AD in KC

Lives in Kansas City
Works as a architectural/interiors photographer
Has a website at www.aarondougherty.com
Joined on Dec 12, 2011

Comments

Total: 112, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1627 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digital Suicide: I think in the spec comparison table, FujiFilm XT-2 should be in Panasonics place.

PB, true enough, but I guess I'm arguing that it's image quality we SHOULD be comparing. What makes the better photo? specs or image quality? And I'm still not convinced it's very useful to run every camera manufacturer's best efforts through the Adobe filter. I know from experience Canon's DPP is a much better RAW converter with Canon CR2 files, and I bet Nikon's NEF (I think it's called) is better with their files. And we're comparing anonymous lenses, simultaneously... All in all it's not so much apples-to-apples as fruit trays-to-vegetable trays.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 22:13 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1627 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digital Suicide: I think in the spec comparison table, FujiFilm XT-2 should be in Panasonics place.

These comparisons are worthless: different sized sensors (Digital Suicide mentions) and no mention of the lens used, even (unless I missed it somewhere). And DPR always uses Adobe RAW instead of DPP, so it ends up being a test of Adobe. So much depends on the RAW converter and DPP is so much better than Adobe. Give us a an assesment of how Canon makes photos! Or Nikon or whoever. Make photos using the entire manufacturers' workflow. This really IS science!

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 17:22 UTC
In reply to:

PanoMax: I think I'll enter a couple of my shots recorded with the Sigma DP3 Merrill. Mind you, there will be no post processing. ;-) Straight out of the camera should suffice.

Should I, or shouldn't I????

db

With a Sigma DP3 Merrill? no post processing? I wouldn't if I were you.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2016 at 22:09 UTC
In reply to:

LarryK: I hate when they bring out new TS lenses, I can't resist the things.

And why is the one of the first things anybody complains about is "why can't I use a polarizer?" You can't, get over it.

Same here, obsolesce. I use it more inside than out. Outside it's usually only for brick or metal with a sheen, they makes skies too weird and cause ripples and a purple cast in most modern windows/glazing. Inside they really intensify paint colors and all, like you say... I only use the 17 tse when absolutely necessary - for that and its schmearing around the fringes.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2016 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

LarryK: I hate when they bring out new TS lenses, I can't resist the things.

And why is the one of the first things anybody complains about is "why can't I use a polarizer?" You can't, get over it.

LarryK,

We're talking a polarizing filter, right? not a neutral density filter. It's not just that the brick is too bright--the color is desaturated.

Think of a polarizer looking through the glare on the surface of a pond... You gonna fix that by adjusting the exposure?

"Ever try" using a polarizer, smarty pants?

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 20:15 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

AD in KC: OK, somebody's got to play Devil's Advocate: Why did Canon put the focusing ring at the far end of the lens when they don't have to? no zoom ring in the way here. When I'm holding a camera securely/comfortably, my left hand is under the camera - the focusing ring ought to be near those fingers.

And yes I love Canon - I make my entire (meager) living using their stuff.

I extend my hand in peace and fraternity....and I support my lens in all its endeavors.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 20:06 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)

OK, somebody's got to play Devil's Advocate: Why did Canon put the focusing ring at the far end of the lens when they don't have to? no zoom ring in the way here. When I'm holding a camera securely/comfortably, my left hand is under the camera - the focusing ring ought to be near those fingers.

And yes I love Canon - I make my entire (meager) living using their stuff.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 15:50 UTC as 81st comment | 3 replies

I got the first version of this thing and it was useless. Still takes up shelf space because I can't bring myself to throw away something that cost whatever it cost. $160 maybe. I'm too angry to give this new one a chance.

The old one was so obtuse and unintuitive and slow and I had no idea if a card had actually been downloaded even. For all I knew there was a bar of soap inside it. I don't doubt this one is better, but "good"? And who would want this who doesn't shoot raw?

My old laptop needs to be replaced anyway, that's what I'll do if anything.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2016 at 15:32 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

chriscotec: I shoot architecture for a living and can't imagine life without my T/S-E 17mm. Most projects I do needs a lens that is wider than 24mm for some shots. My 17mm lives on my camera.In the rare cases it is too wide I move the tripod a step in.

Welcome back too architectural photography Nikon (almost).

I agree. A zoom tilt-and-shift lens would be darn handy.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 17:18 UTC
In reply to:

obsolescence: Nikon should have designed a removable tripod collar so that only the camera moves and shift-stitching avoids parallax. But I guess that wouldn't work too well with their humongous pro bodies -- if only they had a mirrorless.

How about a filter holder and adjustable hood/flag for this lens. Don't they listen to us?

I've got an old copy of PTGu, but haven't used it in awhile. I should probably buck up for a license again, but as soon as I do I won't need the program for another couple years!

It looks like PTGui and Autopano are very similar on the surface anyway......

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 16:11 UTC
In reply to:

obsolescence: Nikon should have designed a removable tripod collar so that only the camera moves and shift-stitching avoids parallax. But I guess that wouldn't work too well with their humongous pro bodies -- if only they had a mirrorless.

How about a filter holder and adjustable hood/flag for this lens. Don't they listen to us?

Excellent--I'll look up Autopano!

And it looks like that collar only fits Nikon. There are a couple brackets that fit Canon but they look really clumsy....

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 15:44 UTC
In reply to:

obsolescence: Nikon should have designed a removable tripod collar so that only the camera moves and shift-stitching avoids parallax. But I guess that wouldn't work too well with their humongous pro bodies -- if only they had a mirrorless.

How about a filter holder and adjustable hood/flag for this lens. Don't they listen to us?

Yes, Obsolesense! I 've been writing letters to Canon for years about putting a tripod mount on their TSE lenses - like the (optically mediocre) Schneider shift lens does easily enough. That would save hours of futzing around. Side-to-side is one thing, but most of my stitching is with vertical shots, so there's nothing I can do about parallax - though I will definitely look into Colin's collar...

And AlanG what software do you use for panos? I have been using photoshop, but it always skews vertical lines - and always a little differently between exposures.....

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

chriscotec: I shoot architecture for a living and can't imagine life without my T/S-E 17mm. Most projects I do needs a lens that is wider than 24mm for some shots. My 17mm lives on my camera.In the rare cases it is too wide I move the tripod a step in.

Welcome back too architectural photography Nikon (almost).

No need to get all "superior" on us p-monkey. 17 mm puts you too close in many scenes to get a natural looking composition. You've experienced that I bet, yes? Crop a 17 mm image and now your angle of view is similar to a 24, so why crop if you've got a 24?

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 14:36 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: I can't imagine anyone switching systems just for this lens? Canon owns the tiny tilt-shift segment and Nikon's outrageous pricing only underlines why Canon is gaining overall professional marketshare.

Only reason I could see is if this were SO sharp you could get one exposure on a 36 MP sensor that would replace two shifted exposures from a 24mm. You'd save a lot of valuable time spent stitching images. But you can't use a polarizer on it, so it's out of contention as the core of a work flow.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 14:18 UTC
In reply to:

LarryK: I hate when they bring out new TS lenses, I can't resist the things.

And why is the one of the first things anybody complains about is "why can't I use a polarizer?" You can't, get over it.

Because on a brick building in sunlight, the color is washed out by reflected light. It's not a tempting purchase for me, it's a tool - for making an income.

So YOU get over it.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 14:10 UTC
In reply to:

Sarge_: As someone who earns a living in a small market as an architectural photographer, I've been holding out on switching from Nikon to Canon in hopes of a Nikon version of Canon's $2,100 17mm t/s lens.

At $3,400 for 19mm, I am highly likely to finally jump ship to Canon. The financial justification is finally there. I'll likely wait a little while to see if they reduce the price, and see the reviews, but I can't see staying with Nikon, since this is as wide a t/s lens as they will make for the foreseeable future, and 17mm is just that much more useful for me.

Very disappointing.

Nikon's 24 PC is just too soft anyway and has too much distortion. The PC new was no better than Canon's outgoing 24 TSE at the time - so I jumped the Nikon ship. A 24 mm accounts for 90% of the shots I get, so it's a critical deal for me.

And then the 17 came out and I was more than convinced it was the right decision.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 14:05 UTC
In reply to:

Felipe Rodríguez: I guess that prices will get lower than the SRP, but the lens will still be more expensive than the Canon 17. Actually, I like more 19 than 17 for most uses, since it will deliver a much more natural perspective. I currently have the Canon 17 (on a Sony camera, I am a Nikon shooter), and I took a lot of pictures with it when I was shooting Canon, and I find it too wide many times. Anyway, I'm sure the Nikon 19 will be a superb lens that will give us more choices for architectural photography...

Yeah the 17 is great for tight places, but a 20 TSE that takes polarizing filters AND is sharp enough on a 30 MP sensor would be a great lens. As is, the 17 smears too much when shifted to be very useful on exteriors where detail is inherently small. I second the vote for a 20 mm TSE. Maybe it's possible on a mirrorless body, huh Canon?

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 13:56 UTC
In reply to:

nachos: Another obligatory pricing discussion... here's my thoughts, and I'm a working architectural photographer.

- Comparisons between the Canon 17 and Nikon 19 are going to be made, however the Canon 17 is getting a bit old (so are the other Nikons!) and isn't great on the higher res cameras. It's not terrible, but could be better. I expect this Nikon is designed for high performance at high resolution, and may indeed be why its 19 and not 17. I look forward to reviews!

- Professional equipment has a professional price. Rodenstock and Schneider technical camera lenses make this look affordable.

-I expect a 20% price drop next summer. I picked up the new 24-70 with such a discount a few months ago. The early adopter tax is real.

- On the creative side, I like 19mm more than 17. To me, 17 is for documenting tight technical spaces - the spacing between objects begins to look unreal when wider than 19.

A lot depends (with this lens) on how sharp it is. I have the 17 TSE and only use it for interiors, usually, because it really smears details if you try to shift too far. That's not so critical when you're close and details are "bigger". But if this 19 is really sharp and can be used with a 36 MP sensor, it would really be a great combination - I could live with less than 17 mm. But still, the lack of a polarizer is tough when you're shooting brick buildings especially...

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 13:47 UTC
In reply to:

nachos: Another obligatory pricing discussion... here's my thoughts, and I'm a working architectural photographer.

- Comparisons between the Canon 17 and Nikon 19 are going to be made, however the Canon 17 is getting a bit old (so are the other Nikons!) and isn't great on the higher res cameras. It's not terrible, but could be better. I expect this Nikon is designed for high performance at high resolution, and may indeed be why its 19 and not 17. I look forward to reviews!

- Professional equipment has a professional price. Rodenstock and Schneider technical camera lenses make this look affordable.

-I expect a 20% price drop next summer. I picked up the new 24-70 with such a discount a few months ago. The early adopter tax is real.

- On the creative side, I like 19mm more than 17. To me, 17 is for documenting tight technical spaces - the spacing between objects begins to look unreal when wider than 19.

Yeah it would be nice if this were sharp enough to take the place of stitched 24 mm exposures. It would be nice to crop a single image. BUT you can't use a polarizing filter on it....

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 17:54 UTC
In reply to:

ybizzle: The only new Leica that matters or has ever mattered is the M. Once it gets announced, millions and millions of photographers will be selling their organs to be able to afford one. The Leica M. There is no substitute.

The masses will be paralyzed by indecision; "I will sell my kidney for a Leica M! No, wait... I will sell my kidney for a Sofort! No wait...

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 22:18 UTC
Total: 112, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »