Biowizard

Biowizard

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 512, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Yi action camera updates original with 4K video (51 comments in total)

SEVEN "layers" of OPTICAL glass? OMG - there's even a chance, they're trying to give this thing a lens!

Brian

Link | Posted on May 17, 2016 at 21:38 UTC as 13th comment
On article Making a splash: Nikon D500 real-world sample gallery (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steve in GA: The high quality of these photos make me wonder:

If Nikon APS-C has gotten this good, why would I ever want to ditch my current Nikon APS-C gear and move to full-frame?

You want better bokeh, RomanP? "FF" (or "FX" in Nikon-speak, as in 135, "35mm") always was a compromise, used for sticking images on Cine film (for convenience) while wasting nearly 1/3 of the emulsion for the sproket holes.

What makes you think "FF" gives you the best? You need a Hassleblad or Pentax 645, mate.

Brian

Link | Posted on May 4, 2016 at 19:14 UTC
On article Making a splash: Nikon D500 real-world sample gallery (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steve in GA: The high quality of these photos make me wonder:

If Nikon APS-C has gotten this good, why would I ever want to ditch my current Nikon APS-C gear and move to full-frame?

Absolutely! Apart from a legacy of 35mm glass, there is no longer any real meaning to "Full Frame". Each sensor format, from tiny cellphone imagers through to the so-called "medium format" megabucks cameras from Hasselblad an others, has its pros and cons. I have personally been more than happy with 4/3rds for the past 12 years or more, and with my current Oly E-M1, can take photos that easily exceed the quality of my old Kodachrome 25 shots, in a camera the same physical size and weight as my original Olympus OM-1. Brilliant.

Brian

Link | Posted on May 3, 2016 at 14:41 UTC

The reason an iPhone is a great stand-by camera, is because it's in your pocket anyway, and when an unexpected photo op shows up, and your real camera is elsewhere, you can grab the iPhone and snap.

The moment you start encasing your iPhone in a large chassis, attaching flashes, lenses, external microphones, and whatever else (wheels?!!), it ceases being the standby that happens to be in your pocket. Chances are, it will be sitting at home, next to your real camera.

If you are going to make the effort to take a bulky object and kitbag of spare lenses, filters, etc, with you - surely, in the name of love, you'd want your system based around a decent sized sensor, and using primary lenses, rather than supplementary ones?

And if you choose a camera with the appopriate built-in WiFi or Bluetooth technology, you can still link it (wirelessly) to your iPhone for uploading images to the Cloud.

Brian

Link | Posted on May 2, 2016 at 09:26 UTC as 7th comment
On article Swirly bokeh: Lensbaby announces Twist 60 lens (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: I find photographing through the bottom of a jam jar is somewhat cheaper.

Brian

How do I post images here?

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2016 at 22:28 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: After 40 years as a user of SLRs and then DSLRs, I am happy to have made the transition to mirrorless. My Olympus OM-D E-M1 is utterly superb, and one day I hope I might have a choice of decent larger-sensor cameras using similar technology.

Brian

Indeed my comments are about one of the obvious benefits of mirrorless vs SLR: the SAME sensor that judges focus, records the actual picture - so irrespective of which lens you use, there is NO scope for focus discrepancy. Camley, now you get it?

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2016 at 22:27 UTC

Well that's not bad. As an OM-D E-M1 owner, I decided to call that up for direct comparison. What can I say? My lovely Oly, with its micro-4/3rds format, is all but as good an image as this Nik. To all practical intents and purposes, every bit as good.

Ever since we passed the "Scanned Kodachrome 25" standard (about 12 years ago), I've figured cameras are plenty good enough in terms of image quality. What matters is ergonomics, design and features!

And thus, Olympus wins, for me.

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2016 at 20:33 UTC as 83rd comment | 5 replies

After 40 years as a user of SLRs and then DSLRs, I am happy to have made the transition to mirrorless. My Olympus OM-D E-M1 is utterly superb, and one day I hope I might have a choice of decent larger-sensor cameras using similar technology.

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 12:26 UTC as 58th comment | 5 replies
On article Pelican lightens up with Air cases (52 comments in total)

I have several Pelis of the traditional type, protecting assorted audio gear and cameras. I love their cases, but yep, they are amazingly heavy. I'll definitely be giving these new cases a once-over.

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 17:25 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

Biowizard: Hey - in the same amount of physical space, you could be holding something called a CAMERA. #nuts

Brian

To Peiasdf - I'd rather have a decent SENSOR, which is what ultimately takes the image for prosperity. However, FWIW, I have a 12-inch "calibrated" screen on my 4/3rds camera - OlyView running on my iPad Pro, connected via WiFi to my OM-D E-M1, sees to that!

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 22:04 UTC
On article Swirly bokeh: Lensbaby announces Twist 60 lens (122 comments in total)

I find photographing through the bottom of a jam jar is somewhat cheaper.

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 23:30 UTC as 17th comment | 2 replies

Hey - in the same amount of physical space, you could be holding something called a CAMERA. #nuts

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 23:29 UTC as 10th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: All my photographic life (which takes in film from the mid-70s, up to about 12 years ago, when I switched to digital (mainly)), I have HATED the effects of badly position ND grads. Images look SO artificial, with a linear blurred darkening zone, and as others have noted, where tall objects poking above the gradation remain underexposed while reflections in foreground puddles are blown-out.

You can get SO much better results by squeezing off 5 bracketed exposures in quick succession, covering whichever range of EV you want to play with, and selectively combining them, with appropriate blurred masking, in Photoshop.

Not forgetting, there's probably a good spare 1.5-2EV at either end of your individual raw frames to play with, if you don't want to merge images but simply want to apply some selective exposure compensation masks.

Using Photoshop in this way is frankly no different than dodging and burning in the traditional darkroom - just less hit-and-miss, and a LOT less smelly.

Brian

True, but the answer is simple: expose shot 1 for the sea, shot 2 for the sky, and combine. NOT "HDR", just two exposures blurred together at the horizon - rather like using a Lee ND Grad, but with complete control

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 21:46 UTC

All my photographic life (which takes in film from the mid-70s, up to about 12 years ago, when I switched to digital (mainly)), I have HATED the effects of badly position ND grads. Images look SO artificial, with a linear blurred darkening zone, and as others have noted, where tall objects poking above the gradation remain underexposed while reflections in foreground puddles are blown-out.

You can get SO much better results by squeezing off 5 bracketed exposures in quick succession, covering whichever range of EV you want to play with, and selectively combining them, with appropriate blurred masking, in Photoshop.

Not forgetting, there's probably a good spare 1.5-2EV at either end of your individual raw frames to play with, if you don't want to merge images but simply want to apply some selective exposure compensation masks.

Using Photoshop in this way is frankly no different than dodging and burning in the traditional darkroom - just less hit-and-miss, and a LOT less smelly.

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 11:13 UTC as 8th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: Only two filters are necessary in this day and age: a polariser, and a multi-stop ND, because both let you create images that cannot be achieved in any other way. Arguably, an IR filter too, if you do IR photography.

But graduated NDs are not necessary, Indeed, they nearly always produce unnatural results. For any landscape photo where you want to darken part of the image relative to others, you can simply take a bracketed exposure sequence, and merge as desired in Photoshop.

This approach lets you follow irregularities in the skyline (like mountains, buildings, trees) that an ND grad would artificially darken.

Brian

All my photographic life (which takes in film from the mid-70s, up to about 12 years ago, when I switched to digital (mainly)), I have HATED the effects of badly position ND grads. Images look SO artificial, and as others have noted, tall objects poking above the gradation just look silly. You can get SO much better results by squeezing off 5 bracketed exposures in quick succession, covering whichever range of EV you want to play with - not forgetting, there's probably a good spare 1.5-2EV at either end of your individual raw frames to play with, if you don't want to merge images.

Untill Lee find a way to make ND Grads that exactly match the skyline I am photographing, I will stick to modern methods.

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 11:06 UTC

Only two filters are necessary in this day and age: a polariser, and a multi-stop ND, because both let you create images that cannot be achieved in any other way. Arguably, an IR filter too, if you do IR photography.

But graduated NDs are not necessary, Indeed, they nearly always produce unnatural results. For any landscape photo where you want to darken part of the image relative to others, you can simply take a bracketed exposure sequence, and merge as desired in Photoshop.

This approach lets you follow irregularities in the skyline (like mountains, buildings, trees) that an ND grad would artificially darken.

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 22:49 UTC as 20th comment | 13 replies
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (342 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Can someone please remind me - how big IS a 1" sensor? Even 35mm "full frame" is less than 1" in the shorter dimension ...

Brian

Thanks both - I was being intentionally sardonic here - I frequently post on this forum about the stupidity of using old videcon tube sizes to refer to (some) digital sensors. Or, indeed, obsolete film formats like APS-C, which never received professional interest.

Why can't everyone JUST use the actual sensor size, or, if really necessary, choose some random format (eg, 135/35mm, at 24x36mm) as "1" or "100", and relate all other sensors relative to that, preferably with respect to the 135 diagonal, with an indication of aspect ratio too? I'd love "4/3rds" (my current cameras' format) to be known not in relation to a 1.333" videcon tube, but instead as "0.5/4:3" showing it's about half the diagonal of the 135 format, with 4:3 aspect ratio. And 135 itself would be known as 1.0/2:3 ...

From descriptions like this, you can figure out lens "crop factors" and "focal length" mulitpliers, without having to dig back into Wikipedia every time!

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 19:16 UTC

Surprised? NO.

Other than, that is, that Lytro even still exists as a name.

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 17:12 UTC as 13th comment
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (342 comments in total)

Can someone please remind me - how big IS a 1" sensor? Even 35mm "full frame" is less than 1" in the shorter dimension ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 21:54 UTC as 103rd comment | 3 replies
Total: 512, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »