laueddy

Lives in United States Seattle, United States
Joined on Oct 12, 2003

Comments

Total: 33, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Top tips for composing great landscapes (127 comments in total)

Here is my friend's awesome Landscape Photography: http://www.petercheungphotography.com

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2016 at 23:06 UTC as 28th comment
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (295 comments in total)

Should have used a Leica M instead.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 21:02 UTC as 102nd comment
In reply to:

Ken Aisin: I don't get this. Whichever way you look at this, it is still a small light source. When your subject is a person standing 5 feet away, it is just not large enough to give you any soft light.

Don't even mention those tiny flash diffuser from Gary Fong, they are even worse than this.

Why do people insist on buying these useless gadgets for portraits?!

Here is a wide angle shot I took inside a Limo. The GF Diffuser helps filling the flash light inside the limo, while I use high ISO to pickup the ambient light. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9749727721/photos/3477046/weddings-136

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 00:09 UTC
In reply to:

Ken Aisin: I don't get this. Whichever way you look at this, it is still a small light source. When your subject is a person standing 5 feet away, it is just not large enough to give you any soft light.

Don't even mention those tiny flash diffuser from Gary Fong, they are even worse than this.

Why do people insist on buying these useless gadgets for portraits?!

For outdoor during day time, most mini-diffuser wouldn't do much. However, it does help when the ambient light is low enough outside that you actually want to cut down the flash output in close enough with your subject while using your lens wide open.
When I am doing some fun portrait photography without an assistant, I like to do off camera flash (light stand + Westcott Rapid Box)
Here is an example photo I took using the (Rapid Box)
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9749727721/photos/3477009/645z2351

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 23:48 UTC
In reply to:

Ken Aisin: I don't get this. Whichever way you look at this, it is still a small light source. When your subject is a person standing 5 feet away, it is just not large enough to give you any soft light.

Don't even mention those tiny flash diffuser from Gary Fong, they are even worse than this.

Why do people insist on buying these useless gadgets for portraits?!

Sure, I know soft lighting has to do with large surface area, and subject distance as well. The idea is to use that little diffuser to put light where it normally can't with a bare flash. At home, I had a 6'x3' soft box, soft light yes, portable No. IMHO, it's matter of finding something portable enough for location shooting without an assistance, and the Gary Fong happen to provide me with some flexibility. Then again, I sometime need the diffuser to cut down enough light, so I can shoot wide open on my prime lens @ ISO 400 to balance the ambient light and the flash.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 04:39 UTC
In reply to:

Trad59: Just checking language / definitions re this potentially intriguing development...following Adam Palmer comment/s
so if I update from V0.49 firmware which provides a fairly broad PDAF area for my compliant lenses (is this Green mode , the "old" mode you refer to?) , so as I read it, I can switch between this new Advanced mode which potentially supports Sony native focus modes and my current "old" or green mode ) by mounting adapter and powering as per Metabones method. I own Mk IV and Sony A7ii. Thanks and apologies, but I want to get this right before I try with my kit.

The hunt forever issue seem to be on selective lenses, as I had that issue with the 24-70 2.8 II and 100-400 II. However, the other lenses like the 40 2.8 and 50 1.2. The AF is not far from a Sony Lens. Test environment is 2x 60W at celling with 1x 60W table lamp by my computer. Yet, I am looking forward for another firmware update which can improve this further.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 20:35 UTC

I have a A7Rii which I actually don't use often enough. At this time, I am using it mainly with my Canon lenses. With the new firmware installed, I have tried most of my Canon lenses with the following experience.

1> Lenses that work, some lenses may need 2 AF cycle to obtain accurate focus, but it works.

Here are the lenses I have tried: (1-5) 1-Poor to 5-Native Speed
Sigma 35 Art (4)
50 1.2 (3)
85 1.2 (4)
135 f/2 (3)
10-24 (2)
24-70 2.8 II (1)
100 macro (2)
70-200 2.8 ii (4)
100-400 II (1)

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 06:23 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

Ken Aisin: I don't get this. Whichever way you look at this, it is still a small light source. When your subject is a person standing 5 feet away, it is just not large enough to give you any soft light.

Don't even mention those tiny flash diffuser from Gary Fong, they are even worse than this.

Why do people insist on buying these useless gadgets for portraits?!

I added 2 photos I just took with my 50mm f/1.2. Both pictures are taken with the flash point backward 45 degree and to the left at 45 degree angle as well. It isn't about one is better than the other. But think about the additional creative things you can do with the GF Add-on. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9749727721/albums/flash-test-w-gary-fong-and-without

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 04:42 UTC
In reply to:

Ken Aisin: I don't get this. Whichever way you look at this, it is still a small light source. When your subject is a person standing 5 feet away, it is just not large enough to give you any soft light.

Don't even mention those tiny flash diffuser from Gary Fong, they are even worse than this.

Why do people insist on buying these useless gadgets for portraits?!

I don't blame you, as flash photography isn't suitable for everyone, at least it depends on the styles of photography you do. I use my mostly during weddings, and I don't do high fps, so flash recycle time isn't as much of an issue to me. Inside a room, having the ability to bounce into more of the surrounding to create soft lighting is very important to me. At time, I also need the that to cut down enough flash light, so that I can use my lens wide open @ f/1.2 - f/2

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 03:45 UTC
In reply to:

Ken Aisin: I don't get this. Whichever way you look at this, it is still a small light source. When your subject is a person standing 5 feet away, it is just not large enough to give you any soft light.

Don't even mention those tiny flash diffuser from Gary Fong, they are even worse than this.

Why do people insist on buying these useless gadgets for portraits?!

I don't blame you, as flash photography isn't suitable for everyone.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 03:26 UTC
In reply to:

Ken Aisin: I don't get this. Whichever way you look at this, it is still a small light source. When your subject is a person standing 5 feet away, it is just not large enough to give you any soft light.

Don't even mention those tiny flash diffuser from Gary Fong, they are even worse than this.

Why do people insist on buying these useless gadgets for portraits?!

The Gary Fong diffuser is actually very good provided you know how to use it. The way I use it, it was only for indoor, and I have shot hundreds of weddings very successfully. The GF Diffuser also allow you to create quite a bit of creative lighting. As an example, I might have my subject in a room with an open windows on the right. I can set the diffuser to point to the upper left which can produce better softer light then a simple bound. Another thing, is while normal bounce would throw the light only to one direction. Bottom line, the GF diffuser is a great product if you know how to use it. I previously work for Axxx photography Studio in Seattle, and I was the 1st one to use the GF diffuser, and in the end, it was later became a mandatory item to bring for all the photographers there.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 07:07 UTC
In reply to:

Achiron: 1051g "compact" for hiking? Pretty ridiculous. "E-PL7"+"75-300"+"12-50" will cost roughly 1600$ and weigh same as the RX10III (and ultimately take less space) while giving results ten times better.

I have to admit, I wouldn't be buying it if it isn't because it does 4K and 240fps @ 1080. I already have some of the best cameras, and I was originally consider picking up a Sony FS-5 for videos, but figure I am probably ok with the RX10m3 for now.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 18:07 UTC
In reply to:

TheDarmok74: It's a fine camera to be sure, but "the ultimate hiking partner"? It's too heavy, regardless what Barney says, very subjectively. And who needs 600mm on a hike?
600mm are nice and the video is great, but do these count much on a hike comared to the mkII or the FZ1000? You can get 2 FZ1000 for that money, so how can the RX10 III be so much better for a hike?
There are tons of better solutions for most hikers, the much cheaper RX10 to start with, or the PAna LX100 or FZ1000 or some m43 with the 14-400mm lens.
The RX10 III is ridicolously priced.

I bought it, and I am happy with it so far. Acceptable image quality and Awesome Video capability. The Camera is relatively light compares to my other setup which are all FF at the moment. If anything, the biggest complaints are 1> Unable to disable AF on the shutter button 2> Stupid Menu system

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 18:00 UTC

I use Sparco Meca 3 Mechanics Gloves which may not be sufficient for extremely cold weather. However, I think they work very well for me with temp. around high 2XF or above.

Benefits:
fit well to be able to use your fingers and finger tips for controls
it has a thin layer of rubber to provide very secure grip to my camera equipment

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2015 at 06:40 UTC as 39th comment

Now, I want a 14mm for my 645Z

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2015 at 15:38 UTC as 34th comment | 2 replies

Humans are so interesting that sometime we think one can't exist beside another. Mirrorless is good, but it doesn't mean DSLR needs to go away.

It's like saying my sub-compact car is better, and no one should be driving a SUVs or trucks..

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2015 at 19:35 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply

That sounds more like a torture than a reward. Even if you aren't buying that camera in the end. One may still want to take some time off, then go for a $$$$ photograph trip.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2014 at 21:40 UTC as 57th comment
On article Hasselblad unveils pixel-shifting 200MP H5D-200c MS (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnbandry: At what point would the resolution of the captured image outdo the (current technology) limits of ability of printers to print it? In other words, what is the maximum number of pixels a high-end printer (of any technology) can output onto a single sheet of paper?

That's in one go, without chopping the image into pieces to be printed separately and then reassembled, as in a billboard.

Say if the camera can produce approx. 16000x12500 resolution, this is still only 53.3"x41.7" @ 300ppi. Since the ppi needs decrease with larger print, it's unlikely that any digital camera can outperform the max. number of pixels at this time.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 18:12 UTC

Those are some terrible photos...!

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2014 at 00:30 UTC as 16th comment
Total: 33, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »