] a powerful tool that allows them to communicate but doesn’t require them to spend a lot of time to learn." - Adobe Director of Product Management Tom Hogarty (took the quote from the other article). Besides being a very depressing quote it's also a strategic mistake. Adobe core should be the pros or very enthusiastic amateurs / artists. I embraced the "digital darkroom" concept "developing" raw files myself and carefully editing, selecting and archiving when I started to have more interest in photography. No amateur I know of that takes tons of photos with a mobile phone or cheap camera will ever want to develop raw files or edit that much paying for it or even spend time learning about it. There are hundreds of apps like instagram covering that ground and software like picasa, google photos etc. For free.

miksto - the thing that worries me as a Lightroom user is that if I stop paying my subscription I lose access to much of the asset-management work I've done over the years. I can try to mitigate that by embedding metadata in the files (a practice I recommend Lightroom users do anyway), but the various sets I've made would have to be reconstructed by hand if I switched to another app.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 13:36 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Canon PowerShot G1 (164 comments in total)

My first digital camera! I bought it (along with the 28mm-equivalent wide angle adaptor) to photograph model aircraft as reference for a storyboarding job, but I quickly got hooked on digital photography and never looked back.
If I remember, the G1 had pretty significant barrel distortion and horrendous noise at anything above ISO 100. It could produce some surprisingly good images at ISO 50 though. It also had the worst TTL flash of any camera I've ever used, but I've rarely had so much fun using a camera.
I sold it in 2003 to help pay for a Canon G3, which was so much better in a lot of ways - I still have it and occasionally fire it up to check it still works, nearly 15 years later.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 23:39 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

privater: Rule 1: Don't trust `free` service.
Rule 2: Don't trust any Google service.

Dante Birchen I'm suspicious of that rule

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 22:27 UTC
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: I wish lens makers would stop trying to remove vignetting from their lenses—the gradual darkening of the corners and sides is what helps direct the viewer's attention to the subject of the picture.
Of course we all put it back in Photoshop (Effects>Post Crop Vignetting) but it's almost impossible to get that beautiful gradation from light to dark that we get from older glass

MrBrightsSide - When I learned black and white printing in the darkroom I remember being taught how to gently darken the edges of the print to create exactly the effect you describe.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2017 at 23:33 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Uschold: Does anyone know of an adapter of this sort that can be used on a Sony NEX 6 camera? Would a 1-1 macro work, or would I need more magnification, given it is a cropped APS-C sensor.

I want to scan many 100s of slides; most are for memories and do not need great quality, so this will be way faster than most or all scanners. Nothing to do but pop the slide in, press the shutter button, put the next slide in, repeat. Takes a few seconds per image.

If you have a slide projector, set it up with the camera on a tripod square on to the screen and with the zoom set so the projected image fills the screen. Then just project the slides one at a time and shoot each one with the camera. It'll record the projected image surprisingly well, and it's a very quick way of doing down-and-dirty slide conversions.

I did this for some of my Dad's old slides from the 1950's, and to my surprise the resulting digital shots were good enough to make 5 x 7" prints from when a family member asked for copies.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 23:53 UTC
On article Panasonic Leica DG 15mm F1.7 shooting experience (406 comments in total)
In reply to:

disraeli demon: Can anyone tell me if setting the aperture ring to "A" with a Panasonic camera in aperture priority mode lets you disable the aperture ring and force aperture control to revert to the camera's control dials? I know it sounds like a weird question, but most of my shooting is done while out shopping and the like and being able to set aperture and exposure comp one-handed while carrying stuff is a real boon...

Thanks!

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2017 at 12:19 UTC
On article Panasonic Leica DG 15mm F1.7 shooting experience (406 comments in total)

Can anyone tell me if setting the aperture ring to "A" with a Panasonic camera in aperture priority mode lets you disable the aperture ring and force aperture control to revert to the camera's control dials? I know it sounds like a weird question, but most of my shooting is done while out shopping and the like and being able to set aperture and exposure comp one-handed while carrying stuff is a real boon...

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2017 at 10:29 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Hanoise: Drug lords like Pablo Escobar would have killed (literally) to trademark the instagram name.
It would have made much more sense too....

But instead it has become the representation of the degradation of values morals and common sense of society.

Both only weigh a gram in our eyes, but both are so extremely poisonous.

Both are so destructive....

Hanoise - "...instead it has become the representation of the degradation of values morals and common sense of society."

Bullying has been around as long as there have been people. It's just easier to find out it's happening now.

If you look at actual figures, we're doing much better than we ever have at any time in human history - fewer people killed in wars, less violent crime, longer lifespans. There's still a lot for us to do, but honestly, I think your comment has more to do with a general human tendency to think the past was better (something even the ancient Greeks wrote about) than to the actual state of affairs in the world. Nostalgia is not what it was.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 11:42 UTC
Total: 157, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »