Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 27, 2004


Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Ten expert tips for successful macro photography (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

photosen: Interesting, I would have expected much smaller apertures.

Smaller apertures create a type of overall image degradation called diffusion, which is a softening of detail throughout the image. If you looked at lens charts, you'd know that 99% of lenses lose image quality as they are stopped down, some lenses from the widest aperture, but more generally the image quality begins to sharply decline much beyond f8. In my experience, only one out of five hundred shots at smaller(higher numbers) apertures than f11 is worth printing or showing off or selling. This optical diffusion issue is significantly worse with digital sensors than it was with film, where f16 was the everyday sunny day aperture. I never shoot the sunny 16 rule anymore.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 20:45 UTC

As a serious landscape/nature photographer, Micheal through Luminous Landscape was my number one on-line teacher. I haven't bought a camera or large format printer without reading his reviews. I stayed with film pretty late, using 25 and 50 iso film, always on a tripod, digitizing the results with high-end film/slide scanners. I didn't "go digital" until Michael proved categorically what could be done. May his life continue to teach and inspire.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2016 at 00:26 UTC as 110th comment
In reply to:

Ben O Connor: It had to be F4 constantly to deserve "Leica" name on it! Seriously, too expensive for an ordinary tele...

I wished to own one... But I can't.

"Much cheaper than the canon 100-400". There's a reason its cheaper--And it shows. I say that as a former owner of the 400 f/4 DO, which yes, allows you to get A shot, but not with the sharpness and color richness as the better L lenses. For my work, it was not worth wasting images. Yes all life is a compromise, but in this case for me light weight and compact could not make up for compromised image quality.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 01:04 UTC
In reply to:

Arkienkeli: Well, might be a fine lens, but consider this:

Olympus 300m f/4 for m43: 227mm and 1.27 kg
Nikkor 300mm f/4 for 135: 147mm and 0.755 kg

Nikkor is also cheaper.

I owned the Canon 400 Fresnel lens--and rapidly sold it. There is a reason that the pros still use the vastly heavier and vastly larger non-Fresnel lenses: Sharpness! Which for many of us is critical. So comparing the Oly "normal" with the Nikon Fresnel may make sense in the abstract, but in real world shooting, my guess is that the Oly will be significantly sharper than the Nikon Fresnel.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2016 at 17:09 UTC

Photography and mountaineering our my two primary hobbies. More than a dozen years ago, I found that I just couldn't carry my DSLR gear up the mountains, particularly if I carried the better lenses--why take a shot if its not sharp and rich? I tried using enthusiast compacts including the S90, LX5 and LX7, but was never satisfied with the image quality.

Now I'm older and even less physically strong, but I take my m4/3s bodies and lenses hiking daily(retired and moved right to the high mountains). For work that will be published, printed or for planned shows when I don't have to hike more than a couple of miles or more than 2000 feet of elevation gain, I take an Oly OMD and the supernaturally sharp but heavy 12-40 2.8. For longer treks and greater elevation gain, I take the amazingly small Pana GM5 and either the tiny 12-32 or primes. Frankly, printed at 17x22 inches, I cannot even at close inspection tell the difference between images from my former 7D and from the OMD or GM.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2015 at 13:13 UTC as 69th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

StefanD: Darn... I just sold my Canon 70-200 4.0L to exchange it with the Olympus 35-100 2.0 only to find out that that beast weighs 2 times as much :-(

The more apt and accurate comparison would be between the Canon 70-200 f4 IS and the Panasonic 35-100 2.8, which on m4/3 acts like a 70-200. The Canon weighs 760 grams(1.68lbs.) and the Panasonic weighs 360 grams(.79lbs.). When I was a Canon shooter, the 70-200 f4 IS was my favorite lens, just so sharp, rich, and comparatively light. Now that I shoot m4/3, the 35-100 appears to me to just as sharp, rich, and less half the weight. At least for me, this is why after 25 years as a Canon semi-pro shooter with a ton of L glass, I am now a Pana/Oly shooter.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2015 at 12:57 UTC

I started digital imaging more than twenty years ago via scanning slides and film with a high-end dedicated scanner. I loved Adobe because I got so much joy out of creating collages and printing my images on my large-format printers. Now I feel that they've lost their souls, with money being their only reason for existence. I feel sad for Adobe employees.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 21:48 UTC as 97th comment | 3 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sprintmedley: I did not like the body work but particularly the play in the on/off and lens levers (absurd for the Leica model). The camera worked impressively but I returned it based on the body which I do not think will hold up well in any level of precipitation.

Hey man, you knew or certainly should have known it wasn't weatherproof before you bought it. What were you thinking? Or not.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2015 at 01:14 UTC
On article Sony Alpha a7 II Review (861 comments in total)
In reply to:

JimW-203: It strikes me that the belief that the "sensor is all" flies in the face of logic. If correct, that would lead to the conclusion that in pre-digital era cameras all one would have to do to get outstanding pictures would be to pick the right film.

It used to be impossible to make a real professional photograph unless you used a 4x5" or 8x10" camera. Any image made with a medium format could not achieve professional quality. 35mm--that is the standard size stuff most folks call film--was only for the children. That's why Nikon and Canon and Leica and Contax never made 35mm cameras--it wasn't considered a viable or professional format. Just kidding! Millions and millions of professional images were made with 35mm in spite of the fact that medium and large format were also available. 35mm was a compromise in quality in exchange for more manageable and much more convenient size. No different than choosing a camera today. Anyone who says that the smaller sensors, like the current m4/3 one, can't make high quality professional images is just full of bull and probably a sycophantic fanboy who has never made a professional image in his or her life.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2015 at 21:31 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

rebel99: i wanted this camera for travel and landscape but the files (16mp) are to small and won't cut it! i really like the quality of olympus but maybe the next generation with larger sensor! on the other hand, the new amsung with new NX-1 has a killer 28mp sensor that is perfect but i am not quite sure of the lens offerings! like i have commented before, the M4/3 cameras have a couple more generation to be ready for show time! until then, i'll stick with my clunky canon 1Dx and 1dmk4 cameras :-( the new canon announced 5Ds/r cameras supposed to have 53mp sensor, perfect for landscape photography ;-) and i have a big load of "L" lenses to go with it. but the announced price is ~ $4000.00, yuk... ;-( we'll see!


I regularly make prints that are 17x22" and sometimes even wider from my m4/3s cameras on my wide-body pro printers. Some of these prints have sold for considerable amounts of money. Other of my m4/3 shots have appeared in books, magazines, and corporate reports. While I'd like to have a larger sensor, the current 16mp sensor is absolutely capable of making professional quality images. What is your problem, or is it just about a number?

PS: I now see that even highly professional photo outfits like RRS are using some m4/3 images in the glossy catalogues.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2015 at 20:53 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

pixelcollector: And again not a word on, not even an image of the fully articulated screen under 'body & design'. Is this such a minor detail to you? There was no mention of it in the preview either.

Its one of the primary reasons I bought mine. Allows you to shoot with the camera in portrait/vertical position close to the ground without laying in the mud. Very sharp and clear.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2015 at 20:48 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonnyjonno: so, what's the chance of a new version of the E-5 being built for all those with legacy 4/3 lenses and preference for optical viewfinder?

Do you remember negative numbers from you high school math class? Big negative numbers?

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2015 at 20:31 UTC

"The 100 macro is [ONE OF] the main thing[S] missing....", said a commentor below. Ha Ha! Another!, being a f4 prime somewhere in the 200-400mm range. As a life-long bird and wildlife shooter, all I can say is Thank God! that Oly is headed in that direction. I have and use and enjoy the 100-300, but it just doesn't compare to the sharpness and richness of lenses like the Canon 300 f4 or even the 400 f5.6. Those two and the system would be approaching completion. Meanwhile, Oly is getting there and after owning five Panasonic ILCs--G3, G5, GM1, GM5, GX7--and the lovely 12-35 and 35-100 2.8s, the 45 macro , I have now gotten the Oly 12-40, 60 macro, and now I have ordered my first Oly body, the new OM5 MKii. Pana, ya had me but you're rapidly losing me.

Though not completely! I love my GM5, which I've had since Nov. and which is with me everyday skiing, snowshoeing, winter mountaineer and salooning. Love the tiny 12-32 too. Also fun with the 14 2.7 and the 20.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 00:15 UTC as 37th comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Review (464 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThePhilips: "but its 16MP sensor struggles to compete with high-res APS-C chips"

DPR bias: there is no similar remark in the Canon 7D2 review.

Not compared to a full-frame camera it isn't.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 13:12 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Review (464 comments in total)

I'm a northerner, and I've got a GM5, had it since mid December. I've spent a lot of time outdoors in the cold with it--and its never failed me yet, or even come close. I live in the north, ski for hours a day a couple of days a week, hike in the mountains, etc. It's on my day pack shoulder strap on the lower left of my chest. That's why I bought it. I'm out at -10 sometimes and out at a dozen degrees a lot. I'm out for hours at a time in cold and snow and lots of sun and wind, and its beautiful. I just looked back quickly at the pics, mostly outdoors in the cold with friends or landscapes, in high beautiful and cold! places.. Battery or camera failure didn't cross my mind. I carry a spare battery. I haven't used it once.

PS: I'm a fairly big guy with large hands and I'm out in the cold(I have good gloves and mitts and praise the lord for handwarmers) and I haven't had even a moment's issue with controlling this camera. Night and day compared to the GM1.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 02:52 UTC as 60th comment
On article A second glance: two takes on the Leica X (401 comments in total)
In reply to:

GabrielZ: Just as I thought it would be: A beautiful looking, overpriced, under-performing piece of kit targeted as fashionistas with more money than photo-sense...still I'm disappointed by Leica, they're doing this purely for the money, and to hell with heritage! You can see similar parallels in the German (and German owned) prestige motor industry.

As well, most of the folks I know who are not professionals but have high-end Leica gear don't have money sense, unless you think being born wealthy or the son of a Saudi prince are conscious decisions.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 20:29 UTC

Its obvious from many of the comments below that too many commenters are comparing this to the or their GX7, EM1/5/10, etc. What makes this camera special is not its image quality--which is right up there--not its evf, not its flash or lack thereof, not its .... No, it is its weight and its size, both of which are groundbreaking in an interchangeable lens camera with a decent size sensor and any sort of evf. I know from having a GM1 that the image quality of the GM5 will allow me to make 17x22 professional-quality prints on my Epson 3880.

Combined with the 12-32 lens, which is the lightest zoom lens for any camera I am aware of and which is capable of taking excellent quality shots and which goes meaningfully wider than 14-xx zooms, you have a superlight highly capable kit perfect for mountain climbing, skiing and discreet travel and street shooting alike.

For me this is all about my back, and my shoulders, and my feet--and my eyes!

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 14:49 UTC as 6th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Free Jazz: GM5=GM1+evf-flash, it's great but too expensive.

i'll choose the GX7, which can easily beat GM5.

I have a GX7. I have pre-ordered my GM5 and the mini 35-100 from B&H. Why? Weight weight weight! I had stopped taking an SLR or DSLR with me years ago, and owned a Canon S90 and LX3 and LX7, but they did not satisfy my desire for images I could print on my 17" printer. I'm a hiker, backpacker, skier, snowshoer, adventurer, traveler, nature-lover. Cutting down the weight is the only way I could take a high-quality image-producing camera with me all the time. Cutting half a pound from the body and having the tiny zoom or 14 or 20 prime makes the kit so much easier to have with me all the time.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2014 at 11:18 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: I don't know. The Olympus E-M10 is cheaper and IMO, a better camera. A used Olympus E-M5 body is only about $500.00. Unless each last mm reduction in size is vitally important, it seems on the high side for nearly $900.00.

The GM5 is half, 1/2!, the weight of the E-M10 or 5. That is what the GM5 is all about. That was the promise of m4/3 and the GM5 is the answer.

And I just sold my GM-1 on ebay for $440. I'm an older guy who lives in the snowy White Mtns of NH and on the snowy coast of Newfoundland--I couldn't see the LCD in the bright sun.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2014 at 11:10 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 (305 comments in total)

I've ordered my GM5 and the 35-100 mini too. This will be my 5th m4/3s body and my 10th DSLR. Presuming the image quality will be at least as good as the GM1 and GX7, both of which I have and use a lot, this is the camera I have been waiting for. Small, light-weight, and with an EVF. Can you say: Perfect!

I'm an avid outdoors person and a semi-pro photographer. I have been waiting forever for a great small light camera I can take winter mountaineering, skiing, biking, etc. I have the GM1, whose small size and image quality I adore, but the lack of EVF makes in impossible to see what you're shooting in bright sun and snow. I also found the control dial problematic with cold and/or gloved fingers. The GM5 seems to be the camera of my dreams!

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 18:06 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »