Jacques Cornell

Jacques Cornell

Lives in Kazakhstan Almaty, Kazakhstan
Works as a photographer
Has a website at jacquescornell.photography
Joined on Jul 13, 2002
About me:

I've been actively engaged in photography for about 35 years, the past 20 as a professional. I studied photography at the Institute for Contemporary Photography in Tokyo and the International Center of Photography in New York, have photos in the permanent collection at the Kiyosato Museum of Photography in Japan, have taught photography at the Fashion Institute of Technology and the International Center of Photography in New York, co-founded event photography company Happening Photos in New York, and serve clients around the world. I also shoot, print, exhibit and sell fine art travel & landscape photos.

Comments

Total: 538, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Suntan: Just out of curiosity, is this improvement noticed on prints that are less than, say, 20" on the longest side?

My 16MP RAWs with proper sharpening deliver sharpness & detail in 16"x21" prints that stands up to scrutiny at close range with reading glasses. At this print size, it's hard to imagine that any increase in resolution would make a visible difference. It's when you get above poster size that this stuff starts to have a practical benefit.
Note that there's another way, a free way, to generate huge files for huge prints, even with a small, cheap kit, and that's stitching. With the kind of static subjects that pixel shift requires, you could as easily shoot the scene in pieces and stitch in post, yielding far more pixels than you'd get from even a Phase One. When pixel shift works handheld, that'll give it a real advantage. But, as long as you're locked on a tripod and shooting multiple frames, I don't see a big advantage to pixel shift over simply stitching. You save a little time in post, but for now you're also handcuffed to niche software that doesn't fit well in a mainstream workflow.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 15:16 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: I'd be interested if it were a native Micro Four Thirds design. APS hand-me-downs with bolted-on MFT mounts are just too big & heavy for this MFT shooter.

Impulses -
Explain to me why Sigma would make a native f1.4 MFT lens as large as, or larger than, Oly's native f1.2 lens. I'm pretty sure Sigma could do better than that. This lens is large because it's made for a larger format. Same with pretty much all the APS>MFT hand-me-downs.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 19:47 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: I'd be interested if it were a native Micro Four Thirds design. APS hand-me-downs with bolted-on MFT mounts are just too big & heavy for this MFT shooter.

The Oly 17mm f1.2 is a tiny bit smaller and lighter and a full 1/2 stop brighter. A native f1.4 MFT lens should be halfway between that and an f1.7 in terms of size and weight, IOW substantially smaller and lighter than this MFT afterthought.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 19:29 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G9 sample gallery (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: Unexpectedly clean at ISO 3200. Interested to see ISO 6400 RAW.

PedroMZ -
Now you're changing the subject. I said the G9 ISO 3200 images looked cleaner than other ISO 3200 MFT images I've seen. I still think that's true, but I withhold final judgement until I can get my hands on DPR's Studio Test RAW files. IMHO, random "sample" images are so affected by variations in lighting conditions, shutter speed, AF, exposure and technique, that they really don't provide any definitive basis for comparison.
As for this statement:
"the lower light quality(iso 200-400 are fine) of the 4/3 sensor in real life is not a patch on APS and above"
That's only true if you are willing to accept shallower DoF on the larger format. If you must have a certain DoF that's available on both systems (e.g. f1.4 on MFT and f2 on APS or f2.8 on 35mm-format), then noise is the same for all because the larger formats must be shot at larger f-stop numbers and higher ISO numbers. A good example is a group portrait where you need enough DoF to keep everyone in focus.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: I'd be interested if it were a native Micro Four Thirds design. APS hand-me-downs with bolted-on MFT mounts are just too big & heavy for this MFT shooter.

Marximus -
Because a heavier body makes the lens lighter?
Does not compute.
I want small, light lenses for my small, light MFT bodies.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 23:19 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G9 sample gallery (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: Unexpectedly clean at ISO 3200. Interested to see ISO 6400 RAW.

PedroMZ -
They don't look noisy to me compared to ISO 3200 on my GX7. As for lack of detail, those are low-light shots of a fast-moving subject. Looks to me like shallow DoF, and AF missed the guitarist's hand. Strings look pretty sharp to me where they're in focus. Overall, looks like a modest improvement in MFT image quality. I'll wait for some Studio Test RAWs to make my final judgement.
Go ahead and get that K-1. I don't want to lug 35mm-format lenses, which is why I went MFT in the first place. Horses for courses. Complaining that MFT isn't 35mm-format is like complaining that your Lotus Elise can't tow a yacht.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 17:47 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)

I'd be interested if it were a native Micro Four Thirds design. APS hand-me-downs with bolted-on MFT mounts are just too big & heavy for this MFT shooter.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 17:33 UTC as 79th comment | 10 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix G9: What you need to know (236 comments in total)
In reply to:

DingieM: Can they please remove the LCD plate???

The rear screen displays the same info, and more, much bigger, and it's touch-responsive. A top LCD is utterly useless to me, and what's worse, it eats up a huge amount of space that could be dedicated to control points.
Panasonic's worst design decision ever.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 12:20 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G9 sample gallery (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

Akgbkd: Wow...those low light shots are as good as my smartphone.....

Yes, you have zero credibility. Time for you to go make some more cat photos.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 01:43 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G9 sample gallery (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

JeanPierre Thibaudeau: Imagine this new Panasonic technology in a 10 or 12 Mp body. That'd be awesome and plenty for me.

Aside from those two benefits? I can't think of any. I'm talking here strictly of pixel count, irrespective of sensor size or pixel pitch.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 15:53 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G9 sample gallery (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

Akgbkd: Wow...those low light shots are as good as my smartphone.....

Troll. Your comment is absurd and simply establishes that you have zero credibility.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:45 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G9 sample gallery (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

joelakeland: I'm thinking that you will need some serious cash to use only the best m43 lenses to get at the improved image quality. And then you remember, "Wow, I could have gotten a full-frame model with the same investment." That's the rub for me.

bobogdan78 -
Going to the gym will not prevent nerve & joint damage associated with carrying heavy gear for long periods. I'm pretty fit, but 20 years of carrying 35mm & medium format cameras in big, heavy bags ruined my right shoulder. Now I'm a happy MFT shooter with an OpTechUSA Dual Sling.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:44 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G9 sample gallery (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

JeanPierre Thibaudeau: Imagine this new Panasonic technology in a 10 or 12 Mp body. That'd be awesome and plenty for me.

The idea that less pixels = less noise is antiquated. Sony's 42MP a7RII and 12MP a7SII have similar noise at the same image size. IOW, downsample an a7RII image to 12MP and you get the same noise as the a7SII. With current technology, noise is largely a function of TOTAL light gathered, not light gathered per pixel. Going back to 12MP on MFT sensors will not get us less noise. It might improve DR, though, as larger pixels can collect more photons before reaching saturation.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:40 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G9 sample gallery (143 comments in total)

Unexpectedly clean at ISO 3200. Interested to see ISO 6400 RAW.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:36 UTC as 35th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

vscd: $2999? I guess a Canon 200mm 2.8 L USM II is way better and costs $799 + weights 765gramms. Attach an adapter and you're in, or get a 70-200L IS II and have the Range down to 70mm for free.

vscd -
"The MFT lenses have to be sharper to compensate the small sensor, but are they?"
Yes. They routinely resolve far more line pairs per millimeter than larger formats' lenses. It's not the sensor size that's a challenge, but the smaller pixel pitch.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:31 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: the price is crazy - same like Olympus 4.0/300 mm
and a 2.8/200 mm seems boring, even with extender.
I see that a 2.0/200 mm would be to heavy and double the price, but the solution for mFT would be: 1.8/135 mm OIS and 4.0/400 mm or 2.8/300 mm.
The magnification is not so fabulous 1:5.
Canon dit it 20 years ago with 770g under 1000€.

To heavy, to pricey and not the desired animal-shooting lens.
For me.

QuarryCat -
I agree that $3000 for this lens is absurd. However, 200mm f2.0 primes for other formats are close to $5000. I'd be interested in a 135mm f2.0 for under $1500. Samyang makes an excellent manual focus lens for $500, and Canon's 135mm f2.0 L is $999.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:24 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G9: What you need to know (236 comments in total)

Dual slots will finally shut up the "MFT isn't pro" crowd. Yay!
Not that this pro needs 'em.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:12 UTC as 43rd comment | 6 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix G9: What you need to know (236 comments in total)

GX9 please. Without the top LCD, joybutton, or card-filling 20fps. A solid 8fps with m- and e-shutter, 12-bit e-shutter output switchable to 10-bit for less rolling shutter, and the new EVF will do nicely for this stills-only shooter. Oh, and fit a Type-C USB port.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:04 UTC as 44th comment
On article Panasonic Lumix G9: What you need to know (236 comments in total)
In reply to:

paul613: "Panasonic did a lot of work with the GH5 to improve JPEG image quality over earlier generations." How many G9 buyers will be using jpeg?

TN Args -
"Shooting JPEG and getting *great* results is a real sign of competence."
That may be, but it's often simply not possible. I shoot events, and constantly changing and difficult lighting condition require that I shoot RAW to ensure max quality. Yeah, I know how to set custom WB and all that, but often there just isn't time. Also, in-camera noise reduction and sharpening are vastly inferior to what I can achieve in post.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 13:58 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G9: What you need to know (236 comments in total)

Why on earth did they fit a micro-B connector for USB 3? The micro-B connector is badly designed and prone to failure. Witness the many, many reports of port failures with portable hard drives. A Type-C connector would have taken up less space and provided a more reliable connection. It's not like Type-C is a brand new technology, either, so Panasonic's choice here is hard to fathom.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 13:54 UTC as 45th comment
Total: 538, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »