SMPhoto

SMPhoto

Lives in United States Austin US, United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at http://scottmonroephoto.com
Joined on Jun 26, 2007

Comments

Total: 112, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

pkcpga: Looks like it can be a great zoom for the new d500, nice to see a manufacturer still supporting apsc sized sensors since it's still a very popularly used sensor size.

I agree with that. I started to edit my post to mention that mirrorless was a bit of a different deal all together. I was also consider "rangefinder style" cameras like Fuji also a different market. Due to size, operation style, video capabilities, etc. mirrorless to me is really it's own category with it's own target audience. I was referring more to traditional Canon and Nikon APS-C vs FF DSLRs only.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 15:31 UTC
In reply to:

pkcpga: Looks like it can be a great zoom for the new d500, nice to see a manufacturer still supporting apsc sized sensors since it's still a very popularly used sensor size.

I never said "no serious photographers use APS-C". I said that most pros had moved to FF. Yes those manufactures are coming out with new high end APS-C bodies, that's a good thing, they had fallen off. Which is my point. Do you think that Nikon would have waited so long to update the 300 if that was a significant market demand for them. They went 7 years without a pro grade crop sensor camera, when in the same time they have brought out D4, D4S, D800, D810, D750, D600, D610 and DF. Just about every pro I know has at least one APS-C body, but most are using FF lenses on them they interchange with FF. I can't say that I know anyone that has only an APS-C body today that has a selection of high end lenses. Most use 1 or 2 kit lens and are not advanced shooters. I'm not saying that person isn't out there, just that it's more the exception than the norm. I think if a person is going to drop thousands on lenses, it's likely they are looking for the best IQ they can get, and that means FF.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2016 at 15:33 UTC
In reply to:

SMPhoto: I guess it would have increased the size and price of the lens somewhat, but it would have been nice if they could have gotten to 125 or so on the long end without having to make any IQ sacrifices. Would have made it a perfect APS-C equivalent of the traditional FF 70-200/2.8. Though it is also lacking the image stabilization that all of the modern 70-200s employ, and more reach would have made that omission a more obvious deficiency.

Possibly. I get that Sigma for thinking outside the box with some of it's new art lenses, and trying to put something a little different on the market. On the other hand, I'm a little confused that they are obviously trying to upscale their line up both in terms of optical quality and construction, so I find it a little odd that they are focusing on somewhat specialized lenses while leaving their mainstays as aging, notably inferior designs to competitors. It would be nice to see them come out with a Art series 24-70 and 70-200 FF 2.8 lenses for example.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2016 at 04:00 UTC
In reply to:

SMPhoto: I guess it would have increased the size and price of the lens somewhat, but it would have been nice if they could have gotten to 125 or so on the long end without having to make any IQ sacrifices. Would have made it a perfect APS-C equivalent of the traditional FF 70-200/2.8. Though it is also lacking the image stabilization that all of the modern 70-200s employ, and more reach would have made that omission a more obvious deficiency.

Why? I may be wrong, I'm not a optics engineer, but I would think that it would be similar in size/complexity to designing a FF 70-200 2.8, assuming of course that the lens is only required to support an APS-C sized sensor. It would be roughly equivalent to the 35-100 f2 oly lens (which admittedly has a slightly smaller image circle to support0 which is smaller than a typical 70-200 2.8 FF lens.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 15:50 UTC

I guess it would have increased the size and price of the lens somewhat, but it would have been nice if they could have gotten to 125 or so on the long end without having to make any IQ sacrifices. Would have made it a perfect APS-C equivalent of the traditional FF 70-200/2.8. Though it is also lacking the image stabilization that all of the modern 70-200s employ, and more reach would have made that omission a more obvious deficiency.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2016 at 22:28 UTC as 14th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

pkcpga: Looks like it can be a great zoom for the new d500, nice to see a manufacturer still supporting apsc sized sensors since it's still a very popularly used sensor size.

Cameracist: I doubt that would account for much of what mosc is getting at. 8-10 years ago that would have been true, as a lot of pros and most serious amateurs had moved from film to APS-C., but since then most professional shooters, and a lot of serious amateurs have moved to FF (or APS-H that requires FF lenses). Wildlife buffs are probably a notable exception. A huge percentage of APS-C body sales the last 5 years have been low end kits that never have the base lens removed. I'd guess the average FF shooter has around 3 lenses, some many more.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2016 at 22:23 UTC
In reply to:

Gil Knutson: Wonderful to see everyone excited about this event. But how many actually know the history of it. The "real" Firefall was an event that started in 1872 and continued to January 1968.
From Wikipedia, "The Yosemite Firefall was a summer time event that began in 1872 and continued for almost a century, in which burning hot embers were spilled from the top of Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park to the valley 3,000 feet below. From a distance it appeared as a glowing waterfall...."

The present event is just a shadow of what that actual event used to be, for nearly 100 years. I never saw it and actually only became aware of it because there was a group named Firefall named after the actual firefall event in Yosemete. They brought out an album in 1978 with the same name. I liked them, and still do, and the picture on the album was really cool, I thought. If interested, you can find the Wiki articles on the event and the group. Just type in the obvious.

I have to respectfully disagree. Since it was discontinued just before I was born, I never saw the man-made Glacier Point event either, but I have stood absolutely awe-struck watching the natural phenomenon, humbled by it's surreal beauty. Watching as chunks of ice broke off, floated down seemingly forever as they made their way over 2000' to the bottom, glowing like embers the whole way. I'm not certain if you have experienced it in full glow, but to me, and I've been to a lot of beautiful places on this earth, it's not a shadow of anything.I can't imagine feeling the same awe in the face of nature by watching some guys light a bonfire and push it over a cliff with a tractor.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 14:45 UTC
On photo Skogafoss Iceland in the Landscape Photo with a Living Foreground Element. challenge (10 comments in total)
In reply to:

Great Bustard: Damn. Just damn. That said, I'd clone out those seven bright specks near the top of the waterfall to the left.

I don't think the birds look more like gnats, though I can see how you might want to clean it up by removing.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 03:09 UTC
On article Nikon's New D5 and D500 Push the Boundaries of DSLR (737 comments in total)
In reply to:

td_100: Nikon & Canon in denial, heads in the sand, these cameras are evolutions of old tech. I shoot A Nikon D800 and bought a Sony A7 to try and I now reach for that instead of lugging the heavy dslr. The Sony is far from perfect, but it's a big shame that Nikon are not using their great experience and technology to produce cutting edge pro and enthusiast mirrorless full frame cameras and lenses. Wake up Nikon the games moved on and your being left behind.

To me this argument seems out of place. I think those arguing the superiority of and inevitable ascension of mirrorless systems, then back pedaling with "I'm not necessarily talking about sports", should save it for replacements for other pro cameras, like the D810. The D5 and 500 are clearly aimed at low light action shooters, so why bash Nikon for bringing out cameras designed to do that.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 21:46 UTC
In reply to:

Frank_BR: Why doesn't Sony have so far the option of a lossless RAW format? Most critics say that this is just a Sony error, but the question is not so simple. To try to understand better, I did an experiment. I took the RAW files from DPR Studio Scene for Sony 7RII and Nikon D810, and compressed them with WinRAR. The results were as follows:

Camera.....RAW original....WinRAR compr
7RII .........41.4MB...........38.3MB
D810 ........74.3MB..........43.9MB

WinRAR is a lossless compression, so the RARs files contain the same information as the RAWs from camera.

Surprisingly, WinRAR managed to reduce to almost half the size of NEF file, but failed to appreciably reduce the size of Sony RAW. This shows that NEF is inefficient since it produces much larger files than necessary. There is room for a better lossless RAW coding. I draw the conclusion that a reason for Sony has been reluctant to use a lossless RAW coding is that the current processor technology does not allow high efficiency of coding.

Memory is cheap, wth does Sony care if uncompressed RAW files are huge, let people choose.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2015 at 14:52 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

Arkienkeli,
I get what you are saying about Petka's comment, and I get that in film days, emulsion was emulsion and now bigger may not necessarily mean better, especially if "better" is narrowly defined as higher resolution. But it certainly SHOULD mean better. ie Assuming a manufacturer has access to solid sensor technology, and cost isn't an overriding factor, if they are choosing to create a larger, lower density sensor, it should be because they feel they are gaining IQ advantages with larger sensor sites, (such as higher DR, lower noise, etc.) that offer more advantage to their target market than increased resolution would. There's no reason that Leica couldn't put a 70 or 80 mp sensor in this camera with the same per pixel image quality as a FF DSLR. The same advantage that MF had in film.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 14:42 UTC
In reply to:

Lassoni: I'm sorry but this thing look rather ugly

Well...true to an extent, but looks matters at least a little to everyone. That said, I think it looks clean, serious and not bad looking at all. Perfect for target audience. Better looking than my D810. There was a reason MF cameras with interchangable backs look the way they do, but I can't say I ever really liked the way they looked or handled.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 14:26 UTC
On article Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

guydr: A lot of whiners here over the VF, and why should you mention it one time if you can mention it 40 times. You're right it is a stupid decision to leave an small VF out (like in SX60) ,but it is not the end of the world because not everybody feels the need to hold the camera at arms lenght. If you're not have intrest in the camera iust for that, move on to the next.
Something else here in my country it is 949€ for the camera and 1149€ for camera + EVF. 1149€ is the same price of RX100m4 here. The RX10m2 cost 1599€, so 450€ more is not a bit more expencive, it's huge.
I'm gone buy one for the 600mm reach and the water resistant, but the price has to drop.

"not everybody feels the need to hold the camera at arms lenght" is the whole point of people wanting an EVF...

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 14:13 UTC
On article Nikon D810A: An astrophotographer's perspective (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Wonderful images but this is not the right application for this camera. Those are more landscape than they are astrophotography. Those pictures did not benefit from the “a” in the 810A at all and it is wrong to claim that these pictures demonstrate the cameras full capabilities.

You need to photograph objects with Hydrogen Alpha reflections like the Horse Head Nebula, M16, The Rosette Nebula, and M42 through a telescope to show why the 810A costs so much more than its non-astrophotography counterparts.

This article was nothing more than one guy showing off his night time landscape pictures and masquerading them as astrophotography. That is a disservice to the 810a which is truly a quite capable astro camera when placed in the right hands and in the right location.

mpgxsvcd, post some astro shots in your gallery, I'd love to see what can be achieved without spending a fortune

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2015 at 13:53 UTC
On article Nikon D810A: An astrophotographer's perspective (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Wonderful images but this is not the right application for this camera. Those are more landscape than they are astrophotography. Those pictures did not benefit from the “a” in the 810A at all and it is wrong to claim that these pictures demonstrate the cameras full capabilities.

You need to photograph objects with Hydrogen Alpha reflections like the Horse Head Nebula, M16, The Rosette Nebula, and M42 through a telescope to show why the 810A costs so much more than its non-astrophotography counterparts.

This article was nothing more than one guy showing off his night time landscape pictures and masquerading them as astrophotography. That is a disservice to the 810a which is truly a quite capable astro camera when placed in the right hands and in the right location.

True, this isn't true astrophotography in the sense of deep space objects through a telescope, but I think to refer to the photographer sharing his experiences as a "guy showing off his night time landscape pictures and masquerading them as astrophotography" is unwarranted. I don't see anywhere that he refers to himself as an "Astrophotographer" or calls his work "astrophotography". He refers to the camera as being designed for astrophotography, then goes on to describe how these features have impacted his night sky landscape work. This is meaningful information to landscape photographers.

While this article may not be useful to pure astrophotographers, I think your complaint should be directed at the editors who titled the article "an Astrophotographers Perspective", not with Adam Woodworth. Had the article been pitched as "Is the 810A worth it for nighttime landscape photography?" or something like that, it would have been better received I feel.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 13:54 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1140 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: Cool camera, but it seems like it fits such a small niche market of wealthy hobbyists that I'm curious what sales numbers will ultimately look like. I would think very low volume, which unfortunately is probably a cost driver in itself.

Little known fact: CP/M was created by "Digital Research" but the company was actually incorporated as "Intergalactic Digital Research"...tell me that guy wasn't a Trekie lol.

We may have gotten off topic slightly..

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 17:15 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1140 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: Cool camera, but it seems like it fits such a small niche market of wealthy hobbyists that I'm curious what sales numbers will ultimately look like. I would think very low volume, which unfortunately is probably a cost driver in itself.

Yeah, in the late 80s I worked in a repair shop during college doing board level repair on the PC and PC XTs, Kaypros, Compaq portables, Apples... the old Compaq and Kaypro portables that were the size of a big suitcase and had a 6" screen are the most hillarious by today's standards.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 15:42 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1140 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: Cool camera, but it seems like it fits such a small niche market of wealthy hobbyists that I'm curious what sales numbers will ultimately look like. I would think very low volume, which unfortunately is probably a cost driver in itself.

Yeah, 64 was 1982, first one I had, however in 1980 the Commodore VIC20 was the TRS80's main competition, and was the first computer to sell over 1 million units. I almost got the venerable Timex Sinclair in 1981 that sold for $99 but parent's got me a 64 the next year instead. Big gap in the price between these type computers and the Apple/IBM machines of the day, which were generally limited to those who were pretty serious about it, and had some money, much like the Q.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 20:57 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1140 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: Cool camera, but it seems like it fits such a small niche market of wealthy hobbyists that I'm curious what sales numbers will ultimately look like. I would think very low volume, which unfortunately is probably a cost driver in itself.

Wealthy is likely too strong of a word. I'll settle for "well off". I wasn't, which is why I had a Commadore 64...

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 20:44 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1140 comments in total)
In reply to:

SMPhoto: Cool camera, but it seems like it fits such a small niche market of wealthy hobbyists that I'm curious what sales numbers will ultimately look like. I would think very low volume, which unfortunately is probably a cost driver in itself.

HowaboutRAW,
Actually I think we are probably saying the same thing from different perspectives. I'm actually not assuming ppl will buy for paying work, exactly the opposite, it's simply not versatile enough to justify cost. I agree that a non-pro with very high interest in extremely high image quality (at 28mm only) in a small package, who has enough income to justify the purchase to themselves will be interested, but that's exactly who I called "wealthy hobbyists" in the original post. I just don't think there are that many of them out there, so I expect sales to be very low. That said, those that fit that description and buy will probably be very happy.

While no doubt some of the Leica and Zeiss prime glass is spectacular, I do disagree that lack/expense of available high quality glass would drive someone to the Q over a high end DSLR. That's like buying a 911 over a 7 Series because it has better tires. Completely different purposes.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 15:50 UTC
Total: 112, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »