Matthias R

Joined on Feb 15, 2016

Comments

Total: 149, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Matthias R: I was going to concur with many other that the ME / ME Super should be up there, and I see it's been added. Rightfully, that little thing is a joy to use. I've examined, played with or actually own very camera in this list except the Nikons. It's very much a matter of taste. The Minolta XD are great, and so are the Olympus OM. I have all three, and I always feel more drawn to the Pentax. The Canon AE-1 and its lenses are a bit big to my taste (some might like it better for that very reason), and its shutter usually needs oiling. I should get an X100 someday. I see the flea market shall reopen soon. I might get some good opportunity there :)

@AbrasiveReducer: well, lots of people do that as a cure for the infamous "asthma". Not tried it on mine (yet?).

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2020 at 12:47 UTC
In reply to:

Keith Meinhold: Mamiya C220 was my first camera, hardly a beginner camera and difficult to find film in a small town much less processing. At one point I resorted to cutting up and using photo paper as if it were film, the teacher's comment on the result was something along the lines of "using paper rather than film produces an interesting grain."

While other students had fancy SLRs I was the oddball kid in photography class who spent more time figuring out how to produce medium format images in a 36mm centric world rather then learning the craft. At 17 I joined the US Navy and bought a lightly used AE-1 what a difference.

Ah, the Mamiya C-220... what a lovely camera! that idea of running paper though the camera sounds good. Did you process it "as usual" or as slides?

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2020 at 22:47 UTC
In reply to:

Kjeld Olesen: I suppose that it is rather unlikely that any of us actually has experience with all those cameras, so the poll is more likely to become a measure of how many of us has used each camera - I refrained from voting, as I have only ever tried one of those cameras, and I have absolutely no idea whether that is the best or not.

With the prices you can get many of them for these days (still) if you are willing to get them at flea markets or from non-expert sellers, it's quite easy to get the whole lot for a very reasonable amount actually. You will need perseverance though. I own or have owned six cameras on this list. I chose not to buy several others despite just because I didn't feel they had anything more to offer than those I already had.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2020 at 22:42 UTC

I was going to concur with many other that the ME / ME Super should be up there, and I see it's been added. Rightfully, that little thing is a joy to use. I've examined, played with or actually own very camera in this list except the Nikons. It's very much a matter of taste. The Minolta XD are great, and so are the Olympus OM. I have all three, and I always feel more drawn to the Pentax. The Canon AE-1 and its lenses are a bit big to my taste (some might like it better for that very reason), and its shutter usually needs oiling. I should get an X100 someday. I see the flea market shall reopen soon. I might get some good opportunity there :)

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2020 at 22:37 UTC as 65th comment | 2 replies
On article Film Fridays: 10 classic Olympus film cameras (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bob Klein: In the seventies, United Press International equipped it’s staffers with OM gear. Also, one of the most famous Nat Geo covers was shot with an OM. Bruce Dale mounted two cameras on the tail of an airliner with 250 exposure backs (and protective boxes). Olympus had a lot of gear aimed at pros, like 250 backs, motor drives, and long lenses that others did not have. I once shot with a 250mm f2 and 350mm f 2.8 in the nineties.

Didn't? I was under the impression she did, in a mirror.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2020 at 21:52 UTC
On article Film Fridays: 10 classic Olympus film cameras (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bob Klein: In the seventies, United Press International equipped it’s staffers with OM gear. Also, one of the most famous Nat Geo covers was shot with an OM. Bruce Dale mounted two cameras on the tail of an airliner with 250 exposure backs (and protective boxes). Olympus had a lot of gear aimed at pros, like 250 backs, motor drives, and long lenses that others did not have. I once shot with a 250mm f2 and 350mm f 2.8 in the nineties.

And then there is that NatGeo cover with a self protrait of Coco the gorilla and an OM-2n! Olympus recognition extended beyond humanity :)

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2020 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

starbase218: "This technology can be used to study insects"

Am I the only one who is thinking the military and/or intelligence agencies might also have a few ideas of what to use it for?

oh, but some of them have been working on such things for a looooooong time. There was also an idea of using such setups to look for earthquake victims. The insects can go through pretty tiny holes, and have a pretty good autonomy. Ideally they could be trained or selected for their ability to look for humans by smell.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2020 at 12:46 UTC
In reply to:

rialcnis: I'll stay with Oly.

As long as they continue to deliver, so will I :)

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2020 at 07:28 UTC
In reply to:

Sebastian Cohen: Mass market photography is dead. Long live mass market photography.

There is no reason to make low(er) end cameras any more. They are dependent on a) mass market and b) high sales. Up until now, most manufactures made a lot of money on medium to low end market. That's obviously a dead duck now and arguably have been dead and/or dying for a decade.

Every manufacturer will go towards a "Leica'ish" type of strategy. Like Sony has for some time already.

Olympus would probably have gone for this strategy regardless.

I would wager, a thorough analysis and strategy document was included in the sales pitch for the company.

This sale is ONLY a good thing....(and should have happened sooner)

What we still struggle with, is the psychological part of taking pictures with "just your phone".
No, it isn't. No matter what their specs are or could be, as cameras, phones have abysmal ergonomics.
Besides, I am not interested in fake bokeh, fake lighting, and ultimately fake reality that's the name of the game for phones. And the notion that nowaday's phones are anywhere close to what an entry level MFT camera can deliver in is simply absurd, specially in low light. I keep seeing claims to the contrary, but every real life example I see confirms cell phones are simply not that good. Not even remotely in the same ballpark.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2020 at 07:27 UTC
In reply to:

Sebastian Cohen: Mass market photography is dead. Long live mass market photography.

There is no reason to make low(er) end cameras any more. They are dependent on a) mass market and b) high sales. Up until now, most manufactures made a lot of money on medium to low end market. That's obviously a dead duck now and arguably have been dead and/or dying for a decade.

Every manufacturer will go towards a "Leica'ish" type of strategy. Like Sony has for some time already.

Olympus would probably have gone for this strategy regardless.

I would wager, a thorough analysis and strategy document was included in the sales pitch for the company.

This sale is ONLY a good thing....(and should have happened sooner)

No need to make lower end cameras? Well, good luck convincing customers to ditch several thousands Euros for their entry ticket into serious photography! If you stop offering the possibility of getting a good kit for substantially less than 1000 EUR, you'll soon find your incoming stream of new customers thinning out badly.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2020 at 09:17 UTC
On article Canon EOS R5 initial review (1768 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sarman 2525: The 8 stop IBIS might be the most overlooked feature in the long list of class leading features.
This should allow for long hand held exposures shooting water and night photography. And it should means smooth gimbal like video hand held. I find most jerky video unwatchable.

Great IBIS matters more than a lot of other specs if you are actually using your camera to take photos . Trouble is, comparing ratings seems to be difficult. That article is quite interesting, and I don'T see any reason to suspect the guy is being dishonnest:
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-olympus/fuji-xt4-vs-omd-em1-iii-ibis/
I also remember a friend telling me her Panasonic G9 had better IBIS than my Olymps OM-10 mkii because the Specs said so... and then wouldn't believe I consistantly get crisp night shots with 1-2 seconds exposure at 25mm because she doesn't manage that with her camera. Of course there is the different phoograph parameter at play there.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2020 at 14:56 UTC

Film vs. digital debate? Isn't it like a debate between vintage cars and modern ones? There are plenty of vintage sports cars that aren't anywhere as good as modern family cars on the paper. Does that mean the only fate they deserve is being crushed and recycled?
I have a digital camera I love, it's a great camera, and it does things I couldn't dream about with a film camera, and I have - well, too many - film cameras that are a joy to use. I'd be a fool to stand in front of my shelf wondering which one is "better" before I head out of home.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2020 at 07:55 UTC as 49th comment
In reply to:

CekariYH: Great video as always.
My biggest problem is dust on the sensor... every time I change a lens there is always something sneaking in and not easily spotted when out there shooting, "happy" surprise when on the puter later on.
Changing lenses in the car... more dust than you ever thought, outside, more windy than one would like despite turning away or whatever.... always dusty outside, well far out at sea there are less dust but how often...?

That always look ugly. Many mirrorless shake the sensor a bit everytime you turn them on, which does a pretty good job removing the dust. I never had any dust refusing to go after 2-3 turning on the camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2020 at 10:05 UTC
In reply to:

BobT3218: I have a few thousand slides which I digitised. Many were shot with a Konica FS-1 with the 40mm f1.8 Hexanon. Recently I printed off a number A4 prints for a friend. I wasn't expecting much but was blown away as was the friend by the quality of the prints. Sadly like all FS-1's, the electronics finally gave way and is irreparable. I bought a couple of FT-1 bodies so as to use the lens at least but it's just doesn't feel the same. That's now the extent of my FF livery.

" unreliable shutter"... like, firing all by itself? One of my TCs does that.One of these days I'll have to look into it.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2020 at 23:03 UTC
In reply to:

BobT3218: I have a few thousand slides which I digitised. Many were shot with a Konica FS-1 with the 40mm f1.8 Hexanon. Recently I printed off a number A4 prints for a friend. I wasn't expecting much but was blown away as was the friend by the quality of the prints. Sadly like all FS-1's, the electronics finally gave way and is irreparable. I bought a couple of FT-1 bodies so as to use the lens at least but it's just doesn't feel the same. That's now the extent of my FF livery.

You might want to try the TC and T4. Even if the electronic dies, they are still good :)

Link | Posted on May 26, 2020 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

Tom_A: Yes, the Mamiya C330 is very nice, and one of the best things about TLRs is that they slow you down. You can’t be quick when working on a mirrored image.
If you want to pick up another one, then I recommend to check out a Rolleiflex. Still a bit better optically, but more importantly, a lot lighter to carry.

This will make die hard Rolleiflex fans cringe, but Seagull 4 are actually quite nice TLR, and can be had for a fraction of the price of a Rolleiflex... I have a Seagull 4A103 and a Mamiya C220. The Mamiya optics are clearly better, but the seagull feels featherlight in comparison (I mean, seriously, the C220 must weight as much as a full frame DSLR with a nice zoom on it!), and I get a lot of pictures I like out of it.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2020 at 07:32 UTC
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Instead of celebrating manufacturers who dared to break the mold, you mock and shame them? Thanks for shining a light into the mossbacked, “we’re afraid of anything different” soul of this website.
But at least now we know why cameras are all so boring. The manufacturers know they'll never get anything innovative or audacious past the young fuddy-duddies who write the reviews.

I agree in most cases, but if that Hasselblad Sony debacle, or that Nikon Brick innovated in anything, it is the exploitation of human idiocy. The kind of things Pablo Escobar or Kadhafi would buy to impress their friends.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2020 at 06:46 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: Not impressed in this silliness, least of all saying not to get obsessed with the Zone System. To get the best out of film, especially the smaller formats, you need to do just that.

In the 1960s, I went to photographic classes at the Ealing Polytechnic. In those days they were famous in Britain for their photography. My tutor said that 35mm was too small to make quality 16 X 20 inch prints, so I brought in some of mine to show him. I used Ilford Pan F and Kodak Panatomic X with the Beutler developer formula, which I made up myself from raw chemicals. After exhaustive experimentation, I reduced the development time and adjusted the film speed lowering the contrast to avoid solid black shadows and burnt out highlights or perceptible grain even when considerably blown up. You cannot do that without accurate exposure and that is where the Zone system is indispensable. When the tutor at the Ealing Polytechnic saw my 16 X 20 inch prints, he agreed that 35mm negatives were big enough.

Didn't W. Eugene Smith quit his job because his emplyer kept insisting 24x36 wasn't large enough? :)

Link | Posted on May 11, 2020 at 20:48 UTC

Probably a Nikon Coolpix 4300 I bought in 2004. It was on sales for over 400 Euros, a significant dent in my meager PhD scholarship. I had had a few single use cameras - the green ones from Fuji - then I long term borrowed a canon EOS from my parents, which I could never really warm up to. The Coolpix was the first camera with which I started to really started to try making the pictures I liked. It died after a long and intensive service, and was replaced by a Nikon P50. At some point I found image quality in the dark really limiting and got an Olympus PEN E-PL7. Finally a digital camera that did deliver quality pictures, and took the shot when the shutter button was pressed, not sometime later.
In 2015 I bought a Recesky TLR camera kit to build with my kid, then figured a good film camera might be nice to have, and this started a long string of film cameras purchases at the flea market and on eBay.
So, Coolpix 4300, E-PL7 or Recesky?

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2020 at 22:12 UTC as 31st comment
In reply to:

entoman: I try hard to give images a chance, as sometimes something that is dismissed initially, can grow on you.

So I've looked at these images deeply, studying the use of composition, light and shade, context, congruity, interaction, facial expression and more. I've asked myself what message the photographer is trying to convey.

Finally I've discovered what this project was all about. The photographer had his eyes closed, and wanted to see what the camera would produce, unaided by human input.

this "project" is about playing around with the camera to see what it can do. I don't get why everyone seems to expect artistic value there.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2020 at 08:12 UTC
Total: 149, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »