Joined on Sep 9, 2011


Total: 40, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

the 55mm f/1.0 wil be called the "Tuoit Tuowoo"

Link | Posted on May 1, 2013 at 03:40 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
On article Roger Cicala compares Zeiss and Canon 135mm f/2 lenses (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: Both lenses are great at their peak at 5.6-8.0, but at f/2 Canon is pretty lousy, while Zeiss is still pretty good. For most practical purposes Canon is a f/2.8 lens.

Holding it in your hands is at least part way towards having any experience whatsoever with a lens, of which the OP has none. For Pete's sake, what a Richard Cranium remark!

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2013 at 04:08 UTC
In reply to:

JEROME NOLAS: Poor cry baby! Mom, nobody loves me any more!

He'd better sue DPR (or whoever they really are now) as well then for all the clicks and advertising they get as a result of posting the image without permission

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2013 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee: I think he's more impressed than the clients will be. People just don't care about that kind of thing. They want facial expressions and a record of the event. Full stop. Nobody likes a SLOW photographer at a wedding.

Great lens for a pre-big day shoot with the couple relaxed and a bit more time to be creative. Even on the day there are stationary subjects that benefit from perspective control (cake, flowers etc etc). It's really mind-numbing doing this in post - agencies have people doing it full time and I've seen how often they yawn. That 90mm is a gem - no Mark II nonsense, no big discounts, no depreciation.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2013 at 00:07 UTC
On article Pro DSLRs, Pro Photographers (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deleted pending purge: No such thing like Pro cameras, there's only Pro photographers.
And what makes them Pro (besides being obvious where their bread comes from) is sometimes the fact that they can do good photos with any camera.
Otherwise, mercantilistic lore or not, there are only expensive, less expensive, not expensive, and cheap cameras. Technically, these will do what their specs say, if you either need or can afford to use them. But in the end, it will always be 10% equipment and 90% author - at any price level.

What a tired and abused term "professional" has become. We're really talking about commercial photographers, people who's main source of income is selling images. This bogus 'pro' terminology is used to sell expensive gear to amateurs. And yes I'm an amateur: I take pictures for enjoyment, not to put bread on the table (halleluja!).

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2013 at 01:54 UTC

Yes, very good. Quick, accurate, quiet - so different from the chattering fool of a camera I originally bought.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2013 at 21:31 UTC as 11th comment
On article Olympus announces Stylus XZ-10 enthusiast compact (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

B1ackhat: 479.99 GBP = 756.74 USD ... $756 for a 1/2.3" sensor with 5x zoom? Seriously? We already saw this one-trick-pony with the Nikon P300, which is available for 1/3 the price of the XZ-10.

Just another black rectangle, from a company who can do better

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2013 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: It's an interesting question, but after reading the forums here people seem to fetishise the perceived improvements of the next model in the shop as though this will somehow improve their photography, so cameras can never get familiar enough to be cherished as objects. They are just temporary tools that the manufacturers are only to keen to see us replace.

It's not like the old days like when my Pentax spotmatic was used weekly for 20 years, that won't happen with a D90 (if you remember even that far back!)

Adams used many different cameras and combinations over the years.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2013 at 21:59 UTC

Jobs would've torn them a new hole

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2012 at 01:07 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On article First Impressions: Using the Fujifilm X-Pro1 (228 comments in total)

Yes, the diopter issue is a pain. The window with the supplied diopter removed is 0 correction. If you have perfect eyesight, the supplied diotper (-1) is unhelpful and can be replaced with a 0 correction piece (to protect the window); if you wear glasses, and want to compose with them on, you can do the same thing as the eye relief distance is reasonable. If you wear glasses and take them off to compose, for middle-far distance, you need a diopter corresponding to your prescription for middle-far distance (roughly driving) vision. Example: I'm long-sighted and wear +1 for driving but prefer to compose without glasses, so I replaced the supplied diopter with a +1. By the way, the diopters for Nikon FM3a etc cameras are a perfect fit, but tighten it a bit as they tend to loosen - much better made than the Fuji one, cheap and plentiful on Ebay.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2012 at 05:27 UTC as 14th comment
On article First Impressions: Using the Fujifilm X-Pro1 (228 comments in total)

Results with the Voigtlander 12 and 15mm (Metabones adapter) are quite good - Capture One support would be nice sometime before the year 2020!

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2012 at 23:47 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

bigpeeler: I'll send my man Jeeves to pick mine up in my new private jet.

Ha ha, and he would be expected to 'wear it in' a bit for you as well :)

Link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 01:56 UTC

Maybe they bought some Greek govt bonds a while back and never told anyone

Link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 01:48 UTC as 51st comment

i can think of three or four 'fondly-remembered' OMs, but the OM-4 is not one of them

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 02:14 UTC as 4th comment
On article Pentax announces K-01 K-mount APS-C mirrorless camera (866 comments in total)

This reminds me of that definition of a camel: a horse designed by a committee

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 02:02 UTC as 125th comment

There will be a 3-camera line-up:

12MP m4/3 "dOM"; $800
16MP APS-C "dOMG"; $1200

I will be saving up for number three

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 08:44 UTC as 7th comment


Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2011 at 22:33 UTC as 31st comment
On article Just posted: Book reviews - Kertész (17 comments in total)

sigh. I'm not talking about the photo "Martinique" and my remark was not a reply to the original mention of this photo. I'm talking about the one entitled "Meudon". In the second paragraph of the review, there is a reference to a photograph entitled "Moudon"; there is no such photograph in Kertesz' work, though there is a small town in Switzerland with this name. "Meudon" is a suburb of Paris and the title of Kertesz' best-known photograph. The authors of a review of a book on Kertesz, on a photography website, describing arguably his most celebrated image, have got it wrong. It's careless and Google doesn't like it (the unpardonable sin). Sorry for the confusion; "Martinique" is "Martinique", "Meudon" is "Meudon", they are two different places, two different photos (and I know where I 'd rather be). Let's drop it.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2011 at 13:02 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Just posted: Book reviews - Kertész (17 comments in total)

no, "Meudon" is spelt wrongly in the review

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2011 at 02:24 UTC as 6th comment
On article Just posted: Book reviews - Kertész (17 comments in total)

It's "Meudon"

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2011 at 23:50 UTC as 8th comment
Total: 40, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »