iae aa eia

iae aa eia

Lives in Brazil Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Works as a Coordinator and EFL Teacher
Joined on Jan 13, 2011
About me:

I was born in João Pessoa, PB, Brazil. I lived in a few other cities, but always in the Northeastern region. I got frustrated about how marginalized the professions I had chosen are in Brazil and ended up never going to college. I worked briefly as a photographer. I loved it, but since I have never been a very engaging person socially speaking (probably due to depression I found out I had much time later) and could not get any help (the closer I got to it were people thinking about it more like a laziness issue, and convincing me of that, making me isolate myself more and more), and I ended up giving up. Then, I worked with motorcycle sales and also with photo shops operating minilabs.

I then got involved with the church of Christ and I started to be able to look at myself in a clearer way and realize the problems I had and what I needed to do. During this time, I improved my English a lot by often being in contact with Americans, and I was encouraged to teach English. After about six years as a teacher, I got the opportunity to have my own business, a franchise especialized in private English classes. Although I had got a whole lot better, but still aware of my insuficiently high and constant positive mood, that kept me from continue being a photographer back then, I now work with a person that is an expert in marketing, the kind of profissional that, if I had back then, I would have been a 20-year-career photographer by now. Along with this business, came the first opportunity to leave the Northeastern region of Brazil.

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 help me promote my work, just as described in the previous paragraph. I don't work with 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-letter-sized books. Each one of the magazine-sized books was divided into 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 in them. One was about people, the other was about women, another one, about nature, and one 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.

In 1993, I was living 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 that!" 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: 204, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Androole: Pretty interesting! I've often wondered if this was ever going to happen.

Unfortunately, I don't imagine there are that many lenses that are well suited to this exercise. Fast medium format lenses are as rare as hen's teeth and cost a fortune. In the end, you'll be converting mostly large, heavy f2.8 lenses into large, heavy f2 lenses, without the resolution advantages of medium format.

I really enjoy medium format, but I think I'm happier using the lenses on the 6x7 negatives they were designed for.

Considering the reducer is worth buying qualitywise, there is an interesting benefit with a 2.8 or even a little darker lens, which is the shallower depth-of-field, that can make people, for instance, look halfway miniaturized without the need to use a tilt-shift lens.

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2015 at 18:00 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: It would be nice to see more Chinese companies that are actually creators rather than cloners.

It doesn't make any sense to defend the Chinese or put Americans at a similar level with the Chinese. Not only they cheaply and craply clone things, but their workers, when compared, can be considered almost slaves. Besides, China is a communist country. No comparison at all. I can buy a product made in China, but if it is a brand from a normal nation (any capitalist country), otherwise, only if it is a product I know is very likely to be authentic or hard to find from another brand. But, you know, sometimes a Chinese company buys the right to produce a previous generation of a product from another brand. In this case, that'd be fine, IMO.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2015 at 02:30 UTC

That's fine if Ricoh doesn't mind capitalizing on the mirrorless format. It seems to be a rich company that sells other kinds of products and that can play with their money, taking from one business to cover the other. That's what calls my attention about companies that don't have a very specific kind of business as their only one. I would understand if it was something new, new technology or something. Sony is one example of an exception. Produces a lot of different things, but plays in the photography area to capitalize.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 02:24 UTC as 74th comment

In not very practical terms, Lytro is more interesting.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2015 at 02:08 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply

People need a reference in terms of mechanical or electronic or digital technology luxury. Leica is a reference in luruxy. Humans need that. One has to be the best. Exclusivity pushes boundaries. It's like a jewel. Leica is a jewel. Just like an ancient monument, or a Maybach car, too. It's a nature's work of art through humans. It's care, precision, timing, dedication, praise, and patience—a desire for magnificence—at their best.

Hey, Leica; did you like my comment? I need a camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 16:56 UTC as 38th comment | 2 replies

This sensor is incredbly sharp and the colors look the deepest. That's a pity Sigma couldn't find the best balance between the sensor and the rest of the camera. Not that I expect it to be cheap, but just that the rest of the camera lives up to the sensor quality.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 16:34 UTC as 3rd comment

What a wonderful gallery! I like cars very much and I really appreciated seeing those photos. 50 megapixels is quite a hard work for a lens, especially at the corners. That's going to force themselves to try to match the sensor, make their aberrations at the corners less pronounced.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2015 at 02:59 UTC as 32nd comment | 2 replies
On article Canon announces EF 50mm F1.8 STM lens (309 comments in total)

I think Canon should invest in addind the stabilization feature in every single lens, even wide-angles, even if less effective in these. It may be a silly observation, but I can't read 50mm and not think of full-frame. It's as if this focal length never belonged to any other category. 85mm is twice the standard focal length of full frame, so why don't they just launch a 56 or 60mm instead? These numbers weren't common in full-frame and thus they would be more easily associated to the APS format. As I said, maybe this is a silly comment. I just wanted to speak my mind.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2015 at 14:46 UTC as 30th comment | 11 replies
On article Nikon D5500 Review (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

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

Quite a nonsense comment yours.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 03:27 UTC
On article Nikon D5500 Review (409 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
Total: 204, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »