iae aa eia

iae aa eia

Lives in Brazil Recife, PE, Brazil
Works as a EFL Teacher
Joined on Jan 13, 2011
About me:

The first camera I have ever shot with was my mother's Kodak Instamatic 177XF. It happened to me to work as a photographer in the 90's, but I always had problems working by myself (not having the skills to do that marketing thing; socializing and stuff; and thus, feeling discouraged) and I didn't care to find a partner. What I needed was someone to promote my work, or to have learned how to deal with people.

After a long period of time having different and unsuccessful jobs, I started teaching English. It happened by chance, but many opportunities were quickly showing up, and I decided to move on with it. It's not photography, but I can say I still do something I love. I have always liked English, so it never gets old. And most things I've learned through reading, including photography, were written in English.

The first contact I've ever had with photography literature was in the 80's. The husband of a distant relative of mine gave me a photography guide composed of two magazine-sized and four less-than-A4-sized books. Each one of the magazine-sized books was divided in many sections, like cameras, lenses, flashes, framing, darkroom, techniques, pro-photographers' galleries, etc; and the other four books focused on specific photo subjects. Only photos and commentaries on them. One was about people, another was about women, another one, about nature, and one more about architecture. I loved that kit. Later on, when I was able to understand some English, I could compare them with many other guides and I realized that they were quite complete and technically accurate. Really good stuff for Brazilian standards. It was probably the translation of an American guide.

Now, the first contact I've ever had with photography literature, in English, was in 1993. I lived in a city called Natal, RN. I was riding my bicycle when I decided to stop at a newsstand located at a supermarket for a quick look at the magazines as I used to do. I wasn't looking for anything in particular and didn't intend to buy anything, but while I was browsing, I saw that beautiful red glossy cover magazine with lots of SLRs on it, standing on the top shelf. It was the December's 1993 edition of Petersen's PHOTOgraphic magazine. I was in awe, thinking, "Wow, look at this!" I had never seen such an appealing cover (uncommon to Brazilian magazines at that time) and that rich content in terms of equipment. I decided to buy a compact Collins Gem Eng-Port Port-Eng dictionary and a calculator in the same week I bought that magazine, and spent the whole month trying to translate most of the magazine's content and converting feet to meters, inches to mm and cm, and pounds and ounces to kgs, and even dollars to royals (our currency, or 'real/reais' in Portuguese). I continued to buy issues of that magazine for the next 6 months. At first, equipment ads, camera and lens guides and articles, and shopping catalogs where the sections I read the most.

In 1996, I was living in Guarabira, PB, and the owners of a photo shop in Natal called me and invited me to move back there and work as a minilab operator. That was my first job. I got to know the folks there because they didn't have access that kind of magazines and I used to go there and take mine and talk about photography, and we enjoyed that a lot and we became friends. While I was working there, I had the chance to handle some very nice cameras like the Nikon F3, FM2, Minolta Maxxum 9xi, and some others from Pentax. Canon was rare.

Comments

Total: 175, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Nikon D5500 Review (401 comments in total)
In reply to:

quezra: D5500: praised for not being too small
A7ii: criticized for not being small enough

Do you know that the A7II is mirrorless and the D5500 isn't?

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 03:24 UTC
On article More things we found cut in half (CP+ 2015 edition) (136 comments in total)

I wonder if the cut-in-halfs are products made to the regular quality standard. Perhaps are very early models, or samples that, for any reason, would return to the production for corrections, and/or the elements on those products do not pass through the whole process of finishing. Well, I don't know.

I was surprised by the Tamron 16-300. Not by its beauty or construction quality, but by the "simplicity" and economy of elements for such a long zoom range. More than 20 years after the launch of that revolutionary 28-200 and Tamron doubled the zoom range without (practically) increasing the number of elements while obtaining better IQ. Of course, if we put that into an FF version, it would be way havier and larger than 1992's version, but still amazes me how they improved the quality without adding more elements.

It was funny the way you finished this post with that sandwich cut in half. Long live cut-in-halfs!

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 15:35 UTC as 50th comment

Now, Ricoh, I challenge you to make an 18-55mm ƒ/3.4-4.8 no longer than the shortest 18-55mm ƒ/4-5.6 (or 3.5-5.6) from the competition. You'll see making this lens no shorter but "just" half stop less dark will impress much more.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 02:47 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I wish all of the camera manufactures realized what Canon has already figured out. Canon knows that if you get the word out there that your cameras are the “best” then it will take a long time for the general public to figure it out if that no longer is true.

Basically Canon is still riding high on their PR campaign from more than a decade ago. They still sell some cameras simply because most people don’t even realize that Samsung, Olympus, and Panasonic even make cameras.

I hate to say it but the other camera companies better start investing more into Advertising and getting their entire line of cameras in stores like Best Buy. It doesn’t matter how good your product is. Not enough people will buy it if they don’t even know it exists.

I believe all said to be the reason are true, but Canon cameras produce great images. I never had one. I had Kodak, Panasonic, and Sony. But I can easily recognize that. The gap between Canon and others have narrowed, perhaps a lot, but Canon deserves its fame.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 23:27 UTC

A suggestion: an equally advanced 13-91mm ƒ/3.4-4.8. I guess a less long range with a max aperture half stop less dark would be possible for an equivalente price and still be very useful.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 23:09 UTC as 5th comment

They are playing the roles of the Fiat Freemont and the Dodge Journey in Brazil, with the difference being that I don't like Fiat not even a fraction I like Panasonic.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 20:28 UTC as 63rd comment
On article Fujifilm X30 (beta) real-world samples (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I hope Fujifilm feels they have proved to their consumers and to themselves they could do a heck of a corrected lens, a heck of a sensor,... a heck of a very good camera that can deliver a heck of good image quality from this stupid little sensor (not stupid in a phone, though) and launch its successor with 1" sensors. Please, Fujifilm, satisfy yourself with this 2/3" once for all, will you? Or, just get into the phone industry!

Yes, Jones R, they are used in professional, broadcast-quality video cameras, and I don't see a problem in that, either, but I think you posted your comment in the wrong place, because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2014 at 02:55 UTC
On article Fujifilm X30 (beta) real-world samples (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I hope Fujifilm feels they have proved to their consumers and to themselves they could do a heck of a corrected lens, a heck of a sensor,... a heck of a very good camera that can deliver a heck of good image quality from this stupid little sensor (not stupid in a phone, though) and launch its successor with 1" sensors. Please, Fujifilm, satisfy yourself with this 2/3" once for all, will you? Or, just get into the phone industry!

Yes, I do. It's just that it doesn't make much sense to me a decade and a half later and companies are still investing heavily in enthusiast models with sensors as small as back then. I now there's a public for that, though. Compared to 1/1.7, there is 35 % more area in the 2/3, but in the 1-in, there is 100 %! Quite a difference. So, though not necessary, Fujifilm could fit 24 mp in a 1-in sensor and the pixels would still have the same size as they have in the X30 sensor. You see? Not that much of a problem. Should they had it, they just may had to have a little less bright lens (or with shorter zoom) in order to keep similar dimensions. Even a 28(or 24)-90mm with same aperture or a 28-112mm with 2.4-3.4 would be more interesting. Imagine yet a 1-in sensor with those 12 mp only? Pixels twice as large... Don't forget there will be new 1-in models and rumors say the LX7 successor will have it.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2014 at 14:19 UTC
On article Fujifilm X30 (beta) real-world samples (95 comments in total)

I hope Fujifilm feels they have proved to their consumers and to themselves they could do a heck of a corrected lens, a heck of a sensor,... a heck of a very good camera that can deliver a heck of good image quality from this stupid little sensor (not stupid in a phone, though) and launch its successor with 1" sensors. Please, Fujifilm, satisfy yourself with this 2/3" once for all, will you? Or, just get into the phone industry!

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2014 at 13:19 UTC as 7th comment | 8 replies
On article Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? (320 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The problem with this kind of cameras is that the body looks big compared with the lens (or the other way around). The front lens element would be larger if it came with a 1-inch sensor and it would look even better (or perfect), I guess. You know, from 2/3" to 1" is not that a big step upwards, even considering costs, since 1-in sensors are widely produced already.

"Do we really need the Fuji X30?" Perhaps those who missed the bandwagon, are curious to see how better such small sensors have become, or simply want something nicely retro but doesn't know or care about sensor size, yes. Others, me included, don't. In a single answer: we don't.

Yes, it is going to change how I feel about it, man. Knowing the sensor is big makes me be less exigent about seeing a smaller lens. I take the sensor size/body/lens into consideration. I do prefer a bit bigger lens, but if this camera were a 1", for instance, but having the same proportions and the lens the same zoom range (and extending outwards the same amount), I wouldn't mind the lens size the same way I mind the X30, because I know it would require more technology to the lens and maybe even less aperture.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2014 at 17:20 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? (320 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The problem with this kind of cameras is that the body looks big compared with the lens (or the other way around). The front lens element would be larger if it came with a 1-inch sensor and it would look even better (or perfect), I guess. You know, from 2/3" to 1" is not that a big step upwards, even considering costs, since 1-in sensors are widely produced already.

"Do we really need the Fuji X30?" Perhaps those who missed the bandwagon, are curious to see how better such small sensors have become, or simply want something nicely retro but doesn't know or care about sensor size, yes. Others, me included, don't. In a single answer: we don't.

I forgot to mention that that Nikon and Contax you mentioned are 135 format and their lenses have to be A LOT smaller if they want such compactness. Absurd comparison.

To each his own? Sure, man. I agree. I was just expressing my opinion. You are important to Fuji.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2014 at 16:44 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? (320 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The problem with this kind of cameras is that the body looks big compared with the lens (or the other way around). The front lens element would be larger if it came with a 1-inch sensor and it would look even better (or perfect), I guess. You know, from 2/3" to 1" is not that a big step upwards, even considering costs, since 1-in sensors are widely produced already.

"Do we really need the Fuji X30?" Perhaps those who missed the bandwagon, are curious to see how better such small sensors have become, or simply want something nicely retro but doesn't know or care about sensor size, yes. Others, me included, don't. In a single answer: we don't.

Weird is taking these Nikon and Contax for comparison. They are quite smaller and lighter than the X30 already, and their lenses look nice on them (and their lenses specs are different and their smaller housing design helps their lenses to look more visible). You are a little confused about my opinion. I wanted to say that these recent months we've seen a trend towards larger lenses. Not that I think bodies should be very small, because it may be bad to hold at times. I just think we have enough technology and demand to have cameras with larger sensors inside and brighter lenses. And I didn't say anything about a 'big honkin' lens on the front'. Just a little (a bit) larger.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 12:55 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? (320 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The problem with this kind of cameras is that the body looks big compared with the lens (or the other way around). The front lens element would be larger if it came with a 1-inch sensor and it would look even better (or perfect), I guess. You know, from 2/3" to 1" is not that a big step upwards, even considering costs, since 1-in sensors are widely produced already.

"Do we really need the Fuji X30?" Perhaps those who missed the bandwagon, are curious to see how better such small sensors have become, or simply want something nicely retro but doesn't know or care about sensor size, yes. Others, me included, don't. In a single answer: we don't.

What about the FZ1000? If you take this one and the Sony you mentioned in another comment, it becomes quite clear to me the addition of a 1-in sensor would not make this Fuji more expensive than the two. Even if its lens came a bit less bright ƒ/2.4-3.4 aperture, it would still sound more interesting. I myself rather prefer the more background blur of a 20 MP larger sensor to a smaller 12 MP.

The 12 MP one may give better high ISO noise results, but in both cases most people don't use the images at full scale, but half of it at most, and when that happens, this pixel count difference doesn't make any difference. I recognize the benefit of a smaller file size right out of the camera, though (but this doesn't seem to be a problem these days).

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 04:35 UTC
On article Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? (320 comments in total)

The problem with this kind of cameras is that the body looks big compared with the lens (or the other way around). The front lens element would be larger if it came with a 1-inch sensor and it would look even better (or perfect), I guess. You know, from 2/3" to 1" is not that a big step upwards, even considering costs, since 1-in sensors are widely produced already.

"Do we really need the Fuji X30?" Perhaps those who missed the bandwagon, are curious to see how better such small sensors have become, or simply want something nicely retro but doesn't know or care about sensor size, yes. Others, me included, don't. In a single answer: we don't.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 02:09 UTC as 61st comment | 8 replies

Welcome to the boring world of too politically correct and humanization of animals (I love animals, ok?), and bye-bye other hundreds, thousands, millions of interesting led-by-a-human animal selfies.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 03:12 UTC as 430th comment | 1 reply
On article Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 (366 comments in total)

I... I... I don't know what to say.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 01:50 UTC as 63rd comment | 3 replies
On article 1991 Nikon-Kodak hack was first DSLR in space (67 comments in total)

A correction: "...used 'an' RS-232..."

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2014 at 14:43 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
On article Hands on with the Pentax 645Z (707 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: Haha! Come on! A normal lens is 55mm?! I remember that used to be wideangle and normal 70mm. Alright, the digital doesn't need to be bind to film era sizes, but do you really consider a decent step up going from 43mm to 55mm? That's ridiculous to me. Alright, the camera is awesome, the system too, it's a size other brands use in their digital-era "medium" format, and I can't afford one, it's just that it's even a smaller step than from an APS to an FF!

My point is that a normal lens in the 645 format was 70mm in the film era, a normal one in the 135FF is a 43mm, and a normal one in the APS (1.55 x) format is 28mm, while the normal lens for the digital 645 is 55mm. I'm just trying to say the difference between the APS and 135FF is much more than between 135FF and this Pentax's 645 (and others) sensor size.

Just saying it's a small difference (compared). If at least it were the Kodak KAF 39000's size (50.7 x 39), it would mean a reasonable difference (a normal lens now being 64mm).

I might be complaining too much about that because I love the natural miniature effect of a large sensor (without the need of a digital edit or TS lens) when the lens aperture is wide open.

And, Petka, I thought before posting. It didn't make sense and a point to you and others, but I did. It's a concept based on facts. Perhaps not facts or a concept contextually important.

Just speaking my mind.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 13:18 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 (246 comments in total)

This will allow for more natural scenes that are trying to reproduce actions in the darkness, since the actors could play their roles with very little extra light or no light at all, making them to act even closer to real.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 12:11 UTC as 8th comment
On article Hands on with the Pentax 645Z (707 comments in total)

Haha! Come on! A normal lens is 55mm?! I remember that used to be wideangle and normal 70mm. Alright, the digital doesn't need to be bind to film era sizes, but do you really consider a decent step up going from 43mm to 55mm? That's ridiculous to me. Alright, the camera is awesome, the system too, it's a size other brands use in their digital-era "medium" format, and I can't afford one, it's just that it's even a smaller step than from an APS to an FF!

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 02:33 UTC as 132nd comment | 5 replies
Total: 175, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »