Lives in Australia Cleveland, Australia
Works as a Photographer/Editor
Joined on Aug 30, 2011
About me:

Old enough to be a fossil, intact memory and concentrating on Auto wrapping, wallpaper printing and Canvas masterpieces


Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Orion DVC210 DLSR Crane Review (43 comments in total)

Ahhh. Lets see now.

1960. Buy some film shot 32 images, wait a week for the resulting prints.
Movie? Sure, shoot 8mm (actually 16mm film sliced in half). wait a fortnight for the processing and invite the crew over for a 'film night'.

2014. Buy a DSLR then some lenses then some flash cards then some software and a computer, monitor and printer. Spend 6 months figuring it all out. Shoot 1000 images and throw out 950 of them.
Movie? Sure... Flick a switch. shoot a few minutes at a time. Same computer more software then more gear then better camera, more gear again and have you got the picture yet?

I've published magazines for 30 years. The first one was on an Arari computer and laser printer... Total cost? $1200. Today I use a seriously expensive PC and even more seriously expensive software and printer.

Nothing I do today is any different (except for the color) than I did 30 years ago except I upgrade my software and PC annually and earn 20% of what I used to make!

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 04:26 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

backayonder: I read last week that a photographer who took pictures of a crocodile in Australia eating a snake has made over $27,000 from image sales. So why hasn't this guy?

Maybe there were not snakes to be eaten?

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 11:30 UTC
In reply to:

ryuito: Profoundly asinine reactions. I would have thought it's a form of compliment if people used low res copies for whatever purpose. Printed photographs can be used in a similar manner just as easily.

If you made high resolution copies available online, I would think it would be used. You're not supposed to upload high resolution images unless you were giving it away for all to use freely.

As for disbelief and fruitfulnes, I'm not quite sure what the person was expecting. The internet is exactly like the real world. A little more honest due to its perceived anonymity and hence more obviously stupid I suppose.

I think in your assumptions about "the Internet" being more honest than the real world you are losing the point that anonymous people jealous of your work/comment/ability/creativity or whatever can cause untold permanent damage to a person's business.

A New Zealand photographer's wife was similarly defamed to the point she had a heart attack over it.The person responsible abandoned his own wife and children in an attempt to escape the law when quite by chance his identity was revealed when he posted an email message to a newsgroup instead of the person it was intended for.

So before you presume honesty on the Internet, just look at all the aliases being used here and the ease of joining a forum. Anyone intent on doing harm can easily do it and get off Scott free with very little knowledge of networking.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2014 at 07:58 UTC
On article Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lab Test Review (267 comments in total)
In reply to:

tabloid: f5-f6.3
Make sure you only use it on a sunny day.

You would think that in this day and age of technology they could do a 150-600 @ f2.8

Wheres my Brownie 127

Well now... I just shot 250 frames of a Aussie rules football game using the 150-600 lens exclusively on a 610 Nikon body. F8 at 1/2000 second, ISO 1600 and guess what?
With a modern, full frame camera ISO 1600 is no real noise problem. I slowed the ISO down to 400 in an attempt to get ball smear but with shutters speed of 1/250th there was to much of the scene blurred so I upped it to ISO 800 and found a happy compromise. Using a Monopod and switching off the stabilizer produced almost instant focus. I'm beginning to love this lens. I'd post some shots but I haven't figured out how to include them yet.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 13:58 UTC
On article Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography (156 comments in total)

I've used a 'model helicopter' as well as a home made drone that holds a compact camera. Even the most expensive of the expensive cannot capture rock steady footage however... I also own a program called Mercalli 3.0. The only purpose of this software is to fix the shakes and quivers from videos.

I'd suggest if you intend to buy less than Parrot quad, you are only buying frustration. Even the Parrot needs post shoot stabilization to produce any watchable video. Run it through Mercalli -- even the $50 do-everything but nothing properly app designed for fixing go-pro's terrible images and a whole new world opens up to you.

I first discovered simple video and its flaws when I used a smart phone to record my daughter's Camaro for buyer in another state. I'm fairly steady with heavy cameras but smart phones are another thing again. It wasn't until after the car was sold I discovered Mercalli V2 as a plugin for Vegas Pro edit software. I'll put up Camaro film and start a thread later.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 03:57 UTC as 14th comment

I just ordered the Samsung S4 zoom. It had nothing to do with your comments. I didn't actually find the shootout report until after I'd placed my order.

Nothing in your review has changed my mind. At $299 AUD compared to the almost $900AUD for an iPhone, I am happy to have a camera that I can make phone calls with rather than have a phone I can take photos with.

I'd love to have the waterproofing of some higher priced units but an umbrella is likely to be a good investment if I decide to shoot in the rain!

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 02:28 UTC as 7th comment
On article Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lab Test Review (267 comments in total)
In reply to:

Yochi23: Hi ,
I am posting again my question.
I am using now the Sigma 150-500 with my Nikon D7000 mainly for birds photography
Am using it without tripod. The focus is very slow but otherwise it's OK up to 400 mm
I want to upgrade to the new Tamron. Lab results are OK but I would very muck like to hear someone who actually tried both lenses specially before going on a safari.
Is the focus much faster? Are the result on 500-600 OK

Many thanks

You'll probably find the Tamron has considerably better engineering in it than the Sigma. Having said that, I'll go on the say my short experience with the Tamron makes me feel it is best suited to a full frame camera. I'm not getting as good results with my D7000 as I get from the D610. You might also find the pixel density of the D7000 is why.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2014 at 16:32 UTC
On article Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lab Test Review (267 comments in total)

I have one of these lenses. They've been in very short supply in Australia but I managed to get one by acting quickly when I heard a shipment was due a few weeks ago.

I've got both D7000 and D610 Nikon cameras. After using it to capture my favorite kookaburras high in a tree (using the 610) and later attempting to use it in an equally useful way in the D7000 I've formed the opinion this lens is best suited to a FX (full frame) sensor camera.

SO far the inability to auto focus from close to distant without help is the only issue I've discovered. There's a switch on the barrel to limit the distance... A sort of workaround for the problem. I haven't had results as good with the D7000 as I got on the FX body. Maybe that will change as I become more familiar with it. So far I'm liking it very much. Something I didn't expect from a Tamron lens.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2014 at 16:25 UTC as 48th comment | 2 replies
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review (503 comments in total)
In reply to:

aussiedean: Hi all my first post here on the forums and just to let you all know I have a very basic knowledge of Photography at this point and was just interested to see if anyone has come across a problem mentioned here:

In relation to the Carl Ziess logo? I have been looking into the camera and looking at purchasing until I saw this. Haven't seen anyone else mention it though which I find odd.

Carl Ziess and 'Ziess' lenses are two different beasts. One -- the Carl Ziess is made by anyone with lens making ability who has licensed the name. The other is from the original west German factory.

I guess it must seem pretty neat buying a plastic camera with a Carl Ziess or Leica lens on it but like the compact 35mm camera I bought a lifetime ago just for the German lens name on it's plastic lens, the performance just doesn't live up to the formidable reputation these legendary lens manufacturers rightly earned from their best lenses. Sadly those on compact cameras seldom (if ever) live up to the expectation the name suggests.

I'd be more interested to discover who made the lens than to blindly trust the name on it. Acrylic lens elements - the stuff beer glasses are made from, are getting better with lens makers experience, even mixing glass elements with plastic ones but don't be fooled for a single second... If it is a lightweight lens, it's made with plastic elements.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 05:21 UTC
On article Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lab Test Review (267 comments in total)
In reply to:

Yochi23: Hi ,
I am posting again my question.
I am using now the Sigma 150-500 with my Nikon D7000 mainly for birds photography
Am using it without tripod. The focus is very slow but otherwise it's OK up to 400 mm
I want to upgrade to the new Tamron. Lab results are OK but I would very muck like to hear someone who actually tried both lenses specially before going on a safari.
Is the focus much faster? Are the result on 500-600 OK

Many thanks

I think you might be a tad disappointed with this lens if you intend to use it on a small sensor camera. I've got both 610 and 7100 Nikons and I only get excellent results on the 610. From what I'm told by other people who've tried one expecting to get 900mm virtual lens length, its the same story.

You might like to wait and see if Tamron intend to introduce APS-c specific lenses in the near future. BTW, this is not the only full frame lens I've used on a clip size sensor that doesn't produce the same quality image as it does on a full frame one. Just my opinion. Others may have different opinions. You could always hire one and see for yourself if it suits your needs. I still prefer the 120 - 300 Sigma with a 2x extender on it for really crisp results but the cost is a lot more.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2014 at 04:59 UTC
On article Adobe announces 'Photoshop Mix' for iPad (4 comments in total)

After wasting a year's subscription to CC and discovering the Photoshop CS6 I already owned did everything CC did, I'm of the opinion Adobe are out of ideas. Photoshop Lightroom for a mobile phone, eh? That's impressive. I can't even get my fingers to fit a single key, much less be bothers trying to use a phone to manage my image database. But carry on Adobe... Sooner or later you'll come out with something that's actually usable.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 07:41 UTC as 1st comment

What has me curious is how far away is this lens from the original release? Certainly it was reported as a "prime near equal" just like this one is but... That lens was reported as good to excellent but the one I had was terrible. The Zoom ring jammed and focus on anything but good to excellent contrast objects in normal day light was a real hit and miss thing... It spent far too much time hunting for focus. Not much different to any Sigma Zoom lens I've owned.None have been stellar performers at focusing when compared to camera makers lenses.

After reading reviews here and elsewhere praising Sigma lenses I'm finding it hard to duplicate the results and beginning to wonder if the lenses submitted for review are hand finished by factory technicians rather than the off-the-shelf stuff consumers have to contend with. How about it DP review? Have you ever compared your test lenses with oned found on the shelves of camera stores?

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2013 at 19:05 UTC as 8th comment
On article Cine System Tripod Dolly and Mount Review (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

silyn: I would never buy this especially @ $450. As mounted on a car (suction cups) nothing unusual however supported load of 5lb is not enough. I would not trust 5lb equipment to this mount.

As a dolly, based on sample video, it really sucks. The movement it produces (again, based on video) does not look good - it's a toy, and there is no smoothness, and it moves like a toy. There may be some uses for this thing, why not, but $450? There are better ways to invest such money into video equipment. Obviously my personal opinion.

Hey mike... What happened to shoot it right and forget the edit? If your footage needs post production to make up for the shortfall in a $450 product, you seriously have to add the software to reach the true cost of the product, do you not?

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2013 at 19:59 UTC
On article Cine System Tripod Dolly and Mount Review (70 comments in total)

The interesting part of these 'remarkable' new wheels and cups is that someone had already invented it 30 years ago. Now by adding a few over tight plastic ball sockets and suction cups this is the big rave on a wonderful new product.

I'm all for invention but FCS, let's invent something new for a change. The whole industry is overcrowded with too many people trying to sell too many re-inventions to too few people.

Sorry folks but this is just more of the past fancied up as an odd ball looking gimmick. Anyone remember the first ball joint tripod head from Manfrotto?

In 1977 I bolted a Canon VHS camera onto the side of my Landrover and went into to bush with it. Footage is yuk now but at the time it was AOK for 640 x 480. Stick an iPhone on the same bracket now and it would be way more robust and just as light as this one. Back then the tripod and a bit of welding cost $45 and did exactly the same. Nothing new here.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2013 at 19:56 UTC as 3rd comment

Curious that a German firm (DxO) has had its Gnomes busy in the background producing a version their excellent distortion correction software is claimed to rectify the optical problems camera integrated mobile phones create.

I can certainly testify to the ability of this software on HTC images. How a "digital camera in a lens" compares so far only demonstrates that Sony see a serious enough issue in lens quality to produce this object.

My personal opinion is that if you are becoming a serious enough photographer to shell out what is certain to be the generous amount of cash this stuff will cost, then surely a pocket size compact camera is a more likely choice?

A recent article in an Aussie Wedding magazine by a long time wedding photographer certainly gives credence to possibility of serious work being possible with camera phones. His article highlights lens quality as an important issue too. I can't wait to get my hands on a 'lens camera'.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2013 at 14:00 UTC as 17th comment
On article Online images and copyright infringement (254 comments in total)
In reply to:

E Dinkla: It would be a very smart move if any copyright infringement is compensated by a donation for a good cause. The price to pay can be several times the normal photographer's image price and still hold in court. Greed is not an issue then and the level of shame is multiplied for the company that is not willing to cooperate.

If you made your living from selling photos, would you still have the same opinion if instead of paying you for your work, clients gave money to charity?

This is a one off incident where the photographer decided to "fine" the company by making them donate a misappropriated amount of money to charity. He'd probably have gotten that much in a settlement had he gone to court.

Expecting "EVERY" instance of copyright infringement to follow with a charity payment will see some hungry photographers going under. A far better idea is to set up a challenge fund to help defray the cost of court action against those who should (and probably do) know better.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2013 at 01:54 UTC
On article Adobe's Fujifilm X-Trans sensor processing tested (138 comments in total)

As a long time Fuji faithful, mainly in Medium format but also S5 (Nikon Hybrid) I am bitterly disappointed that waiting years after the day they simply stopped making Professional cameras altogether, this 'new' sensor is all they have to offer professional photographers who used Fuji equipment, expecting something new before it was too late.

It's very sad that Fuji have abandoned professional photographers completely. The rumors that floated around were all lies. The only professional offerings in digital cameras come from Fuji's rivals. SO the wait is over. For me and some of my contemporaries the choice Phase one or Pentax.

Bye bye Fuji.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2013 at 01:36 UTC as 13th comment
Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »