fad

fad

Lives in United States NYC, NY, United States
Works as a Investor/Scholar-poet
Joined on Oct 2, 2005
About me:

Equipment:
Nikon D750, D810, D4s, D800, Fuji X100
14-24, 24-70, 70-200/2.8 zooms
35/1.8, 50/1.8G, 85/1.4G, 85/1.8G, 135/2D,
24-120/4 VR, 24-85G, 28-300G

Caonon 5d, 1ds mk3
70-200 2.8 IS
70-200/4 IS
70-300 DO IS
24-105/4
16-35/2.8 II

35/2
50/1.4
85/1.2 II
200/2.8

Comments

Total: 91, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (507 comments in total)

For people who do demanding street and related photography, there is a need for a camera with great focus and responsiveness, plus a sensor with the ability to handle extremes of contrast and low light, plus a higher resolution for maximum flexibility in cropping, plus as small a size as possible to make it easy to carry in the hand.

The world does not only consist of sports shooters, wedding shooters (who actually have the same needs as above in many cases), and landscape and still life and macro shooters. Some of us, I don't know how many, do spontaneous photography at a very demanding level. An A9 with higher resolution might be very interesting to us.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 14:10 UTC as 101st comment | 1 reply
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

Majauskasson: Good article. I believe the mystique of rangefinders and Leica in particular, will eventually fade away. The fact that you struggled getting some decent well-focused pictures speaks to Leica's dilemma - to modernize or not.

Wouldn't a new Leica-designed modern world-class auto-focusing system make Leica more desirable than peddling the 1940s rangefinder focus for $6,000 that nobody needs, wants or has to skills to bother with? If range-finders were the be-all you'd see professionals clamouring for it on their Nikons and Canons. Which they're not.

Your experience with the M10 exemplifies why auto-focus took over. For the most part, auto-focus works just fine. If Leica would focus itself on developing ground-breaking technology instead of re-hashing antiquated ones, the $6,000 it charges might start feeling worthwhile. The fact you found it necessary to hide the red dot also shows that the brand isn't what it used to mean, instead of the distraction it now presented to your subjects.

Chambers talks about subtracting the rangefinder, and then adding the EVF, so the siize remains small.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 20:24 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

Majauskasson: Good article. I believe the mystique of rangefinders and Leica in particular, will eventually fade away. The fact that you struggled getting some decent well-focused pictures speaks to Leica's dilemma - to modernize or not.

Wouldn't a new Leica-designed modern world-class auto-focusing system make Leica more desirable than peddling the 1940s rangefinder focus for $6,000 that nobody needs, wants or has to skills to bother with? If range-finders were the be-all you'd see professionals clamouring for it on their Nikons and Canons. Which they're not.

Your experience with the M10 exemplifies why auto-focus took over. For the most part, auto-focus works just fine. If Leica would focus itself on developing ground-breaking technology instead of re-hashing antiquated ones, the $6,000 it charges might start feeling worthwhile. The fact you found it necessary to hide the red dot also shows that the brand isn't what it used to mean, instead of the distraction it now presented to your subjects.

It's a question of perception and starting point. If you start as a rangefinder shooter, than all makes sense.

If, like me, even as a street photographer, you are starting with FF gear, with more advanced sensors and AF, not so much. I can appreciated and respect the zen of rangefinder focusing, but that's not what I want. I was impressed by the EVF of the SL, and manual focusing ability, but what I want is a smaller MILC camera, or a 40-50mm Q.

I've read a few posts from potential Leica buyers who feel the same frustration.

Lloyd Chambers, and comments, expresses it well:
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20170127_1058-IsLeicaViable.html

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 14:56 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (495 comments in total)
In reply to:

Majauskasson: Good article. I believe the mystique of rangefinders and Leica in particular, will eventually fade away. The fact that you struggled getting some decent well-focused pictures speaks to Leica's dilemma - to modernize or not.

Wouldn't a new Leica-designed modern world-class auto-focusing system make Leica more desirable than peddling the 1940s rangefinder focus for $6,000 that nobody needs, wants or has to skills to bother with? If range-finders were the be-all you'd see professionals clamouring for it on their Nikons and Canons. Which they're not.

Your experience with the M10 exemplifies why auto-focus took over. For the most part, auto-focus works just fine. If Leica would focus itself on developing ground-breaking technology instead of re-hashing antiquated ones, the $6,000 it charges might start feeling worthwhile. The fact you found it necessary to hide the red dot also shows that the brand isn't what it used to mean, instead of the distraction it now presented to your subjects.

Leica has a dilemma. Rangefinder users are a captive audience. They dare not make the camera that shows AF to be superior. The Q is not the most popular focal length. The SL is large and have very large lenses.

I would buy an M with an EVF in a second. Leica offers excellent small lenses Inot better than an Otus, but let that go) and a superior look and feel that I'd happily pay for. But they won't make a small full frame camera that competes too strongly with the rangefinder M. Because other manufacturers can make excellent cameras too. But nobody else will make an excellent rangefinder.

They'd probably be stupid to admit that rangefinders are outdated and weird and make what the rest of us want. It's too bad their hands are tied by rangefinder fanatics. But they are.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 05:54 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (899 comments in total)

It would be fun to own a MF camera. But there has to be a use for me, and a reason.

This will add nothing of significance to an Otus and the D810 successor that is said to come this year. The Nikon will probably be better than this.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 00:53 UTC as 180th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Retzius: Why do Leica photographers inevitably end up walking around talking photos of homeless people with a $10k camera kit?

Schadenfreude comes to mind...

The reason not to take pictures of homeless people is that they are a cliche.

The world does not any more identical pictures of homeless people to raise awareness. They are boring.

There is, if anything, too much awareness and too little thought about the meaning of the phenomenon, and what can realistically be done in a wealthy society with freedom of choice and weak social controls. That is not our job as photographers.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 18:33 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Fujifilm X100 (173 comments in total)

Still gathering dust for me, after all these years.

Sadly, useless for street photography.

I just bought MG Voigtlander 40/1.8 MF lens for D750 to fill this same niche.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 23:06 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
On photo DSC_5633-BW2 in Cristina 1976's photo gallery (2 comments in total)
In reply to:

TroiD: I really like this photo. Good B&W conversion. Beautiful woman. Nice pose.

I don't agree at all. The facial expression is unnatural and off-putting, the angle is wrong for the face type, the vignetting is too obvious, the detail in the hair, the only nice part of the picture is lacking. The fingers are very unfortunate.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2016 at 23:18 UTC
On photo Urban snowfall in the Show me the snow challenge (14 comments in total)

Good job.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 00:55 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

chewdoggydog: Haters hate on what you're doing......critics critique on how you're doing it.

I certainly don't hate you for it. I realize that prejudice and self-promotion is something we all are subject too. But you are being a bald-faced bigot toward people who disagree with you.

You might want to reconsider.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2016 at 18:29 UTC
In reply to:

fad: Let's face facts. Photography by its very nature is superficial. What it captures is surfaces. And since surfaces bear only a tangential relationship to inner reality and the truth of event, all photos distort the truth, or, if one wants to bore down harder, all photos lie.

I don't see how using the same distorting filter that creates lies about celebrities gives us any insight into the tragic predicaments of the homeless, or expresses their central humanity. It is a cheap gimmick. And I find its glib superficiality demeaning to both its subjects and to us viewers. I don't need a smug young man with a camera to tell me that God loves people who do not look like me.

In NYC, the homeless are hardly overlooked:

"The $1.04 billion that the Department of Homeless Services is forecast to spend through June 30 is more than each of the city's budgets for transportation, parks, libraries, cultural affairs and affordable housing." "People should be astonished by the amount of money that is being spent and apparently to little avail," said Martin Oesterreich, a homeless services commissioner for Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican. Mr. Oesterreich's budget was in the $400-million range when he left office in 2001. "Somebody's got to get a hold of it."

Thinking photography gives us any valid insight into complex social issues is nonsense. It basically a parlor trick played on our visual senses and our tendency to think superficially.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2016 at 18:00 UTC
In reply to:

fad: Let's face facts. Photography by its very nature is superficial. What it captures is surfaces. And since surfaces bear only a tangential relationship to inner reality and the truth of event, all photos distort the truth, or, if one wants to bore down harder, all photos lie.

I don't see how using the same distorting filter that creates lies about celebrities gives us any insight into the tragic predicaments of the homeless, or expresses their central humanity. It is a cheap gimmick. And I find its glib superficiality demeaning to both its subjects and to us viewers. I don't need a smug young man with a camera to tell me that God loves people who do not look like me.

It requires a healthy human and/or spiritual imagination to appreciate the humanity of people who are different from us, whether they are homeless or billionaires. Disabilities are something we all have, to various degrees, and it is clear to me, and others, that they basically define our humanity. One of my disabilities is hearing loss. It is completely invisible, and profoundly socially isolating. Taking glamour shots of deaf people is not going to increase love, acceptance and understanding.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2016 at 17:57 UTC

Let's face facts. Photography by its very nature is superficial. What it captures is surfaces. And since surfaces bear only a tangential relationship to inner reality and the truth of event, all photos distort the truth, or, if one wants to bore down harder, all photos lie.

I don't see how using the same distorting filter that creates lies about celebrities gives us any insight into the tragic predicaments of the homeless, or expresses their central humanity. It is a cheap gimmick. And I find its glib superficiality demeaning to both its subjects and to us viewers. I don't need a smug young man with a camera to tell me that God loves people who do not look like me.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2016 at 17:57 UTC as 16th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

fad: I wish my fellow dslr users would relax about Leica. Leica cameras are exotics. Exotics are products that are more expensive and more specialized than mainstream ones. They exist because some people want them.

Leicas are within my budget, but I don't have the need for them. I did buy the 55mm Otus just to have the experience it provides. The lens has taught me things about photography, but it is not practical for most things. My inexpensive 1.8G primes and, of course, various zooms are much more useful. But it gives me pleasure to have a lens that is totally impractical and, occasionally, give me results different from what my excellent Nikon equipment can provide. That's what exotics do, give a different experience. The difference can help educate us. They can, rarely, fit us like a glove. They can provide psychological satisfaction. They take nothing away from any other equipment or anyone else's creative experience.

Leica should be applauded for working so hard to try to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world.

Think of it this way. Their excellent lenses are mated to an outdated technology in rangefinder bodies. They are approaching this problem creatively. God bless them.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2015 at 17:56 UTC

I wish my fellow dslr users would relax about Leica. Leica cameras are exotics. Exotics are products that are more expensive and more specialized than mainstream ones. They exist because some people want them.

Leicas are within my budget, but I don't have the need for them. I did buy the 55mm Otus just to have the experience it provides. The lens has taught me things about photography, but it is not practical for most things. My inexpensive 1.8G primes and, of course, various zooms are much more useful. But it gives me pleasure to have a lens that is totally impractical and, occasionally, give me results different from what my excellent Nikon equipment can provide. That's what exotics do, give a different experience. The difference can help educate us. They can, rarely, fit us like a glove. They can provide psychological satisfaction. They take nothing away from any other equipment or anyone else's creative experience.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2015 at 17:54 UTC as 14th comment | 3 replies
On photo Mettle in the --Adonis 2015- (In BW) challenge (1 comment in total)

Congratulations, bughunter, from your old friends on the SP forum!

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2015 at 01:17 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Mono a mono: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) hands-on (717 comments in total)

My wife kindly offered to buy me a Leica for Xmas, and I turned her down. I feel the romance of the Leica, but I don't see its practical benefits for street photography over my various FX Nikons. For fine MF glass, I have an Otus 55mm.

Except for smaller size, and better MF after about a year of adjustment, what does any of the newer Leicas offer me as a photographic instrument that is superior to the better sensors, DR, low light, AF, color in the D810, D750, D4s (and perhaps soon a D5) in the best Nikons?

I don't care about hand feel and so forth. My cameras are invisible to me.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 16:17 UTC as 33rd comment | 2 replies
On article Readers' Showcase: Documentary and Street photography (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

JEROME NOLAS: #1 is #1!

I'd like to thank dpr for showcasing some photos from the street/documentary forum. It looks like a good selection to me.

I also congratulate the viewers whose experience had to be circumscribed by the format, the size of the images, the absence of text, the fact that a showcase like this cannot give a representative idea of the photographer and the disparity of photographers and even treatment (BW/color) removes the chance of the photos commenting on each other.

Viewers might find it interesting to dip into the post from which the photos were taken, to get a better sense of each photographer:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54566180

These are the submissions that got > 1 like:

zubu
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54579302
fad
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54579547
xtoph
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54584327
doncath
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54584804
geraldpp is a pro
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54578952
and many others.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 03:19 UTC
On article Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM review (591 comments in total)

The Otus is not for you. Even understanding it is not for you.

But it is for him:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90228.0

Link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 03:53 UTC as 76th comment
On article Behind the scenes: Garry Winogrand at work (52 comments in total)
In reply to:

webrunner5: I would think about anyone of us would take a few good pictures if we had the nerve he did and took 100 thousand shots.

Well, the issue isn't whether he did. That is not in dispute. He was a prolific photographer.

The question is how good an artist is he really? How do his best images stack up against the best street photographers of all time and the other best photographers of his generation.

Do his images have psychological depth. No. Never, in fact.
Do they have thoughtful, reflective and contemplative themes. No. Never.
Does he show deep insight into human interaction. No again.
Do we discover anything in his images that we did not know before about anything but photography. Nope. He did not care about anything else.
So his images are about photography, as he himself says. Well, he does have something to say there. But we'd still have a pretty good idea of what photography is, if he had never lifted a camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2014 at 06:37 UTC
Total: 91, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »