sean000

Lives in United States Bellingham, USA, United States
Works as a Technology - IT Support
Joined on Feb 16, 2005

Comments

Total: 95, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Flickr made some private photos public: Yours too? (28 comments in total)

Sharing photos, or any information online, is always a balance between convenience and security. At least with the pay services like Smugmug and Zenfolio the provider bears more responsibility. That's still no guarantee that a glitch won't expose your photos, but if you want to share photos that's a risk you must be comfortable with. Personally I feel like the increased responsibility and enhanced security features of a site like Smugmug is worth paying for. I also share some photos on Facebook and Google+. The latter has much better security features, but I'm not going to post anything on those sites that I wouldn't be comfortable with my mother seeing. If you are worried about someone just waiting to download all your photos so they can sell them, then use a more secure host and/or don't post high resolution images. If you are worried that your private album of fetish photos will suddenly be open to your mother's browsing eyes, create a separate alias to represent your kinkier side.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2013 at 22:31 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

sean000: I'm excited. I hope they didn't cut any corners to get the lower price. I might actually sell my Nikon 300mm f/4. I know my Nikon is superior optically, but I've seen samples from the original version of the Oly that are pretty close for being muche smaller and lighter.

Believe me...I understand the differences between a 300mm f/4 and this lens. I've been shooting the 300mm f/4 for about six years with and without a TC. It's a superb lens, but these days I almost never use it. It's just more lens than I can carry most of the time. Now that I have small children I rarely get to go out specifically to photograph birds and other wildlife. When I do I usually have the kids with me. Believe me... it's not fun to carry a semi-pro Nikon DSLR, 300mm f/4, etc. while carrying a toddler on your back as well. Of course this lens won't be as good as the 300mm f/4. I know that, but what's the point of have a stellar lens you never use?

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 17:35 UTC
In reply to:

kev777zero: most comments below go on the line of:
A: "what?! such a slow lens for such an expensive price!"
B: "what do you want then? anything faster would've made it HUGE!"
A: "but look at those FF lenses, they are faster! and not much bigger"
B: "no, smaller sensor size does no necessary make the lens smaller"

THEN WHAT THE HELL DO I WANT A SMALL SENSOR CAMERA FOR?!

@kev777zero: I guess we have different expectations for how small a lens should be. I know your point is that a 75-300mm m4/3 lens should be much smaller than a FF 70-300mm, but there are challenges to making this smaller as well... especially with modern internal autofocus systems (which have to move a lot of glass in a lens like this). Half the sensor area does not necessarily mean the lens can be made half as big. If you look at lens sizes for the tiny-sensored Nikon 1 series, the lenses aren't as small as you'd expect. I know this lens won't be optically as good as my Nikon 300mm f/4 (which I do sometimes use on my E-M5), but it's much more portable and the shots I've seen from the original version of the Oly are the best I've ever seen out of a consumer super-tele. The promise of a more potable kit for m4/3 is there. I can cover ultrawide to super tele carrying a much smaller bag and much less weight compared to my DSLR gear.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

kev777zero: most comments below go on the line of:
A: "what?! such a slow lens for such an expensive price!"
B: "what do you want then? anything faster would've made it HUGE!"
A: "but look at those FF lenses, they are faster! and not much bigger"
B: "no, smaller sensor size does no necessary make the lens smaller"

THEN WHAT THE HELL DO I WANT A SMALL SENSOR CAMERA FOR?!

@kev777zero: I think you're missing the point that don_van_vliet is making. The point of a super-telephoto is to get more pixels on the bird (or whatever you're photographing). So if you're standing on a platform photographing the same bird using a 16 MP m4/3 camera and a 16 MP FF camera, and you want the same number of pixels on the bird, you're going to need 600mm on FF to get the same shot a 300mm lens will get you on the m4/3 camera. Now if you have a 36 MP FF camera you can probably get by with that 300mm lens since you will have a lot of room to crop the image. Now you are correct that a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens no matter the format, and the Oly 75-300mm is significantly smaller and lighter than the Nikon 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR because it doesn't need to produce as big an image circle. But again, you will need 450mm for APS-C and 600mm for FF to get the same angle of view you get with 300mm on m4/3.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 00:53 UTC
In reply to:

kewlguy: I thought one of the benefits of smaller sensor is smaller image circle thus lenses can be made compact while maintaining similar f/stops. If there are so many f/4-5.6 FF lenses with similar focal length, why does Oly have to make it f/4.8-6.7?? It's not cheap, too.

Forpetesake... How come I can't buy a 200-600mm f/5.6 zoom with stabilization that is as small and as cheap as this lens for my Nikon DSLR? I do have a 300mm f/4, but it cost more than twice the price. It also becomes an f/5.6 or so when I use a 1.4x TC. When I use the TC I actually stop down another stop because it mitigates the loss of sharpness the TC causes. So I have to use a tripod or ISO 1600 to 3200 in order to get fast shutter speeds since this lens isn't stabilized. I have a 45-200 f/5.6 for my EM5. I get the tight angle of view in a smaller and cheaper package. I really don't care that the DOF isnt as shallow.... It's still shallow. I also don't give a hoot that less light is being gathered. The em5 can still produce excellent photos at high ISO. I'm afraid your reasoning is outdated compared to the capabilities of modern cameras.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2013 at 04:40 UTC

I'm excited. I hope they didn't cut any corners to get the lower price. I might actually sell my Nikon 300mm f/4. I know my Nikon is superior optically, but I've seen samples from the original version of the Oly that are pretty close for being muche smaller and lighter.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2013 at 04:16 UTC as 25th comment | 4 replies

Thanks for the comparison. I haven't tried anything outside of Lightroom for years (except Photoshop and the Nik plugins). These other two products look great, but this kind of confirmed that LR4 still offers the most efficient workflow while providing robust RAW editing capability. I used to prefer Nikon Capture over Photoshop for RAW, but it was such a dog for workflow and speed. When I tried Lightroom 3 I never looked back. With any of these products you have to learn how to get the best out of them. I don't shoot Nikon much anymore anyway ;-)

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2013 at 23:26 UTC as 139th comment
In reply to:

tbaker: This is really disappointing news. M4/3 mount, really? Even Panasonic will admit(in closed doors) that they only have m4/3 just to take your money, because the kit lens options are average at best(even the 14mm f2.5).
What they should have done/do was/is take the amazingly perfect Panasonic FZ200 lens+glass and pair it with a 1/2" or even 2/3" Forven like sensor(to keep size down) to make the perfect camera for everyone, in every situation. People will be quickly dropping their DSLC and other similar cameras in a second for this. But, alas Kodak is setting themselves up for big failure, again. Sad to see.

@tbaker: I never said you had to buy legacy glass. I only mentioned it because legacy lenses extend the versatility of the format. The FZ150 may very well be a nice camera, but not as versatile or as good as a GX1 or E-M5 with excellent lenses like the Panny 14-45mm, 20mm f/1.7, 25mm f1.4, 100-300mm, Oly 45mm f/1.8, 12mm f/2, etc. The FZ150 is a fine option for general photography under favorable conditions, but not in the same league as m4/3 when the lighting gets lower. Even in daylight the super zoom lens isn't going to deliver the sharpness and microcontrast of the lenses I mentioned.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2013 at 05:12 UTC
In reply to:

tbaker: This is really disappointing news. M4/3 mount, really? Even Panasonic will admit(in closed doors) that they only have m4/3 just to take your money, because the kit lens options are average at best(even the 14mm f2.5).
What they should have done/do was/is take the amazingly perfect Panasonic FZ200 lens+glass and pair it with a 1/2" or even 2/3" Forven like sensor(to keep size down) to make the perfect camera for everyone, in every situation. People will be quickly dropping their DSLC and other similar cameras in a second for this. But, alas Kodak is setting themselves up for big failure, again. Sad to see.

So you wrote off m4/3 because you had a 2nd generation (barely) GF2, and did not own a single top-tier m4/3 lens? (the 14mm is compact, but hardly top-tier) The GX1 is way ahead of the GF2, and the E-M5 and GH3 are better still. As someone who owned a GF1, passed on a GF2, and bought an E-M5; I can tell you that the 3rd gen Sony sensor m4/3 cameras are a huge jump over the GF2. Combine that with some better m4/3 lenses and legacy glass and you would see why m4/3 is gaining in popularity.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2013 at 23:39 UTC
On article Google+ introduces topic-focused Communities feature (17 comments in total)

I'm actually going to suggest this for our local photography club. We have been looking for ways to interact more outside of monthly meetings. I was leaning towards just using more conventional Google Groups, but Google+ Communities look much more useful for a photography club. I can create a private community that ties in with Google Pages, where members can post photos that allow both EXIF data and a histogram to be displayed. I also much prefer browsing photos through Google + than through Facebook or Flickr.

I have had a Google+ membership since it started, but I've barely used it since all my family and friends are on Facebook. But I would use Google+ for something like this.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2012 at 00:33 UTC as 2nd comment
On photo a hazy day at the Dead Sea, Israel in the Uncommon still live challenge (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

sean000: I really like this shot, but I would also be tempted to play with it a little. To see what it looks like with a lot more clarity (steeper S-Curve), or converted to a B&W or toned B&W. Then again I like it the way it is... the 2-dimensional flatness kind of makes a neat effect that makes beach, water, and sky blend together.

Yup... I can definitely see how it captures the atmosphere of the day. On second look, I wouldn't change a thing! It's a really nice photo.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2012 at 00:49 UTC
On photo Uncommon Still Life in the Uncommon still live challenge (1 comment in total)

I like the idea, but it just seems like too much stuff. Maybe if you got ride of most of it, and just kept the more interesting pieces thoughtfully arranged. I'd play with the lighting a bit more as well.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 19:42 UTC as 1st comment
On photo still life with piggy in the Uncommon still live challenge (1 comment in total)

Uncommon, and a little twisted ;-) I like it!

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 19:40 UTC as 1st comment
On photo a hazy day at the Dead Sea, Israel in the Uncommon still live challenge (3 comments in total)

I really like this shot, but I would also be tempted to play with it a little. To see what it looks like with a lot more clarity (steeper S-Curve), or converted to a B&W or toned B&W. Then again I like it the way it is... the 2-dimensional flatness kind of makes a neat effect that makes beach, water, and sky blend together.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 19:37 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

bryanbrun: You don't buy this lense over the Panny 20mm b/c it focuses faster and silently, you buy it b/c the bokeh is so much better than the Panny 20mm.

The Panny 20mm suffers from harsh pancake bokeh.

The Oly 12mm with the same build and features is one of the top selling lenses on amazon for CSC. Oly is duplicating that approach.

I have had the 20mm f/1.7 since January 2010, and never have I thought the bokeh was lacking or distracting. You have to focus extremely close to your subject to get much blur anyway. For most shots taken a few feet or more from the subject, there will only be a slight defocusing of the background at f/1.7... enough to emphasize your subject but not enough to blur the background into obfuscation. You need a longer lens like the 45mm f/1.8 to get much background blur at a normal shooting distance, so there the quality of the bokeh will matter more.

My 20mm pancake focuses fast enough for me on both my old GF1 and on my E-M5, and it produces sharp and contrasty images. I bet this new Oly will be a fantastic lens, but I'm going to pass for now. As my kids get older, the 20mm focus speed will become more of an issues, so I can see upgrading in a year or two. - Sean

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2012 at 23:49 UTC
On article Hands-on with the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR (259 comments in total)

Sweet looking lens, but I think I'll keep my much less expensive AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 for now. It doesn't have VR, but I mostly use it outdoors where I have little trouble getting the fast shutter speeds I want anyway.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2012 at 00:17 UTC as 45th comment
Total: 95, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »