Michael J Davis

Michael J Davis

Lives in United Kingdom Rochdale, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired
Has a website at www.trustsof.co.uk
Joined on Mar 28, 2007

Comments

Total: 100, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS sample gallery (69 comments in total)

Like the pix, but not exactly a set to show the limits of the lens. Some chroma aberration, but few were at full aperture, and almost all the distant (400mm) shots were subject to atmospheric distortions.

I wonder what the lens is like at full aperture at differing fls.?
M.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2020 at 15:55 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
On article Film Fridays: Requiem for all my broken 35mm cameras (97 comments in total)
In reply to:

ParmaOH Bill: You could send them to camerarescue.org
Or just do what I do and learn to fix the ones you love.
I have 3 XAs one is in perfect order and 2 for spare parts.
But it is much easier to shoot and repair earlier, non battery cameras like my Kodak Retina IIIc.
I wonder how many digital cameras will still work in 2070?

Thank you for that reference; (camerarescue.org) - I wasn't aware of them!
They seem straightforward & knowledgeable.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2020 at 17:30 UTC
On article Film Fridays: 10 classic Olympus film cameras (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sabud: Have two (2) Olympus mju-ii, one black and one champagne. Most handy little camera ever ;)

I have to disagree violently! In 1998 waiting for digital to take off, I decided to 'start again' - sold my 35 year old Leica gear and bought a Mju-II.

It was all automatic, so I had no control, but:-
a) Autofocus wouldn't focus through glass
b) Buzzed loudly moving film on
c) Auto rewind at end of film created a terrible noise (so not so good at candid wedding and church service shots!)
d) Had to have the flash manually turned off for each shot in dim conditions (see above!)
e) Occasionally, clicked open when taking it out of pocket thus wiping out many of the exposures.

Worst ergonomics of any camera I've ever experienced.

However the lens was superb - I was able to create 24" prints from it. But after a few months I went back to an old 35-RC that always worked well and reliably.
MD

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2020 at 18:01 UTC

I may be getting old, but wasn't there once a floppy disk based digital camera? Was it a Sony or what?

Link | Posted on May 12, 2020 at 17:10 UTC as 158th comment | 4 replies

Where's the "I haven't really cut my hair before!" shot?

Link | Posted on May 7, 2020 at 11:10 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

dmanthree: Clearly, some have not learned the lessons of Silicon Film.

Why? And with a tiny sensor? No. Just....no.

I gave up waiting for digital adaptors for my Leica M3 body, lens and accessories in 1998 - sold them and got far more than I paid. (Ignoring inflation). Went fully digital in 2002, and been happy ever since.

Time to move on I think, nostalgia isn't what it used to be! ;-)

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2020 at 16:52 UTC
In reply to:

Duncan M: Popularity polls make no sense.

I vote in favour of that comment!

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2019 at 11:56 UTC
In reply to:

desertsp: Nice job 👍

But how did scanners get to this point where there are 6000 different ways of transmitting a matrix of pixels from one device to another? Why isn’t there a single “universal” standard that all scanners use - no drivers required?

once upon a time there was something called "Twain" - did it never get developed further?

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2019 at 13:26 UTC

Heavier, harder blows to win the war. Why not just extend a net over the target?- It would be more effective!

Damn, should I have patented that first? :-(

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2019 at 11:52 UTC as 31st comment
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII Review (989 comments in total)

Page 5: AF Tracking: "Lack of Depth of Field makes it difficult..."
Surely a lack of DoF (ie. tight focus) makes it easier to tell if it's in focus? Surely you mean the large DoF makes it difficult to identify precise focus?

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2019 at 14:37 UTC as 71st comment | 3 replies

Can't see that this differs significantly from PS Spherize distortion that expands centre and reduces sides as though projected onto a sphere.

I haven't done the work, but presumably one can calculate the expansion (percentage) relating to the angle of view compensation.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2019 at 17:32 UTC as 18th comment

I think it's just an experiment in Cognitive dissonance. If you pay a lot for an even more expensive Leica, you get more fun out of it - don't you?

Mike D
(Leica M3 user from 1965 to 1999)

Link | Posted on May 24, 2019 at 17:51 UTC as 60th comment
In reply to:

Docno: The thief had his choice of many different cameras and lenses. He grabbed the A7Riii. Forget sales or profit figures... this is the best evidence yet that Sony is on the way to dominating the market! 😀

I blame advertising! :-)

Link | Posted on May 21, 2019 at 10:40 UTC
On article This Adobe quiz reveals what creative type you are (179 comments in total)

I wasn't expecting much - too many 'false' questionnaires on the net, BUT I enjoyed the graphics and rather silly questions, and my 'type' seemed vaguely appropriate for me!

("Adventurer", since you ask!)

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2019 at 21:31 UTC as 19th comment

Sorry to say the 'real' history of photography is much more interesting, funny AND entertaining than this work of fiction.

Even Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) managed an amusing commentary in 1869 that covered many of the points regarding human nature:-
https://classic-literature.co.uk/lewis-carroll-hiawathas-photographing-poem/

Not to mention the fact that before the camera people would crowd into a little darkroom to see an inverted image of a panoramas that they could see perfectly well the right way up if they looked outside! (Camera obscura)!

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2019 at 11:40 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

PostModernBloke: If you don't have access to a darkroom, you can apply some of this process using digital cameras. I often do when shooting landscapes.
Camera on a tripod, spot meter readings from various parts of the scene to calculate exposure, manual input of settings, compose using the rear screen, manual focus for the hyperfocal distance and a cable release to take the shot.

This can be a very rewarding method. Everything before the shutter release becomes a conscious, deliberate, creative decision; and at the moment of firing the shutter, you are actually looking at the scene itself, rather than a 'frame'.

Yes, it takes a while, and certainly isn't suited to action or wildlife etc. But I love working like that.

Firstly, I clicked 'like' and it went to 'unlike 2'! :-(

Having started my own processing back in 1953 and building my own enlarger then, I agree with much of the sentiment. But having 'gone' digital some 17 years ago, I see no reason why I have to choose 'one or the other'!
Sometimes I take the slow detailed approach outlines here, at other times I need to catch the instant. Neither is better than the other; both can be very satisfying.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2019 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

JEROME NOLAS: Yes, who is she???

You should get out a bit more!
In 2017 her Manchester UK concert was bombed - 23 dead, over a hundred wounded including many children (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arena_bombing )
She came back the following year with a charity concert which raised some $13million for those affected, which was brilliant.
I'm not supporting this move, but she is now a major player on the world stage.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2019 at 12:08 UTC
In reply to:

Atcliffe: Why don’t the authorities simply ban photography there? It’s not that uncommon in some galleries, cathedrals, Hindu temples in India etc. There will always be some fool who will try to sneak a photo but in general the problem would be solved.

I have to say that my memories of Auschwitz / Birkenau are enhanced and renewed by the photos I took (I hope respectfully) there 8 years ago.

But then I was aware that even the dust in the air might be somebody's ashes.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2019 at 12:24 UTC
In reply to:

pseudobreccia: Did they really need to do a study to determine this...it is an obvious conclusion!

Of course it was! The people who assessed the photos had a point to prove! :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2019 at 13:27 UTC

Cool - and, no doubt, a load of fun!

But 10,000 years old! How old do you think the elements are in my ceramic lens?
(That's elements as in chemical, rather than 'elements' as in lens.)

;-)

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2018 at 10:48 UTC as 29th comment
Total: 100, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »