Joined on Apr 27, 2016


Total: 129, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Wildlife photography: Hard mode 😂

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2021 at 02:38 UTC as 24th comment
On article Opinion: Do we really need all those buttons and dials? (890 comments in total)

There are plenty of dRebels out there with single control dials and touchscreen menus for the brand new photographers who find more advanced control schemes daunting.

But control interfaces that are easy to learn (i.e. simple to use without putting any effort into learning about the interface) don't necessarily make the most efficient or effective interfaces. Half the point of having a dSLR/mirrorless camera is that it gives you more control of taking your image than is affording with a smartphone, and having direct control points like knobs and buttons will *always* be faster and more efficient than digging through menus.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2021 at 16:11 UTC as 333rd comment
In reply to:

xrosscountry: This is great. I had my iPhone repaired and the company said they used original components but they didn’t and that time I could see it for myself (display). So for me this is good stuff. I want nothing but original and quality. And hey, if you don’t like it buy another brand. No meaning crying about it over here.

Do you also, for example, believe that independent auto repair shops should not exist because there are some shops that don't do great work or use substandard parts? Do you believe dealerships would not charge unnecessary exorbitant fees if they were able to unilaterally wipe out all competing repair providers?

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2021 at 18:41 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: The people that are saying that "their cameras still work" are trying to sublimate reality through that obvious but poor truism.

The fact is, the market will now retract, regarding Olympus products, as previous users and new prospective buyers hop on the fence waiting for how things turn out.

It is a dangerous commercial obstacle that has been raised and while JIP might very well be able to transpose it, it might also mark the beginning of a death spiral.

I hope it will be the former case, as I have always had a soft spot for Olympus, the brand name of my 2 first digital cameras.

As an Oly user I certainly could say "My camera still works fine" which in actuality translates to "I see no need to upgrade my camera body any time soon", which usually comes with the caveat of, "What happens when my camera body feels too out of date, or needing replacement?"

And even though I'm sad to see the Olympus brand go down, it's not as if that last statement fills me with dread or prompts me to sell all of my m43 gear. Even if JIP fails to deliver anything worth while, by all indications Panasonic is continuing to produce for the mount. Until that changes, m43 will continue to be my preferred light/versatile system.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2021 at 23:32 UTC
In reply to:

Old Cameras: I would ignore the wording of the press release, which actually paints a pretty rosy picture, and ask yourself what the sale of an unprofitable business means. It means Olympus doesn’t see a profitable way forward so they’re dumping the business, they’re giving up. The new company also wants to make money so they will do one of two things: invest and accelerate development with some kind of well reasoned plan to turn things around, or strip if for parts, sell it off and park the skeleton in a junk yard. If there was a reasonable way forward to save the business you have to ask yourself why Olympus didn’t just do that themselves.

Olympus has been haunted by mismanagement for years, not just with boneheaded releases that weren't market competitive, but by multi-million dollar fraud scandals.
There was likely a way to save the business, but I'm doubtful they had the competency in leadership to pull it off.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2020 at 15:36 UTC
On article Hands-on with Olympus' tiny 12-45mm F4 Pro lens (199 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hasa: It is roughly twice as heavy and twice as expensive as the Nikon z 16-50 for APS-C that starts at F3.5. So it is neither light nor inexpensive. Just saying :-)
And yes I am biased: I just got the z50 with 16-50mm and 50-250mm lens for 100$ more than just the naked OM-D E-M5 III body alone.

Well, the analog to that Nikon lens is the 14-42 EZ, not a constant-aperture 12-element lens.
I do agree it seems to be on the pricey side, say compared to the 12-40 2.8. That one can be a little unwieldy depending on the camera body, but if I'm dropping that amount of money on a normal zoom upgrade I think constant 2.8 is worth the extra couple hundred bucks.

edit: Also the Panny 12-35, I keep forgetting about that one. Far less expensive, a little shorter on the tele end but still a constant 2.8.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2020 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

Aegon Targaryen: I'd rather have an EM10M3. It's got a pop-up flash so you don't have to carry an external/mounted one around with you all the time. Isn't that the point of small cameras? Plus, it's a fraction of the price.

If a popup is sufficient for what you want, more power to you. The delimiter here is that Olympus provides a more advanced packaged flash option for its higher end products versus the budget friendly models. That's been the case since the first EM-5 was released.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2019 at 02:04 UTC
In reply to:

Aegon Targaryen: I'd rather have an EM10M3. It's got a pop-up flash so you don't have to carry an external/mounted one around with you all the time. Isn't that the point of small cameras? Plus, it's a fraction of the price.

A popup will be compact, sure, but it suffers from the same thing all popup flashes do. Its light will be extremely unflattering on the face for anything other than fill-in under direct sunlight. Olympus giving you a flash that tilts & swivels means you have the option to bounce your flash, giving you better light in practically every indoors situation compared to an on-axis popup flash.
To each their own, but I'll take the separate unit any day. Besides, it's not as if these cameras are pocketable. You still need a camera bag, and chances are it'll have room for this itty bitty flash.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2019 at 23:33 UTC

OK, I get that it's elbow-nudge satire, and I promise you, I'm honestly trying not to be a killjoy. BUT...

"'Pro' had been tortured into taking an almost opposite meaning: Something that a person has to pay for."

This... no.... this has not changed. You *still* have to pay for the professional, folks. The AMATEUR is doing it "for the love", the PROFESSIONAL is doing it for the BREAD.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2019 at 02:56 UTC as 185th comment

So nice to see Smugmug reinvesting all of that enforced pro-account money to make such a great site!

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2019 at 15:44 UTC as 67th comment

I'm assuming "Photos" was meant instead of "Plus" in the third paragraph...

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2019 at 15:01 UTC as 15th comment
On article Canon EOS Rebel SL3 review (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

Azathothh: "Good smartphones will convincingly blur backgrounds better than the SL3's kit lens will allow"

Translation: The camera is bad because using a completely different equipment with a tiny sensor will give you a fake efect instead of the real deal while using this same camera but with a very cheap 50 mm lens instead of the included kit lens.

I don't know how you would come to the conclusion that out of focus objects beyond a given depth of field could not be "real", but look up "Circle of Confusion" if you want to see the physics that govern it.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2019 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: Sharp will be a goner before we knew it. Who cares about MFTs, APS-Cs and FF dSLRs when the world is going FF mirrorless and Medium Format.

Driving force to FFs & Medium Formats are those pixel-heads.

I know this one, how about "Anyone Who Doesn't Want to Carry 10+lbs of Full Frame Glass on Their Shoulders" for starters.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2019 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

Class A: What the author is looking for is a small video camera.

For good reason the form factor of cameras for still photographers and videographers have differed. It would make more sense for the author to ask for a dedicated video camera -- one which possibly takes DSLR/MILC lenses -- rather than for still cameras to be further driven into a split that they cannot reasonably address.

Why would still photographers have to contend with the development cost for features that are only necessary for video? Will all lenses have to come with a "declick" option as well to serve videographers? If only cine lenses are required to do so, why not have cine camera models (-> no need for a still photographer's camera to do video as well).

Finally, I didn't see anything in the article that made Panasonic a prime recipient of the "open letter". Why are other companies, including Arri and RED not considered to be able to fulfil the wishes of the author?

Panasonic has more than enough focus on video equipment to take advantage of fulfilling a need in this arena. Apart from having the top marketshare of video camera sales in Asia, they've not been shy about selling MILC equipment with features specifically dedicated to cinematographers. To say nothing of something like the GH5S which is built for video through-and-through.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2019 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: Interesting lens for sure. But for me, the deal breaker is the f6.3 aperture as you zoom. You will likely hit that f6.3 before you reach 100mm . f6.3 is just too slow, especially if you want/need to shoot in the 100-200mm range. Even though bigger, and more expensive, the constant f4 12-100mm is a far better choice.

I think this is designed to appeal to the travel photographer who wants a single lens to cover wide angle to long telephoto; it appears to compare directly to 18-250 APS-C lenses.

I generally prefer to have a fast normal zoom with telephoto covered with tele-lenses, but something like this would be fine if you were planning to shoot consistently in daylight.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2019 at 19:24 UTC
On article Olympus posts second teaser for upcoming sports camera (377 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prairie Pal: Was there anything in the teaser or press releases so far to imply this could NOT be a FF body?

If they were going full frame they would have announced it along with Pany and teamed up with the Lumix/Leica L mount. The alternative is that they make a brand new mount and release a completely new line of FF lenses, which they are absolutely not going to do any time in the near future.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2019 at 16:58 UTC
On article Olympus posts second teaser for upcoming sports camera (377 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: Have a feeling there jumping into full frame.. we know Pani is little sister will probably follow...

I have news for you on two fronts.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2019 at 16:34 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Way too expensive even for a toy!

If you think $45 is bad, I suggest you don't look into LEGO's pricing for the Star Wars / Marvel licensed models. You could buy an ILC with scratch to spare for what the bigger ones cost.

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2018 at 20:18 UTC
In reply to:

doady: So photos of male nipples are okay, but photos of female nipples are banned. What year are we in?

@PostModernBloke You're right, they're perfectly within their rights to set their own policies, just as they are to wreck a significant portion of their userbase to the point where they'll have little to no one left worth putting up ads for and sink further into the red, but that doesn't make it smart business sense.

Anyone who has watched internet communities such as these for long enough will recognize this situation as something that happened in almost the exact same circumstances as an older platform that had a very similar community: Livejournal. Ownership was transferred, purity standards were enacted in the mind of monetization, and users abandoned the platform en masse. And Livejournal was arguably in a better position than Tumblr is now, LJ didn't have half of the technical and functional problems that plague that platform.

This is just another step in a long line of mismanagement from owners that don't understand their service and will run it into the ground.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2018 at 14:44 UTC
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: This is one of the stranger things I've seen posted on DPR, lol. Other than the pornography tie-in, I'm not sure that this is of great import to the field of photography.

If you want a relevant takeaway from this, you might consider the undue influence and control a growing number of 3rd parties can have on the media you think is yours. Verizon is squashing user's content on the basis that they don't find it profitable to advertisers. This isn't anything particularly new (try getting any sort of video monetized on Youtube lately), but now that reach has been extended to the content that Apple deems appropriate or not.

Tumblr's censorship was accelerated by the removal of their app from iTunes, so now you have two groups that can hasten the deletion of your content and your account if they deem it inappropriate, for whatever reason they decide. There's nothing that says that's limited to porn. It could be activism, political speech, net neutrality, you name it.

The digital landscapes we currently occupy are more totalitarian than most people realize.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2018 at 22:33 UTC
Total: 129, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »