JimW-203

JimW-203

Lives in United States Tarpon Springs, FL, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Jun 4, 2011
About me:

I have been doing photography since the early 50s while in school and later traveling the world in a variety of positions in the government and private industry. Moved from Boston to Florida in 1988; first, St. Petersburg then Orlando, and now, Tarpon Springs.

Comments

Total: 298, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

REDred Photo: I think much of the negative opinion about Hasselblad in the mass market is based on not understanding the company and who their products are made for. Hasselblad has never been a mainstream brand for anyone other than high level professionals. Consumers have no use for the kind of gear they make and so they can't comprehend the pricing. In recent years, hasselblad has become more visible to the mass market because of Internet exposure and the sony re-badge blunder. However, they are still a very major player in the high end pro photography industry. For people who need this kind of equipment, there are really only a few brands: hasselblad, phaseone, mamiya/leaf (now owned by phaseone) and leica. Leica makes something different from the others.

Pentax has always been a bit of a crossover brand... not quite hasselblad territory but well above canikon land. As impressive as the 645z is, at the remarkably low price it goes for, it appeals more to consumers who want something special and can't afford or justify hasselblad or phaseone. Also, it's the only seriously durable medium format option for landscape photographers. That's where pentax dominates: landscape photography. But in the digital era, pentax has yet to make any serious equipment for serious studio photographers. That's where hasselblad and phaseone dominate.

Any "game changing" product from hasselblad would most likely only change the game for professionals who want a serious medium format option for non-studio work. There has not yet been a medium format mirrorless digital system from any brand... unless you count digital backs as mirrorless. If hasselblad can succeed in this, it will change things... but only if the pricing doesn't keep it too far out of reach.

One of the biggest reasons medium format gear is so expensive is because they just don't sell enough units to benefit from economy of scale. If hasselblad could make a product that appealed to more customers and more people could afford it, then they could sell more units and produce more new products, and so on.

I believe the sony mess was an attempt in that direction. They attempted to create a lower priced product that would appeal to their existing high price customer base. Partnering with sony meant not having to invest in the R&D to build something they knew would never compete in the consumer market. Of course consumers saw through it all. So what? They weren't hiding anything. It really wasn't any different than a company buying batteries from a third party and slapping their name on it to sell at a markup. That's business. You try and generate capital where you can so you have resources to invent new products. I'm sure anyone who bought a lunar or solar understood that they were getting sony electronics with hasselblad aesthetics. They understood the cost of product wasn't anywhere near the selling price. And they chose to buy it anyway, knowing they were essentially investing in the future of an historical, innovative brand that needed some cash flow.

As said; the only game likely to be changed is the one played by Hasselblad's core/target audience. Just as Australian Rules football and American Football share a name, they share little else. Photography in the atmosphere of a studio shooting for the pages of Vogue and that of a family outing or a vacation in France are alike in name only. I would be quite surprised if whatever the announcement is it will impact the membership of DPReview other than tangentially. Regarding Hasselblad's appearance in TV commercials, I can only think of one: a current Volvo commercial with the tag line "our idea of luxury." (AKA wedding commercial) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a76y8OoDy90

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2016 at 20:47 UTC
On article Magnum signed square print sale returns for third year (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Nice! The last one is too slick for me, but those folks swimming at Brighton Beach is a delight! Brighton would be a great place for a camera testing business; lots of contrast and dynamic range.

Quote: Clint Dunn
Really? The Brighton Beach photo is garbage and doesn't deserve to be included with some of the other (brilliant) photos. The guy didn't even get the composition right cutting off the bottom swimmer.

Really? Check again; this time look at the whole picture rather than the thumbnail before you judge. The guy? The guy is Martin Parr, at the very least one should know who one is criticizing.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 19:47 UTC
On article Mosh pits and sunsets: Shooting with the Panasonic GX85 (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: It's not cheap, but it is a really nice camera with lots of features... and an older, too-small, sensor. It is a real pitty that micro4/3 wasn't designed to accommodate a range of sensor sizes up to FF....

4/3 is the sensor size - roughly 1.33 inches. Your statement re: multiple sensor sizes would be like offering yard sticks in multiple lengths. If you find the sensor limiting, feel free to buy something else.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2016 at 04:18 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

cathyph1: Barney -- Could you possibly explain why the G7 was picked over the GX80/85? It seems that the GX80/85 has everything the G7 has and more or am I missing something? Of course the G7 can be had for less money but that didn't appear to be the criterion.

@InTheMist
If outside the price range, why was it included in the mix of cameras evaluated? I compute $797 and change to be less than $800.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2016 at 19:56 UTC
In reply to:

MrTaikitso: As a GX8 owner, the fact they left out a flippy forward screen (ideal for composing video), mic input, exp comp dial and a flip up EVF indicates that other than the slightly improved stabilization and shutter, GX8 is still the top end.

However, it augers well for the GX8 successor's feature set. Perhaps we have something very exciting to look forward to.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 13:00 UTC
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (540 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: Is DPreview being "dramatic" on this shutter shock thang? I've talked to a bunch of Panasonic GX8 owners on here and on other sites that say they haven't had this issue. Maybe DPreview got a defective unit in for review?

My frustration with all the SS fright inducing hoopla is the lack of objective information that would lead users to the knowledge of what SS looks like and the ability to move away from an overall brand indictment. If SS is analogous to mirror slap in a DSLR in film, then the entire film plane shudders when a mirror moves up and down and the mirror and/or body are poorly dampened. If this is correct, then the corollary behavior in digital would be the entire sensor shuddering durring the same process or durring shutter movement . If so, the whole image would exhibit the double image or blurring that is often identified as being caused by SS. If, on the other hand, the flaws exhibited do not extend across the whole image but, rather, are isolated and discrete then I would be reluctant to attribute those flaws to SS. Consequently, it would be a valuable service for someone - DPReview, perhaps - to create a set of exemplars that illustrate how to recognize and diagnose the flaws.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 18:47 UTC
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (540 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ed Overstreet: The new Auto feature for the electronic shutter, added in the firmware update which gives the Post-Focus feature, is now also available in the G7 in a firmware update -- as well as Post-Focus for that camera. The G7 uses the same batteries as the GX8, so they compliment each other nicely.

The review completely misses the point (IMO) of Post-Focus. Post Focus really shines if you want to do focus stacking in a situation where the subject(s) in the frame aren't moving around. With Post Focus it is now possible to do hand-held capture for focus stacking quickly, silently and easily. In about two seconds of 4K MP4 burst you can record the scene at all focus points in the frame with an f:1.4 - f:2.8 lens in low light at much faster shutter speeds and/or much lower ISOs than you'd need at f:16 or f:22, and yet get the same effective depth of field in your focus stack and without the loss of sharpness from the diffraction you'll get at f:16 or f:22 on most MFT lenses.

Regarding in-camera focus stacking:

What benefit can you envision from such a feature? When I stack focus, I choose the sequence of focus points based on the image needs and my intent. I can imagine no on board feature that would provide an acceptable substitute for my judgement in those regards. Why would I abrogate my responsibility for deciding what I want in focus to an arbitrary rationale established by some group of unknown engineers? Whomever those persons may be, they can't possibly have seen what I am seeing in the finder nor are they capable of interpreting my intent - what they could bring to the practice escapes me.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 16:04 UTC
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (540 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: The only flaw I find with the GX8 is having that tilting viewfinder. It looks goofy to me. Remove it.

I, personally, would opt for functionality over subtlety that does nothing to aid its use. The ability to pivot upwards is massively useful for low level and macro photography. If, on the other hand, you mean that the rubber eyecup extends too far from the back, then I submit that the extra eye relief is very welcome. In fact, one of the first accessories I bought was the larger eyecup to extend eye relief somewhat.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 20:50 UTC
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (540 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: The only flaw I find with the GX8 is having that tilting viewfinder. It looks goofy to me. Remove it.

Looks goofy? Are you concerned that others are laughing at you behind your back? Just think of it as snowshoes - they look goofy but get you where you want to go in the snow. In other words they both work when you need them.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 19:33 UTC
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (540 comments in total)
In reply to:

spikey27: A nice camera, but ....

A big camera needs a big grip, and a number of DPR staffers weren't thrilled with the one on the GX8. It's not as deep as we would've liked

It seems the trend continues toward smaller and smaller products regardless of whether they are so small their usability is compromised. This one is no different.

I've always been a fan of "larger" bodied cameras simply because they aren't as difficult to hold, operate, etc. as the "itty-bitty" ones - regardless of how many features can be packed into them.

Sigh....

I have had my GX8 for several months now and find it still a pleasure to use. For more that 20 years the only 35mm SLR I used was non-metered Nikon Fs; in that time I worked my way through 7 of them. By the time they had seen their full life they were mostly brass with bits and pieces of black remaining. Since moving to digital, I was unable to find a camera that felt as comfortable in my hands - until the GX8. Immediately upon picking it up it felt familiar in shape and size; admittedly the VF was in a different place, there was no prism pyramid, no rewind, no film advance yet my thumb fell to where the advance lever would be, the dials on the top plate (while more of them) felt good and worked well. I never thought the grip was too shallow or awkward; after all, the F had no grip and the closest I came to a grip was either a motor drive or an outboard flash. All-in-all, I find it comfortable and familiar as it should.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 13:07 UTC
In reply to:

Soggoth: Thanks for the samples!
Edge sharpness seems to be good straight from f/1.4 and great on f/4.

Glad I preordered this lens

Rishi:

Thanks for the samples; an excellent choice of subjects with several shot with a fair range of options in settings. I, for one, would love to see a follow up - sooner rather than later - of a head-to-head series using the Oly Pen F and the Lumix GX8. Given those cameras' role as the most recent top-of-the-heap (in specs, at least) in MFT they represent what may be argued as the best representatives of the core market for this lens. I would also argue for a tightly controlled format that would allow a one-to-one comparison of the results. Thanks again for your thoughtful contribution.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 09:37 UTC
In reply to:

beavertown: $339 or $500???

Sigma website (USA) shows the new Contemporary as $339 in all mounts indicated. They also show the current APS Art lens with the same designation as $499. I suspect Amazon doesn't drill very deeply enough to get the correct price matches.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 09:25 UTC
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (540 comments in total)
In reply to:

cgarrard: I still think the L1 handles way better and is much prettier to look at ;). Too bad panasonic couldnt have just taken the L1's shell, replaced the OVF with a nice new EVF and upgraded the sensor/af/processor/lcd/menu :).

I understand and, to a degree, agree with you. However, had what you suggest been done, the result would have been a significantly smaller camera. To whit:
1) no more need for a mirror box - thinner camera
2) flange distance would have shrunk - as above
3) the flange diameter would have shrunk - reducing the need for as large a face.
The resultant design probably would have very much what the GX8 is in fact. It would have even been able to accommodate the second dial on the top plate and an exceptionally nice tilting EVF that so many have commented on so favorably. Compare sizes: L1 146 x 87 x 77 mm and 1090g
GX8 133 x 78 x 63 mm and 487g
Had they done as you suggest it would have only provided grist for the "it's too big" mill - and they may have bee right.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 21:19 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: I wish they could make this a F2.8-4 and without much difference in volume. :-)

0MitchAG:
"...Maybe I expect too much from Panasonic... but other manufacturers can get it right the first time, or even on the second - Panasonic though? Nah, 5th time lucky!"

Could you please link us to those stellar manufacturers? I have yet to see any manufacturer that is without slips, hiccups, and other lapses in design or implementation. Also, why, if Panasonic is so remiss in satisfying your needs/demands, do you seem to be supporting their efforts so vigorously as evidenced by your gear list?

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 08:28 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: I wish they could make this a F2.8-4 and without much difference in volume. :-)

0MitchAG:

By all means, bring your power to bear on these slackers. During your next product planning meeting, let them know they are letting you down. Follow it up by giving the whole department a poor performance review.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2016 at 18:48 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: Panasonic should bring for Pana users 16mm f/1.8 prime instead of this zoom and put to shame overpriced Oly 12/2.

Continued:

With reference to the examples given, above: they all illustrate admirably the quality of the results that can be achieved by talented users of quality tools used correctly. My statements had nothing to do with the separation or any other quality achieved with the lens in actual use, but rather with any perceived or actual increase in "niceness" (to use the concept originally responded to) with the change from f2 to f1.7 for a lens of the focal length specified.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: Panasonic should bring for Pana users 16mm f/1.8 prime instead of this zoom and put to shame overpriced Oly 12/2.

Ten feet was a totally arbitrary distance. So, pick a distance, any distance; the choice is determined on what the subject is and what the intent is. See: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
The closer you are, the shallower the dof is; the farther you are, the deeper the dof.. That remains true - always - it is just a given. I can think of no specific distance I could have chosen that would have captured anything close to the "majority" of all subject to camera distances actually used with any given focal length. The exception might be the use of infinity as a subject distance for landscape photography.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: Panasonic should bring for Pana users 16mm f/1.8 prime instead of this zoom and put to shame overpriced Oly 12/2.

The 15mm FL changes the results somewhat, but the results never approach what I would consider shallow:
15mm @ f2 subject 10' yields 7.12' to 16.8'
with f1.7 yield is 7.46' to 15.2'
How "nice" is that?

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 20:00 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: Panasonic should bring for Pana users 16mm f/1.8 prime instead of this zoom and put to shame overpriced Oly 12/2.

I wonder if the original user of the "nicer DoF" term actually knows what the in-focus range comparison is for a 12mm focal length lens on a four thirds sensor with a subject, say 10 feet from the camera, with f1.7 and f2 apertures.
12mm FL @ f2 with subject distance @ 10 feet yields an in-focus range from 6.13' to 27.4'
The same setup @ f1.7 yields 6.53' to 21.4' in-focus
Thus, you can see it may be very hard for the f1.7 to be seen as significantly "nicer" than f2.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: Panasonic should bring for Pana users 16mm f/1.8 prime instead of this zoom and put to shame overpriced Oly 12/2.

Mateus1:
"I would choose Pana 12/1.7 over Oly 12/2 just for nicer DoF..."

What does "nicer DoF" look like?

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 17:59 UTC
Total: 298, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »