NowHearThis

NowHearThis

Lives in United States Western USA, United States
Works as a Project Manager
Joined on Aug 24, 2007
About me:

Future Considerations:
Klipsch RP-280 Home Theater System
(Consists of: (2) RP-280F, (1) RP-450C, (2) RP-250S, (1) R-115SW)

Current Line Up:
Verve Subwoofer (Dual 10' & 200w amp)
Polk Audio T15 (4)
Polk Audio CS1 (for $60 this was just too good a deal to pass up on.)

Previous Audio Gear:
2-Infinity 42.5i in Custom center channel box wired in series (8 ohms) - still have, replaced w/CS1, will probably reuse these with the woofers from the 1.8's.
NHT 1.8 (2) (Midrange foam surrounds finally gave out - took 22yrs; 6.5" subs still work fine, and will be reused in a future project)

Current Camera Gear:

Olympus PEN-F w/ECG-4 Grip
Panasonic Leica 12-60/2.8-4
Panasonic 42.5/1.7
Olympus 40-150 f/4-5.6 R MSC
Godox TT350O Flash
(This is the most incredible setup I have ever had and I've had quite a few)

Previous Camera Gear:

Olympus OM-D E-M10
Olympus 14-42 II R MSC
Olympus FL-300r Flash

Canon 80D (Returned due to issues with 80D and the 15-85)
Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Tamron SP 45MM f/1.8 VC
Canon 430EX III-rt Speedlight

Sony A65
Sony 18-135m f/3.5-5.6
Sony 85mm f/2.8
Sony HVL-F43AM

Sony NEX-7
Sony 18-200mm OSS
Sony 50mm F1.8 OSS
Sony HVL-F20AM

Canon T2i
Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon 270EX

Nikon D40
Nikon 18-55 ED II
Nikon 55-200mm VR
Nikon 35mm F1.8
Nikon SB-400

Comments

Total: 263, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Limbsjones: I really don't understand the use of the Pen F for this sort of photography...it's not even weather sealed and they had to add a grip to it... Why not just use the GX8...same image quality, weather sealing and a grip built in... sounds like the better choice...just not "stylish" enough??? lol Even the em5ii would be a better choice!

Hey limbsjones, there is nothing silly about my comment. I've never had a mechanical failure on any piece of equipment I've owned. Now it is true that I usually trade up to something new every couple of years. But the fact is I have had (skipping the Canon 80D because I only had it a month) 2 DSLRs, 1 SLT, & 3 Mirrorless, I've shot in all kinds of weather except downpours, and blizzards. I've shot in humid and dry conditions and at everything from beaches to deserts. I have not traversed the Amazon jungle or the Arctic/Antarctic nor do I plan to.

Also, yes I do buy reliable equipment, its not like it takes a rocket scientist to do that; And I only buy new. So from my own experiences of using ILCs for over 10yrs - during that time I have never needed weatherproof gear. Neither has anyone I know and their cameras still work as well.

I know some people do need it, and I have nothing against it whatsoever, but not everyone will need it.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 04:23 UTC
In reply to:

stevevelvia50: Check out the high res mode of this camera, just Google "Pen F High res mode, Imaging Resource". Yes you need a tripod, but not necessarily a big heavy one. The test and results when compared to other cameras are impressive! Make sure you read and view the " whole" article and comparison photos!

I guess my next experiment will be to take several shots at different exposures with the Hi-Res mode and put them todether in post and see what happens. I guess I could also try the RAW Hi-Res mode too. It would be interesting to see.
Either way most of my shots are fairly well and evenly lit when using this mode so for me it might not make make as big a difference as it would for others.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 20:19 UTC
In reply to:

soundknight21: The only reason you chose the PEN-F for this segment is because it's looks appeal to hipsters (AKA a large segment of back packers). The price of this camera really is extraordinary for what you are getting. There are at least 5 other cameras that offer a better amount and quality of features for less price by Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm.

I don't like these 'marketing' articles. This camera does look cool and cute and people will buy it for its looks and good luck to them but this article just feels like advertising.

@Roland - I don't care if you care what I own, I mentioned it because 1) I have the same camera featured in the article and 2) the OP specifically mentioned it and referred to it - so my saying I own it makes my point more credible because I have experience with it and not just opinions based on no actually usage of it.
As to your second point, generally speaking I agree with you regards to "it's the photographer", however", there are several things about my Pen-F that make my images better than the cheaper alternative (and more expensive ones too) and that's why I chose it. I can see the results and I see what the camera is capable of and what it helps me to capture and that's all that matters to me.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 16:00 UTC
In reply to:

stevevelvia50: Check out the high res mode of this camera, just Google "Pen F High res mode, Imaging Resource". Yes you need a tripod, but not necessarily a big heavy one. The test and results when compared to other cameras are impressive! Make sure you read and view the " whole" article and comparison photos!

Agreed, the results from my Pen-F's Hi Res Mode are simply amazing. Being a landscape shooter this is really added to what I like to shoot.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 14:31 UTC
In reply to:

Limbsjones: I really don't understand the use of the Pen F for this sort of photography...it's not even weather sealed and they had to add a grip to it... Why not just use the GX8...same image quality, weather sealing and a grip built in... sounds like the better choice...just not "stylish" enough??? lol Even the em5ii would be a better choice!

I know I'm not alone in this; I've never needed weather sealing on any lens or any camera I've ever shot with. And yes, I shoot in less then favorable weather conditions.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

soundknight21: The only reason you chose the PEN-F for this segment is because it's looks appeal to hipsters (AKA a large segment of back packers). The price of this camera really is extraordinary for what you are getting. There are at least 5 other cameras that offer a better amount and quality of features for less price by Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm.

I don't like these 'marketing' articles. This camera does look cool and cute and people will buy it for its looks and good luck to them but this article just feels like advertising.

Except the camera does produce fantastic shots, I know because mine does, second only to the EM1.2, and most of the time anyone would be hard pressed to tell the images apart from each other.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 04:54 UTC
In reply to:

tinternaut: I predict this will upset a lot of angry white men.

tinternaut I'm only mad because women don't sexually harass me. I lost 25lbs, got some stylish new cloths - what's a guy with white privilege gotta do....

</rolls_eyes>

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

Kaso: Don't rub women the wrong way.

I sense a double entendres here...😳

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 22:09 UTC
In reply to:

fPrime: People still print? ;-)

Hell yes, having a nice personal gallery to showcase is much better than saying to people "hey look at these photos on my iPad."

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 02:48 UTC
In reply to:

tinternaut: Ooh, look what Panasonic just hit out of the park*. Bokeh looks worthy of the name they've stuck on it. It's a nice looking alternative to the 12-35 and 12-40, for those who need extra versatility.

* With apologies from a Brit possibly using a bad Americanism (or a good Americanism badly).

I live in America and half of us don't use good English 😄
I try, but I have my lazy days.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 12:56 UTC
In reply to:

NowHearThis: I'm a little surprised they haven't gotten calls from every 18-35 single male within a hundred mile radius - maybe there's yet hope for the rising generation...

meh. Nobody is worthy of exposure, IMO. People can do whatever I they want, I'm a Libertarian that way, I just don't want to have to be subjected to it. I don't care if you're Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, or Mama June. I don't want to see more them at all. The previous poster said that they wished that nudity wasn't a big deal. My post was in response to that. I'm not perpetuating the stigma that most people are too ugly to be photographed, only that you don't want to be shooting them with their junk hanging out or going for the money shot. Most people aren't supermodels their average, I don't even want to see supermodels naked so why would I want to see anything less. People of all types can be photographed beautifully - I don't think having someone strip down is the only way.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 20:42 UTC
In reply to:

NowHearThis: I'm a little surprised they haven't gotten calls from every 18-35 single male within a hundred mile radius - maybe there's yet hope for the rising generation...

It's not a big deal, it's just that no one in their right mind want to see that many ugly, fat, old, hairy, ... not trying to fat-shame or old-shame or whatever, but mmm damn most of y'all (me included) need to show less, not more.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 04:41 UTC
In reply to:

NowHearThis: I'm a little surprised they haven't gotten calls from every 18-35 single male within a hundred mile radius - maybe there's yet hope for the rising generation...

No I'm saying because they haven't gotten offers from people, means that's a good thing.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2017 at 18:47 UTC

I'm a little surprised they haven't gotten calls from every 18-35 single male within a hundred mile radius - maybe there's yet hope for the rising generation...

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2017 at 16:44 UTC as 38th comment | 8 replies

The only issue I have with my iPhones' camera is that I can't assign a volume button as the shutter release. That would make it handy in some situations.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2017 at 13:50 UTC as 31st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

orion1983: ... the just UP TO 2.5 stops VC are very disappointing and sound like 10 years ago....

This maybe the first underpromise overdeliver lens with regards to image stabilization that I've ever seen published from a manufacturer. Better to say 2.5 and get 3 vs say upto 4.5 and only get 3. Smart. ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 00:14 UTC
In reply to:

NowHearThis: Biggest problems I see this lens potentially having.
1. Huge Distortion at the wide end which NIkon and Canon bodies will not correct even if the user is shooting JPEGs.
2. Very soft images at 200mm and up. Most every review gives these superzoom lenses poor marks at the long end and stopping down doesn't seem to help.
3. CAs and Vignetting, again something that Nikon and Canon bodies won't correct for if you aren't using their own lenses.

These, of course are just guesses, but after trying other superzoom lenses, I don't think I'm far off. If Tamron learned some crazy voodoo and this thing actually turns out to be great, I'll be happy to retract my words here - until then...

4 cameras ago... I had the 15-85 on my Canon T2i. The lens on that camera never had a problem. AF was always perfect. The T2i's metering system was entirely another matter, but the 15-85 was spot on, so I expected no less when I got picked up a new lens for the new body. Sadly it just didn't work out for me. I hope others fair much better than I did, because I REALLY liked the 80D. I like the ergonomics, IQ when using the Tamron 45, colors were really good, flash exposure was spot on, and the metering while not perfect was good enough that I only had to switch it into Center-Weighted metering occasionally. Anyway, I'm glad it's working well on yours.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 22:26 UTC
In reply to:

NowHearThis: Biggest problems I see this lens potentially having.
1. Huge Distortion at the wide end which NIkon and Canon bodies will not correct even if the user is shooting JPEGs.
2. Very soft images at 200mm and up. Most every review gives these superzoom lenses poor marks at the long end and stopping down doesn't seem to help.
3. CAs and Vignetting, again something that Nikon and Canon bodies won't correct for if you aren't using their own lenses.

These, of course are just guesses, but after trying other superzoom lenses, I don't think I'm far off. If Tamron learned some crazy voodoo and this thing actually turns out to be great, I'll be happy to retract my words here - until then...

I should probably clarify one more thing for you, so that you don't think I'm just hating on Tamron (as you probably didn't look at my gear I've owned). Last month I purchased a Canon 80D, 15-85 IS, and a Tamron 45/1.8 VC. Unfortunately I had to return it all because of a problem with the Canon 80D and the 15-85. At close-ish distances I couldn't get sharp photos. However, the Tamron 45/1.8 worked flawlessly and ranks up there with the best normal primes I've ever used. It's much better than the 50's from Canon and Nikon (1.4's and 1.8's), better than Sony or Pentax's 50/1.8's and I'd say it might even be better than my Sony E 50/1.8, and I had a fantastic copy of that lens.
So I know Tamron can make a great lens, but they don't make 'great' in a superzoom yet.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 20:15 UTC
In reply to:

NowHearThis: Biggest problems I see this lens potentially having.
1. Huge Distortion at the wide end which NIkon and Canon bodies will not correct even if the user is shooting JPEGs.
2. Very soft images at 200mm and up. Most every review gives these superzoom lenses poor marks at the long end and stopping down doesn't seem to help.
3. CAs and Vignetting, again something that Nikon and Canon bodies won't correct for if you aren't using their own lenses.

These, of course are just guesses, but after trying other superzoom lenses, I don't think I'm far off. If Tamron learned some crazy voodoo and this thing actually turns out to be great, I'll be happy to retract my words here - until then...

@rimshot, Are you willfully being dumb or did you choose to not read the post?
I'm wondering what part of "These, of course are just guesses" did you not understand.
Right after that I also posted "but after trying other superzoom lenses, I don't think I'm that far off."
Why didn't you read my entire post? or why did you choose to ignore what I wrote?

FYI rimshot, here's the list of Tamron Superzoom lenses I've shot with on many occasions:
18-200 Di II VC on a Nikon
14-150 Di III on my EM10
16-300 Di II VC on my Neighbors Canon
18-200 Di III on a Sony A6000
18-270 Di II VC PZD on both my Uncle's and Cousin's T2i's
Personally, I did not care for any of them. Also, I used to work at a camera store and I had access to Nikon, Canon, Sony, Oly, Tamron, Pentax...; I still have friends there and I still get to try out new gear as it comes in. So you can keep your stupid, smug little comments to yourself and learn to read before you post something like you did and look ridiculous.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 20:01 UTC
In reply to:

ekaton: Sony RX10III?

At least that lens (on the RX10III) gets high praise. And the camera is weather sealed and takes really great video too... hmmm interesting option even with the smaller sensor.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 17:22 UTC
Total: 263, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »