RdCF

RdCF

Lives in Brazil Sao Paulo, Brazil
Joined on Nov 16, 2016

Comments

Total: 29, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

RdCF: Why don't you done one of these to a surf photog, so that somebody can properly test it on the environment most people will buy this for (pics on the beach, in shallow water, of fast moving kids and little fishes)?

Hadn't seen this one until now... thanks for your comments. I'm still thinking on buying something to take to the beach and have decent IQ... maybe just I go and buy a GoPro HeroXX (whichever number they're at today)... seems the logical thing to do after reading your comment.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2020 at 14:17 UTC

Why don't you done one of these to a surf photog, so that somebody can properly test it on the environment most people will buy this for (pics on the beach, in shallow water, of fast moving kids and little fishes)?

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2020 at 17:30 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
On article Film Fridays: 20 film cameras worth buying right now (120 comments in total)

That's a really random camera selection...

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2020 at 13:57 UTC as 11th comment

All good choices, but surely the Spotmatic (used by everybody in the sixties and seventies - and that included people like Sebastiao Salgado and David Bailey) and the MX both made far more for Pentax than the K1000... or the 110...

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2020 at 12:25 UTC as 156th comment | 2 replies
On article When fast-ish is fast enough: in praise of F1.8 lenses (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

RdCF: Critical focus with very shallow DOF (as in f1.2 or 1.4) it's far harder to nail with digital than with film (as film as far more density than digital)... so you're probably right, with digital 1.8 or 2.0 is already plenty...

What I mean by film density is the fact that film has light sensitive material stacked in different layers. In film silver particles are suspended in gelatin and density (or granularity) is read using a microdensitometer. A technical film/low speed film (micro-fine) will have a very low density, while a high speed film (coarse) will be roughly 8 times as thick. This makes easier to focus on film because particles are stacked at different depths while on digital (very much like on technical film) all the photosensitive materials are placed at exactly the same depth.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2019 at 19:59 UTC
On article When fast-ish is fast enough: in praise of F1.8 lenses (527 comments in total)

Critical focus with very shallow DOF (as in f1.2 or 1.4) it's far harder to nail with digital than with film (as film as far more density than digital)... so you're probably right, with digital 1.8 or 2.0 is already plenty...

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2019 at 16:23 UTC as 111th comment | 5 replies
On article Video: 37 different camera shutter sounds in 3 minutes (119 comments in total)

You have to love that Spotmatic sound...

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2019 at 16:19 UTC as 14th comment

I'd expect some sample shots on very dark environments to make justice to a f1.0 lens... It's kind of cruel to test a 1.0 lens wide open on a park on glaring sunlight...

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2019 at 19:36 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

RdCF: Am I the only one that noticed that this 1,000 USD classic manual focus lens lacks something as basic as a depth of focus scale? Even a cheapo Helios has one... Probably the designers thought that adding it would clutter their lovely polished design? This just tells you how insubstantial this lens really is and who are they targeting to.

@AlexisH well you obviously have never used a Minox 35 or a Rollei 35... or taken a candid picture at waist level using just the DOF scale to focus... they've a use, maybe not for you, but they do.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

XeroJay: To each their own, but I'm not seeing the point of it. After reading the headline, I was expecting to see the pics and be impressed. I was underwhelmed. If the point is to use stopgap technology, then sure, fine. People do it all the time though, when they shoot with their phones, which is what this reminded me of. Again, to each their own.

Actually I like a lot some of her pictures. They've a lot going on for them.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 18:19 UTC
In reply to:

RdCF: This is so silly... a Leica M3 plus a 50 f2 summi costed in 1954 a full 447 USD (today's equivalent adjusted for inflation would be around 4,000 USD). Not cheap, but what should cost today. And remember in 1954 that was the best camera and the best lens money could buy (in 35mm at least), they 'could' charge you a premium (today Leica is not exactly 'avant garde').
Nowadays a M10 plus a non-special edition summi costs 14,600 USD (before adding tax)... or 3.65 more than in 1954.
Totally absurd.
As much I'd like to have a Leica... this is just absurd.

the point of my comment is clear: here was once a proud camera brand that got its reputation thanks to the legendary images that pro-photogs took on assigment in korea, vietnam, or paris... today is reduced to be a luxury toy for the very wealthy. even sebastiao salgado stopped using leicas and moved to canon...

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 00:30 UTC

This is so silly... a Leica M3 plus a 50 f2 summi costed in 1954 a full 447 USD (today's equivalent adjusted for inflation would be around 4,000 USD). Not cheap, but what should cost today. And remember in 1954 that was the best camera and the best lens money could buy (in 35mm at least), they 'could' charge you a premium (today Leica is not exactly 'avant garde').
Nowadays a M10 plus a non-special edition summi costs 14,600 USD (before adding tax)... or 3.65 more than in 1954.
Totally absurd.
As much I'd like to have a Leica... this is just absurd.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 18:23 UTC as 43rd comment | 11 replies

Since when does DPreview reports on what TIME publishes about cameras? Surreal...

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 02:14 UTC as 98th comment

Leicas are the photographic equivalent to Morgan motorcars... charming in their own way, providing an experience nobody else can offer, but totally outdated and outclassed. There's nothing rational about owning a Leica these days. Which is sad, because their origins where exactly the opposite as dependable affordable workhorses...

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 17:32 UTC as 134th comment | 6 replies

I find very amusing all the rant against Nikon and Canon by mirrorless users. There's a market for all kind of users, so why all the hate mail? The thing with pro-Nikon bodies is that they WORK. And they do it seamlessly and solidly, and when you make a living of taking pictures these are great tools.
To understand this you need to pick up one and work with it. Then you get it. It's that simple.
Can you take the same pictures (or even better) with other systems? probably. But these cameras are designed as workhorses, and they do that extremely well.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 15:04 UTC as 206th comment | 3 replies

Am I the only one that noticed that this 1,000 USD classic manual focus lens lacks something as basic as a depth of focus scale? Even a cheapo Helios has one... Probably the designers thought that adding it would clutter their lovely polished design? This just tells you how insubstantial this lens really is and who are they targeting to.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 18:27 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies

This seems so pointless... why spend 1,000 bucks when for 10 you can still pick up a Helios 44-2 in M42 mount on eBay, which it's a pretty exact copy of a Biotar 58 f2?
And if you don't feel like mounting a Russian lens on your priced camera, then you can still buy for less than 100 USD a Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f2 that will even have engraved the prestigious words 'Made in Germany'. I don't get why these crowdfunding campaigns are so successful... I'm pretty sure these lenses aren't up to the standards of +40MP of today's professional cameras (or even up to +20MP...)

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 17:35 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply

I had one at the time. Lens was nice and it perfect light the images were fine. In less than perfect light the images were pretty horrible though... But I liked the design, it was very nicely built also.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2017 at 14:03 UTC as 11th comment
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (424 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marco Cinnirella: Very nice camera, no doubt and good upgrade from the T. But the price ! In the current cramped market with some very sophisticated competitor products and competition even from within the Fuji X range I'm not sure this will be a big seller for Fuji. Still, good on them for keeping the X100 range going. Me, I'm still happy with my battered old X100 original version for now ! Love the black version by the way - looks very Leica ! Just missing the red dot !

Price it's not bad (what's the competition anyway? Sony RX, Sony R100, Leica Q, the aging GRD?), and it's a very unique product and the only one that has a hybrid viewfinder. And if you live or travel to very sunny places (like I do) then, an optical viewfinder it's nothing but a necessity.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 14:02 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (424 comments in total)
In reply to:

kobakokh: Sometimes I think why people so hard discussing the battery life in modern cameras. Whats problem to take second or third batteries and don't have big and heavy cameras? And, of course, how many shoots they do per day? more then 700? Really? What? 300 shoots per one battery is not enough? 2x300? 3x300?

Extra batteries (Fuji NP-95) can be found for only 19 USD each in Amazon, and 3rd party ones for as little as 9 USD... plus they're very small. I always carry a couple with me. No big issue here.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 13:57 UTC
Total: 29, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »