Danielvr

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on Mar 14, 2007

Comments

Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17
On photo Sulk in the A look is worth a thousand words challenge (1 comment in total)

Ha ha, great shot :) Somehow it reminds me of Irving Penn's famous portrait of Truman Capote. Maybe you and your son could recreate that one some time.

(http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/144808)

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 04:46 UTC as 1st comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1031 comments in total)
In reply to:

Danielvr: How much time did the reviewer spend familiarizing himself with the camera and its AF-system before taking it to this game?

Thanks! I asked because I wondered if you've looked at the various AF-C customisation options, which include a preset ('set 4') that's geared towards unpredictable movements and objects that move at quickly changing speeds, like in basketball. I think this setting could have a major impact on AF-C performance, so, to me the review doesn't seem complete without a test and discussion of it.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 19:48 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1031 comments in total)

How much time did the reviewer spend familiarizing himself with the camera and its AF-system before taking it to this game?

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 17:25 UTC as 225th comment | 3 replies

Here's another short documentary about a camera repairman. It's in Japanese, but it's strangely satisfying to watch even if (like me) you don't understand a word of what is being said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKno7C000EA

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 19:39 UTC as 20th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: I never bought into the FT system, as there was no real size advantage over existing DSLRs.

My first MFT camera was the Panasonic GF1. I have stuck with Panasonic since, mainly for the quality of their video, which for me, was one of the main reasons to buy into MFT. I wanted a single camera that could shoot high quality stills AND high quality video. MFT and Panasonic delivered on that.

At the time the Olympus E1 was announced, I was shooting with the Fuji S2 Pro frankencamera. On February 12, 2004, Kodak announced the SLRn, their second Nikon mount FF camera. I had one in my hands before the month was out. I shot with the SLRn until I retired it in 2010. By then I had bought a GF1 and had begun to explore MFT.

Today I am all in with MFT, but still shoot Nikon FF (D800E) for my studio work. I use the Panasonic cameras in the studio too, for video, now all in 4K. However, the Panasonic cameras are my travel/party/fun time cameras. The Nikon never leaves the studio.

Well, for me the Four Thirds size benefit was a deciding factor. Not so much because individual components were smaller, but because I could get the entire 24-400mm (eq.) focal range in just two high quality lenses, the 12-60mm and the 50-200mm, which I could carry (along with the E-510 body) in a small Domke shoulder bag. This wasn't possible with gear from any other brand.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 01:56 UTC
In reply to:

Danielvr: Oh to contemplate those many innovations that we take for granted these days, that started out as 'solutions looking for a problem' when Olympus introduced them. Live view, flippy screens, the dust buster, sensor-based image stabilisation, high-res mode.. makes you wonder if other companies ever invent anything.

Well, Oly was the first to implement them in SLR cameras, right?

(other than hi-res mode which came later)

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 22:36 UTC

Oh to contemplate those many innovations that we take for granted these days, that started out as 'solutions looking for a problem' when Olympus introduced them. Live view, flippy screens, the dust buster, sensor-based image stabilisation, high-res mode.. makes you wonder if other companies ever invent anything.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 22:29 UTC as 106th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

mgrum: I never understood why they went with such a thick coverglass that required larger [image space] telecentric lens designs, seems to defeat the purpose of the smaller format.

Images from other manufacturers had dim, fuzzy corners in those early days. Olympus avoided this problem with their telecentric lenses, which aimed the light rays straight into the light wells, even in the corners of the sensor. Other manufacturers eventually got around the problem through improved micro lenses that sit on top of the wells.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 22:23 UTC
In reply to:

Danielvr: I love the slime mold image by Jose Almodovar, but someone should photoshop a little boy into it who parks his bicycle up against one of those 'trees'.

Hahaha you did it! Just as I pictured it, thanks! :-))

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2016 at 21:43 UTC

I love the slime mold image by Jose Almodovar, but someone should photoshop a little boy into it who parks his bicycle up against one of those 'trees'.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 04:12 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

aandeg: Wow what a price for a lens without stabilization. Looks like Olympus put the stabilizer in the body and left the cost in the lenses.

@agentul: "not much demand for endoscopes with OIS in the lens."

Well, the vibrations might be pleasant.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 19:26 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: I only came here to see how many people would write this is actually an f/5.6 lens. There are so many... oh well.

When suffering through those boring comments from the equivalence crowd, just keep in mind that these are old-tech FF Canikon shooters who are on the fence about dumping their gear and joining the bright side of Micro Fourthirds (nobody else gives a hoot about equivalence!). Be considerate and patient with them as they shake off the old paradigm and adjust to the new.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 11:20 UTC

You missed this one and it's well worth a look.. a fox in a Dutch nature reserve takes off with the GoPro Hero 3 camera that the film makers had hidden in a carcass. For those who wonder about the cable seen in the footage, that's part of a custom made battery pack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkDKgX1Od8w

Link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 22:17 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
On article US Judge rules for Eggleston in dispute with collector (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

Binone: When you purchase a limited edition of any art - be it photograph or painting, unless it's the original, it will have a number: x of y, where "y" is the total number of prints, or lithographs, etc. that are going to be produced. The value of any one is very much dependent on how many are produced. I have to agree with the collector here. The artist, in effect, increased y and that results in a decrease in the value of any one of the copies.

My other issue is: Holy Crap!!! I'd have thrown that shot away. Like another poster wrote - where's my kid's old bike.. If I had exhibited that photo at a club where I have competed, at a minimum, I'd have been criticized for the little bit of a car that's on the right. I see a lot of photos that are truly remarkable works of art. But, $250k for this??? I must be getting old.

I fully agree. Being a (small) collector myself, I'd hate to see new fine art quality editions published of the limited edition works that I paid hard-earned money for.
It's customary that the artist or his agent will state, in advance, exactly how many signed and numbered prints will be made, e.g. 10 small ones, 10 medum-sized and 5 large prints, plus a certain number of copies for the artist himself. I don't mind at all if they also make posters and postcards or reproduce the image in books and on the web, but there should be no additional signed fine art quality prints. If this court decission stands (which I doubt), it might well spell the end of photo and graphic art collecting.
BTW, in some countries and states, artists and their heirs receive a percentage of the proceeds of each successive resale of their works, and so, do share in the increasing value of their works.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 01:15 UTC
In reply to:

Kinematic Digit: Do we really need another standard that frankly is just as confusing? Lines Per Height has always worked well for me. It covers both resolution of the body, the lens. Perceived resolution is just as confusing if not more so.

Looking at those numbers seem relatively meaningless to me considering that much of the Perceived numbers are changed by lens profile correction of in camera and also software applications that correct for some of those issues without any compromise to image quality.

I don't think this makes it any easier to decide which lens (or body) is better to pick from at all.

I think this 'Perceptual Mpix' metric has practical value for a lot of people and as such I welcome it. However, if it should become very popular, I'd be concerned that manufacturers will optimize new lenses to get a good Mpix score at the expense of other qualities (and, frankly, I think they've been optimizing them for 'sharpness' way too much already -- I really miss the beautiful, 'analog' rendering of detail that the properly resolving but lower acutance lenses of the 80s still had).

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2012 at 03:22 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: The main problem here in the comments section is that 90% of the people responding are NOT concert photographers, nor do they make money from selling concert photographs. They don't understand the business.

I shoot for a major agency, I have been approved to shoot the show as a representative of an agency the licenses images for editorial use, I show up and I'm handed a fill-in-the-blanks contract that says the images can only be used for _________ publication, and that I retain no rights to the images and must hand them over at the request of the band.

What do I get out of that? I get to see 3 songs and escorted out, then I get to spend hours editing photos for NOTHING? No renumeration for my time, I can't use them in my portfolio. The photos exist only for the band's benefit, and they didn't spend a DIME.

The real problem here is the fans with a decent DSLR that have no problems undermining the profession, because to them it's just a hobby and a chance to get a free ticket.

Can't you just design a richly curled signature that upon very, very close inspection (such as is impossible in a crowded, dimly lit venue) spells 'f... you' especially for contracts of this kind?

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2012 at 22:12 UTC
Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17