tedolf

tedolf

Lives in United States Seattle, United States
Joined on May 12, 2010
About me:

Admiral, Tedolph Undersea Command

Comments

Total: 286, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: NIKON 1 V3 was Sony A9 killer of yesterday! It delivered the fps, the accuracy, the speed, and all photographers ever needed for sports action (20 fps tracking, 60 fps fixed focus, etc), and a Nikon 1 kit could be assembled for peanuts compared to an A9 set.
But again, the tremendous prejudice of the digital photography snobbery sniggers at anything with sensor smaller than FF, and less than a truckload of equipment to show off. Just read the sorrowful comments below about "death of Nikon 1". What a horrible attitude towards a genuinely great system! But geeks celebrate A99 years later — despite fact that technology already was there that allowed work to be done, even to sports photographers. It shows the pathetic state of this market — it is not about the essence, but all about pretence, all about snobbery.

Not quite. A lot of us saw the potential in this system for sports/nature/animal photography. What was missing was fast prime lenses.

Don't know why Nikon refused to go there. Maybe expected customers to use adapted Nikon F lenses?

tedolph

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 19:20 UTC
On article Sphere of frustration: Nikon KeyMission 360 review (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedolf: I have no idea who would want to loot at images from a 360 degree camera. People don't see the world like that normally. What is the use of such a thing?

tedolph

I still don't get it. If I want to make a place as attractive as possible, I want to control the framing. I don't want the potential customer looking at the ugly stuff!

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 19:17 UTC
On article Sphere of frustration: Nikon KeyMission 360 review (162 comments in total)

I have no idea who would want to loot at images from a 360 degree camera. People don't see the world like that normally. What is the use of such a thing?

tedolph

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 18:54 UTC as 15th comment | 6 replies

Nikon had better get its stuff together. They really dropped the ball in the mirroless world. Look at how they have mishandled Nikon 1.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 18:08 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On photo WP_20170408_17_33_11_Pro 1 in tedolf's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

I was lazy.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 14:40 UTC as 1st comment
On photo P1019220 in tedolf's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

Was used for the cover of a postcard so I was stuck with that aspect ratio.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 14:39 UTC as 1st comment
On photo P1019219 in tedolf's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

Hmmmm.....

It was a four sec. exposure do I don't know about that. The helicopter was a problem the whole evening (green streak)

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 14:38 UTC as 1st comment
On photo P1019208 in tedolf's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

I am a sucker for B&W.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 14:36 UTC as 1st comment
On photo PA048388 in tedolf's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

Good point.

I wish my Corel skills were better

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 14:35 UTC as 1st comment
On photo PA268574 in tedolf's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

Why?

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 14:33 UTC as 1st comment
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: Unbelievable. He kept saying stills oriented, stills, stills,.stills ... but the most basic requirement for stills cameras is IQ. There's so little in sensor IQ improvement in Olympus cameras in the last 5 years, with the result that it's IQ is clearly less when compared with competitors APSC cameras and by a margin that is more than what the difference in sensor sizes suggests (DPR review finding). All I can say is that they are indeed very bold to increase prices so much while delivering so little in IQ.

I can happily live with 5 stops of IS instead of 6, with just HD video instead of 4K (video is supplemental, yeah, right), with just 10 fps instead of 15, and with just a tilt LCD instead of the video FAS, and none of the gimmicks like HiRes, for a stills oriented camera.

Really?

So portrait studio clients require sharper photo's than medium format film could deliver? Really?

Hmmm......

tedolph

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 23:30 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: We chose to be bold with a rather large camera with a minuscule sensor.

Ok...

Too bad that the Sony lenses are either good and expensive, or cheap and awful.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 18:08 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: Unbelievable. He kept saying stills oriented, stills, stills,.stills ... but the most basic requirement for stills cameras is IQ. There's so little in sensor IQ improvement in Olympus cameras in the last 5 years, with the result that it's IQ is clearly less when compared with competitors APSC cameras and by a margin that is more than what the difference in sensor sizes suggests (DPR review finding). All I can say is that they are indeed very bold to increase prices so much while delivering so little in IQ.

I can happily live with 5 stops of IS instead of 6, with just HD video instead of 4K (video is supplemental, yeah, right), with just 10 fps instead of 15, and with just a tilt LCD instead of the video FAS, and none of the gimmicks like HiRes, for a stills oriented camera.

Sergey, if you can't live with the IQ of the current 4/3 sensors, you would have had a devil of a time in the age of film.

4/3 Sensor IQ surpassed anything you could do with 35mm film with the Panasonic 12mp sensor, and 35mm film produced some awesome images in its 100 year reign.

Maybe the modern photographer is the problem?

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 16:59 UTC
In reply to:

tassosDA: To continue in the same spirit of some comments in here: why do we need video in a stills camera? Why do we need IBIS? Why do we need stabilized lenses? Why do we need pixel shift technology? Why do we need weather sealing? Why do we need zoom lenses? Why, why, why...??Why not still use film, right??
Every technological advance is a good thing!! And at some point EVERYBODY will benefit from EVERY advance made by technology... No matter if you need it right now. Don't be so narrow minded!

Some advances are God sent: auto exposure, auto white balance, image stabilization. AF isn't really one of them. It wasn't one of the things that drove me nuts in the days of film. Even today, many of us use old manual lenses with mirroless cameras. They work better now on MILCs than they ever did on film rangefinders or SLRs.

Who wants f/1.4 subject isolation of a baby when you are shooting against a backdrop with studio lights?

And yes, my car has a manual transmission!

TEdolph

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 19:27 UTC
In reply to:

tassosDA: To continue in the same spirit of some comments in here: why do we need video in a stills camera? Why do we need IBIS? Why do we need stabilized lenses? Why do we need pixel shift technology? Why do we need weather sealing? Why do we need zoom lenses? Why, why, why...??Why not still use film, right??
Every technological advance is a good thing!! And at some point EVERYBODY will benefit from EVERY advance made by technology... No matter if you need it right now. Don't be so narrow minded!

Really?

I know you know better than this. For the baby you just use flash and set the aperture to f/5.6. You don't need to focus. They are not known to leap great distances. Kayakers? Zone focus, etc.

Nobody ever got a good shot of a baby in the film days? Nobody ever got a shot of a Kayaker before AF?

It is a convenience, and for newer photographers a crutch, nothing more.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

tassosDA: To continue in the same spirit of some comments in here: why do we need video in a stills camera? Why do we need IBIS? Why do we need stabilized lenses? Why do we need pixel shift technology? Why do we need weather sealing? Why do we need zoom lenses? Why, why, why...??Why not still use film, right??
Every technological advance is a good thing!! And at some point EVERYBODY will benefit from EVERY advance made by technology... No matter if you need it right now. Don't be so narrow minded!

Come on. You just pre-focused on the place where you expected the action to take place and then waited.

Third pew, at the corner, etc.

tedolph

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

tassosDA: To continue in the same spirit of some comments in here: why do we need video in a stills camera? Why do we need IBIS? Why do we need stabilized lenses? Why do we need pixel shift technology? Why do we need weather sealing? Why do we need zoom lenses? Why, why, why...??Why not still use film, right??
Every technological advance is a good thing!! And at some point EVERYBODY will benefit from EVERY advance made by technology... No matter if you need it right now. Don't be so narrow minded!

Because tracking AF has become a crutch along with spray and play photography.

I have seen people doing this. They have lost, or more likely never acquired, any sense of timing. As a result, they never really catch the moment.

You can't say the same thing about auto-exposure, IBIS, etc.

tedolph

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 16:56 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedolf: Olympus/Panny need to make a m4/3 version of the Leica rangefinder with three really nice manual focus only f/1.7 15mm, 20mm and 42.5mm lenses. The single window optical viewfinder could just have a manual focus confirmation LED. Should be easy with a phase detect spot meter looking at a mirror on the focal plane shutter. The body should cost $600.00 and each lens about $300.00.

Sort of a digital version of the Leica CL.

Tedolph

Yes, except the X pro costs twice as much and I am not sure where fuji is now with their video. Also, the X-Pro is not a small camera. Much larger and heavier than the Leica CL was. M4/3 could make something much more like the CL than I think Fuji can, and also at a more attractive price.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 22:17 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedolf: Olympus/Panny need to make a m4/3 version of the Leica rangefinder with three really nice manual focus only f/1.7 15mm, 20mm and 42.5mm lenses. The single window optical viewfinder could just have a manual focus confirmation LED. Should be easy with a phase detect spot meter looking at a mirror on the focal plane shutter. The body should cost $600.00 and each lens about $300.00.

Sort of a digital version of the Leica CL.

Tedolph

I can't speak from a lot of experience having owned only two Olympus bodies and merely handled a few different Panasonic lower end bodies.

The E-p5 was a little bit of a stand out for build quality-no exposed screws, cast top and bottom plates, etc. It had a very Leica feel to it.

So, if they used that as the mule I'm sure it would be fine.

But, they would have to make it so that it could use Leica/Panasonic lens' aperture ring. That function is disabled on Oly cameras.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 21:22 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedolf: Olympus/Panny need to make a m4/3 version of the Leica rangefinder with three really nice manual focus only f/1.7 15mm, 20mm and 42.5mm lenses. The single window optical viewfinder could just have a manual focus confirmation LED. Should be easy with a phase detect spot meter looking at a mirror on the focal plane shutter. The body should cost $600.00 and each lens about $300.00.

Sort of a digital version of the Leica CL.

Tedolph

No, just regular m4/3 build quality.

EP-5 built quality would be fine.

In fact, they could use that body for a mule.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 19:51 UTC
Total: 286, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »