me_tarzan

Lives in Australia Queensland, Australia
Works as a Doctor
Joined on Jan 6, 2007

Comments

Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)

I've had the K10, K7, K5, K3 and just recently, I bought the K1.
It's no surprise to say the K1 is the best. What is surprising is by how much.
The thing that no-one seems to be commenting on is the overall apearance of the K1's photographs. The K1's pictures look like LARGE format film, ie 4"x5". To say that it's as good as medium format film would be unfair - it blows my Rollreiflex's results out of the water.

Am going to stop film photography? - No but that's because silver imaging serves other purposes for me. What would I use if I wanted to get the best possible portrait, low light shot or landscape picture? - This e
K1, every time.
It is truly fantastic and never fails to leave me in awe of its capabilities. Expensive Nikons and Canons are better for shooting a racing cars. I don't do that kind of photography. For *everything* else, the K1 is your best best.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 06:45 UTC as 115th comment | 1 reply

I've just bought a K1 and unequivocally state that this isn't just the most impressive camera out there but each time I take a picture, I'm left thinking that photography has no right to be this good. Apart from the DR, sharpness and noise, this camera has a most delightful feature:- the pictures look smoothly delightful. They have an analog look to them ie, is as if the pictures were shot on large format film - it really is that good.
In the subject of noise etc. ISO 204,000 is A silly claim, the results are awful, however 25,000 is outstandingly good. With my K series F1.2 lens, good quality pictures can be taken in light that is almost beyond human perception.
This K1 a game changer. I have a friend who has a Nikon 810. The K1 is *noticeably* better in almost every way. It's lighter and smaller and every lens I have is - effectively - image stabilized.
I can't think of a reason why anyone would want a camera other than a K1.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2016 at 21:29 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply

Big deal.

If you reduce infinity by 15%, you're still left with infinity. (trust me, it's true).
Dropping Hasselblad prices by 15% takes then from being absurdly, ridiculously and obscenely overpriced, down to absurdly, ridiculously and obscenely overpriced.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 07:14 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
On article DPReview recommends: Best smartphone cameras (370 comments in total)

I compared the IPhone 6 Plus with the Galaxy Note 4. To my mind, the Galaxy's phone was way better. Low light levels were coped with much better and, generally, I felt it was a no contest comparison. Not saying the iPhone was bad, just that the Note 4 was better.
It would be nice if they offered RAW shooting on the Note 4 and I'd like an optical zoom (of course). Maybe on the Note 6?????
I wonder if smartphones, will ever supplant DSLRS? I really think they will, one day.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2015 at 10:30 UTC as 106th comment | 2 replies

For heaven's sake. How much extra would it have cost Epson to put in automatic focus? How difficult would it have been to have glass film carriers to ensure perfect flatness of the film?
I'd hardly call LEDs and "improved" plastic carriers mind boggling. I'd call this a minor, minor, change.
Am I being unreasonable here?

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 01:28 UTC as 21st comment | 5 replies
On article Samsung Galaxy Camera in-depth review (82 comments in total)

Why, OH WHY, don't they offer a phone capability? - How much harder could it have been?

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2013 at 04:59 UTC as 25th comment | 3 replies

Imagine if Leica - in 1955 - had come out with a film camera that wouldn't accept color print or slide film... It would have seemed an absurdity. I realise that the analogy breaks down a little bit because Leica have optimised the Monochrom for B/W but will the results really justify this astronomical price? I would have thought a Pentax medium format digital SLR would still end up giving better results than the Leica - and of course the Pentax can take color if and when desired. The cost would end up the same....

Link | Posted on May 14, 2012 at 06:46 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply

Is it me or do most of the portraits in the M Monochrome section appear unfocused?
If they are focused, then the shrpness is woeful.

I'm an Leica "M" film user from a long way back and I would have been extremely disappointed if those samples had come from one of my M cameras. I realsie that the camera is probably pre-production but it is only 2 months pre-production and the camera should be sorted by now.
Am I being harsh? - No, at $8000 I expect impeccable results.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 09:35 UTC as 95th comment | 1 reply

This is analogous to the Men at Work riff in "Down under" that was found to have elements of an old nursery rhyme "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-04/men-at-work-plundered-kookaburra-riff-court/321624
There may have been a similarity but I'm damned if I can hear it. The nursery rhyme was composed in 1934 and someone - somehow - bought the rights to it recently. How can anyone buy a nursery rhyme after 75 years and then claim they've been ripped off? These people who cry "Plagiarism!" are (ab)using the courts to feather their own nests - The courts nowadays always oblige - like faithfully dogs. Megaupload's boss now is in jail for this. I don't like this thin end of the wedge. It's as if the law will soon be completely co-opted by the music and publishing industry to further their income and rob society of its freedoms. Preserve your rights and lobby your politicians & complain, before these parasites get a legal toehold.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 06:17 UTC as 302nd comment
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11