Ignat Solovey

Ignat Solovey

Lives in Russian Federation Moscow, Russian Federation
Works as a photojournalist
Joined on Jul 24, 2004

Comments

Total: 385, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Shooting with a used DSLR kit that cost me just $80 (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

arqomx: I was lucky that I started RAW editing with a 2014-ish cameras.. wonder what it would be like to work with older camera's RAW.. the article says limited dynamic range to work with, but just how far?

@Chez Wimpy 350D and 20D used different sensors.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 22:40 UTC
In reply to:

Ignat Solovey: Hype, hype everywhere. Fifteen hundred bucks... that makes roughly 90 thousand Russian rubles or about 40 thousand Ukrainian hrivnas. With any luck that will buy you a complete outfit of almost any non-highly-collectible manual-focus Nikon, or, for that matter, any 35mm or medium format film camera with a decent outfit of lenses. Even a Leica to fap! Not necessarily it will be used at all, there's plenty of new old stock. That may end someday, of course, but if even more than a century-old BNIB/NOS Graflexes and Icas still surface here and there, and price tags are not necessarily extortionate in all cases, I wonder about customer base of such projects. Ok, there are Japanese geeks who buy the most unimaginable stuff and pay weird sums for that, but outside Japan... Well, functionally identical BNIB/NOS Kiev-17 costs $100 tops. This thing should have titanium composite all-proof body and ultra-durable shutter, and be decorated with luxury materials to justify such outrageous price tag.

@gcamen Kiev is completely different camera, not sharing absolutely anything with Zenit except the fact it is a 35mm film SLR.
@Michiel953 you probably had a TOE'd export version of Zenit E. Actually only the first Zenits (original, S, 3, 3M, 3S) were competitive and decently reliable for their class and era.

Trust me, I'm Russian and there is no Russian camera I don't know about, and with very few of them I don't have any hands-on experience.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 12:38 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: Nikon F4 is like <$200. Autofocus, 4fps burst, quite small, etc. How is this better?

It is mechanical. You know, soon there will be the second generation of kids who never knew that everything existed in analog form. That's a huge novelty for them, more so than all things digital were a novelty for us. At least we had sci-fi writers to predict what we have now, sometimes with decent precision, and modern-day YAs, teens and tweens take bits and bytes for granted... as well as automated mass production. After the fall of the USSR, when we had Kinder Surprise chocolate eggs appear at Russian shops, I (being 10 years old) wondered why did they stress in their TV ads that enclosed toys were individually hand-painted: machine production seemed to be of higher quality to me, and I didn't understand why should I pay premium for sloppy brush work, exclusive or not. Yet, it seems that some writers were right and it's whatever kind of “personal touch” that matters, not quality or functionality.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 09:54 UTC
In reply to:

Photoman: Why???

Just because. For the same reason there are $15'000 (per piece) audiophile speakers with membranes made of some part of banana peels, and silver-copper audio cables that cost $2000 for one meter ($350 for each 24K gold-plated connector), and there are people who by such stuff. Interestingly enough, not all of them are golden boys of sheikhs and Chinese nouveau-riches, some are quite shrewd businessmen who definitely know the cost of money and how to spend it.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 09:42 UTC
In reply to:

kewlguy: Only Leica is allowed to pull this off

Hasselblad too... did. They managed to slap pieces of rare and expensive wood onto Sony cameras and market that as super-premium products. Lunar and Stellar that were. Also, Hasselblad H-1, H-2 and XPan were re-badged Fuji cameras (although the original things weren't exactly cheap either, so it was sort of a fair play).

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 09:33 UTC

Hype, hype everywhere. Fifteen hundred bucks... that makes roughly 90 thousand Russian rubles or about 40 thousand Ukrainian hrivnas. With any luck that will buy you a complete outfit of almost any non-highly-collectible manual-focus Nikon, or, for that matter, any 35mm or medium format film camera with a decent outfit of lenses. Even a Leica to fap! Not necessarily it will be used at all, there's plenty of new old stock. That may end someday, of course, but if even more than a century-old BNIB/NOS Graflexes and Icas still surface here and there, and price tags are not necessarily extortionate in all cases, I wonder about customer base of such projects. Ok, there are Japanese geeks who buy the most unimaginable stuff and pay weird sums for that, but outside Japan... Well, functionally identical BNIB/NOS Kiev-17 costs $100 tops. This thing should have titanium composite all-proof body and ultra-durable shutter, and be decorated with luxury materials to justify such outrageous price tag.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 09:19 UTC as 63rd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Ignat Solovey: I wonder if their next step is ceasing Russian operations (although here Nikon has resellers and partners). Good news for Canon and Sony in Brazil, what can I say... and bad news for Brazilian Nikon shooters.
As well as for China... I guess they're slaughtering a chicken that brings golden eggs. A lot of Chinese professionals favor Nikon... It means all of them will go to Hong Kong for their purchases and service.

Ok

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 00:16 UTC

I wonder if their next step is ceasing Russian operations (although here Nikon has resellers and partners). Good news for Canon and Sony in Brazil, what can I say... and bad news for Brazilian Nikon shooters.
As well as for China... I guess they're slaughtering a chicken that brings golden eggs. A lot of Chinese professionals favor Nikon... It means all of them will go to Hong Kong for their purchases and service.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 22:26 UTC as 131st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Najinsky: Can't believe some people are being so blasé about this.

"Though the chance of any one device igniting is slim, such fires are now occurring once every 10 or 11 days on a flight somewhere in the U.S."

“Battery fires are particularly dangerous because they burn very hot, they can emit toxic byproducts, and they tend to flare up even after it seems like they’ve been extinguished,”

"The problem, however, is that moving a burning battery can be dangerous. In addition to giving off intense heat, the battery could explode, spewing sticky red-hot chemicals that cling to the skin. “It’s a lot like napalm,” Cox says."

https://www.consumerreports.org/product-safety/whats-behind-the-increase-in-lithium-ion-battery-fires-on-planes/

Maybe as a frequent traveler who has experienced a number of onboard incidents (but no battery fire, yet) I probably find this more alarming than non-travelers do.

+1 to carrying all gear in cabin at all times.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

StevenE: "High risk" and yet not one incident.... ever. Hmmm.
Liquids are already banned, shouldn't this include nail polish remover, hand sanitizers, etc ...
This is excessive

@Najinsky If TSA allows aerosols onboard it means they don't do their job at all. Although, from what I've heard about the TSA, the most insane Russian security guard looks like a Nobel prize winner in comparison (hopefully I'm wrong)... yet I never witnessed sadistic or trollous aviation security officer in Russia or Europe, they are always respectful and always present valid reasons. It's just St. Petersburg Pulkovo and Berlin Schönefeld terminal security can be sort of brain-eating, but, well, I don't mind since I never carry anything that isn't allowed by safety rules. Ah, yes: Chinese banned cigarette lighters long ago (not only in airplanes but at sports venues as well), but they reportedly lost a military plane because of faulty propane lighter exploded in a hold and, well, you have to be aware of certain local circumstances like rules-defying smokers who don't give a damn about whatever rules or bans when they want a puff... (P.S.: frequent flyer, aviation journalist, do smoke)

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 18:11 UTC
In reply to:

Sivakumar V: FAA says that the Lithium-ion batteries caught fire near a hand sanitizer, a nail polish remover or aerosol then the fire causes explosion that is fatal. The combination only is deadly. Hence the baggage should not contain materials like aerosols which can spread fire more quickly than Lithium ion batteries.

I wonder, why the hell they allow the idea of aerosols in checked or carry-on at all? Pressurized sprays onboard are long banned by IATA...

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 18:01 UTC
In reply to:

Jarpen: ban the airplanes !!!

Oh, that looks more like Rosaviatsia (Russian civil aviation watchdog and choker) than good old US FAA...

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 18:00 UTC

Check my cameras and lenses?! NEVER EVER. Carry-on only. Moreover, in Russia most companies don't care about slight overweight of you carry-on, as well as about slight oversize. Very few (actually, only Pobeda and Azimut) really use measurement bins for carry-on. I had no problems with excess weight, size or number of my carry-on items just stating “professional photography (or TV, depending on what I have on me) gear” even in the EU with airlines like easyJet, airberlin and vueling... and even Ryanair.

Last year, when the Li-Ion/Li-Pol ban was already in effect, I had TWENTY NINE AND A HALF KILOGRAMS OF CARRY-ON (65 lbs) on SVO-LED-SCW and back (Aeroflot/Rossiya, tickets by Aeroflot)... with just 9.5-kilo (20 lbs) compact suitcase checked in. I have valid press ID, plenty of Li-Ion batteries, am suitably bold, know the rules and rights, and have some spare “cabin baggage/carry-on” tags ;)

Although, the USA in some aspects is sort of a different planet compared to good old Europe ;).

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 17:56 UTC as 48th comment
On article Shooting with a used DSLR kit that cost me just $80 (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

arqomx: I was lucky that I started RAW editing with a 2014-ish cameras.. wonder what it would be like to work with older camera's RAW.. the article says limited dynamic range to work with, but just how far?

With Canon (and older Canon especially) it depends, much more than with Sony or other sensors with greater dynamic range, on general amount of light available and its spectral contents. You can get away with that on a bright sunny day, but woe to you on a dark city street. My rule is “when in doubt, HDR” (manual from raws), especially if the scene allows that, and I still use flash (never direct) a lot when there is no way to get away with an HDR. Actually, even with more recent cameras I get my hands on, I use bounced or diffused+bounced, or side-positioned flash sometimes as well... Anyway, in many cases and with any camera I use whatever additional lighting, be it strobe, incandescent or LED, to shape light rather than to add it, and ⅓ to 2EV stop benefit is just an added bonus.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 08:20 UTC
In reply to:

VEK: With development of mirrorless cameras I want cameras without center placed viewfinders so i do not have to press my nose to the backside.
Make alle mirrorless cameras with the viewfinders at the left side!

Since I always shoot with my left eye (being 100% right-handed) and have quite protruding nose, I can't agree with your point.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 08:10 UTC
On article Shooting with a used DSLR kit that cost me just $80 (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

arqomx: I was lucky that I started RAW editing with a 2014-ish cameras.. wonder what it would be like to work with older camera's RAW.. the article says limited dynamic range to work with, but just how far?

In 2017 the newest camera I use is from 2012, and what I work with is late 2009 EOS 1D Mark IV... It's not all that bad if you know what and how to do ;) My friend and colleague is still pretty much happy with his 10-year-old D700. Our customers are quite happy as well.
Of course I'd like to have the perks of Nikon D850, but €8000 (or €15000, considering the supertelephoto I occasionally need, if checking all the boxes matters) for system switch, let alone the 15-year-old tactile habits... unrealistic for me. Even less than getting a 1DX Mark II or 5D Mark IV and updating almost all of my lenses.
It's not that older cameras degrade, it's the newer ones that are unbelievably better (or more convenient ergonomically, although ergonimics is mostly a pain with newer stuff) for some shooting scenarios...

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 08:13 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: This toy ruins the name of Yashica brand.

@Bobthearch I'm not willing to pay for any kind of hype. Luckily, hype mostly isn't about gear or photography, so I don't care about it, or, when I find some hyped things useful for me, I buy some of them when the initial wow-effect is worn off and people sell it cheap. I can't afford much anyway.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 07:25 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: So it's perfectly intelligent and OK to spend $1500 on a camera that takes pictures that are 99% identical to the camera you spent $1200 for just 2 years ago? But someone spending $140 for a little fun is a "fool" and "what's wrong with the industry" and reeks of "crass consumerism"?

Seems a bit hypocritical, maybe?

@tkbslc Heh. I spent $5000 on a camera body seven years ago... and you know what? I'm still using this camera almost every day. It feeds me... and probably will for another year or two.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 22:58 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: This toy ruins the name of Yashica brand.

@Bobthearch they may eventually end up like that. If not... we may add the third infinite thing to the infinity of the Universe and people's foolishness that were compared by Einstein: the ugliness of hype.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 22:44 UTC
In reply to:

FencerPTS: Yet another camera gear company with a) so little faith in their product they want the users to for the entire bill for development, or b) such a bad business plan they can't get any investors to back it.

@Satyaa: There is no problem 3D-printing something like Holga, but I'll watch at you doing the same with aluminum gears that should be pressed or cut, steel springs that should be rolled, electronics that should be photolithographed, glass lenses (in a viewfinder) that should be cut, polished and coated in a clean room environment. Don't believe in 3D printing too much yet: while it is fine for melt plastics and powders (plastic, concrete, rubber and yes, even metal sometimes), it isn't practical to use it for everything. It's just another technology that isn't universal. Compare it to jet or nuclear propulsion: back in 1950s there were ideas of everything nuclear, down to household furnaces; decade later it was all about jets. There were even proofs of concepts, yet implications of these technologies make them absolutely not worthy beyond fenced-off areas. Maybe that will return, like electric cars do (100–110 years ago electric car engines really rivaled gasoline ones), but unlikely.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2017 at 20:55 UTC
Total: 385, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »