This is Dennis's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Dennis's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Dennis
Recent Activity
Mike, you do NOT need another camera. As for the camera, you already have a NEX-6 with a Zeiss 24/1.8 which is pretty much the same thing. And you're looking at a $3300 kit ! And that's only $800 worth of lens and $2500 for a Sony camera body. Hmmm ... what else can I tell you. OK - take a look at that picture you posted. Take a look at the expression on Gavin's face. It's saying "Mike, you don't need another camera". How about this one: "Mike, you just bought a house !" That help any ?
Toggle Commented 3 days ago on O Lawd Hep Me at The Online Photographer
'Bird impression by Ctein' just brings to mind all kinds of images ... especially after his budgie posts.
I'm still with you on this Mike. The iPhone is never the "right" camera; at best, it's the "better than nothing" camera. Obviously, a phone is better at sharing images than a camera, and millions of people have no interest in carrying anything other than a phone, but for me and presumably millions of other photographers who do this as a hobby, I can't ever think of a picture I've taken where I'd rather have had a phone than a camera. There may be things I do where I'd rather not have a camera with me, but that's about the thing I'm doing; not the pictures I'm taking.
Toggle Commented Oct 20, 2014 on Open Mike: Hidebound at The Online Photographer
In reply to Jim, if everyone interpreted the truism according to its point (which you stated, and which I agree with) it would be fine. But I've read more than enough forum posts to be convinced that people are using the truism to rationalize laziness. That's the problem with adages and clever analogies - the people who understand them don't need to be told, and the people who can benefit from them don't always understand them.
I agree with your sentiments in this post. Another quote that's relevant: the enemy of excellence is good. Yesterday someone posted (to a forum) some photos taken at a family wedding with a mirrorless camera; they were just snapshots. But included in the photos was one shot of two petite women, each with a full frame DSLR, one with a white 'L' zoom on it, and neither of them looked bothered by it. (At least one of them was the official photographer). The person who posted defended his choice, saying he wanted to be "inconspicuous" yet in another of his shots was some guy taking a snapshot with an iPad. I've attended PhotoPlus Expo for the past 10 years (not sure if I'll make it this year, though). Apparently, there are plenty of female pro photographers, and apparently, they're interested in learning about gear that helps their work ! Anyway, they don't seem shy about carrying whatever gear is needed to get the job done; I see photographers of both genders and all shapes and sizes checking out FF cameras, big lenses, bags, tripods, lighting gear ... while the mirrorless systems get plenty of attention as well, there just doesn't seem to be this obsession with compromising to avoid carrying a little extra weight. I never carried a point & shoot until the RX100 came along, because until then, I never thought that any of them were worth owning & using. The 1/1.7" models that shoot raw are probably pretty decent, but tended to sell for around $500 before the RX100 came along, and that always seemed like too much for too little. I suppose that if I owned an iPhone, I'd use the camera on it. My twist on the expression is that any camera you have with you is better than nothing for *some* things, but not better than nothing for a lot of things. Basically, I'll shoot family snapshots with anything - pictures that are just for memories, maybe a small print in a photo book. Highlights can be blown sky high; that's not what's important. But beyond that, I didn't take up this hobby to shoot bad snapshots, and anything worth my time is worth shooting with a camera that can do a decent job. I hate diffraction-limited, compression artifact-laden jpegs that have been softened to reduce noise from tiny sensor phones & digicams. It's like saying the best music is whatever's available, when the only thing available is a tinny, staticky radio. I'll take silence, thank you ! Just to be fair, the flip side of this is that smaller systems are getting better all the time, so even if being prepared means one thing today; it doesn't have to mean the same tomorrow. Travel photographer Bob Krist is now shooting with Sony RX100, RX10 and A6000 instead of Nikon DX. And he's doing a lot of video, which he said required a team in the past, and that he can do alone with gear he can carry today.
TheOnionPhotographer ?
Mike, My first DSLR was the KM 7D and I current have a Sony RX100. DXOMark's comparison of the two is interesting. It claims the 7D was a bit less noisy through a measured ISO 1600 or so. I find high ISO images from the RX100 more pleasing, but I note that the 7D had nominal ISOs that were pretty accurate - 1600 was 1600, so that may explain some of it. I found 1600 to be my upper limit on the 7D; 3200 was only usable for b/w, and even then, the contrast was lousy. OTOH, I'll shoot ISO 6400 on the RX100. DXOMark rates the RX100 better for dynamic range. I notice it more at higher ISOs. Their chart claims the RX100 has higher color response at base ISO, while the 7D did better at high ISOs. That's one thing I did notice; loads of color in high ISO images from that 7D and I could reduce noise by dropping saturation and getting a more natural looking photo. Anyway, aside from the inability to get very shallow DOF when I want, I'd rather the RX100's sensor than the 7Ds. Here's an ISO 6400 shot I took of my daughter from the back seat of the car at dusk - I typically shoot it in S mode in low light to get the shutter speed I want (the algorithm defaults to opening up the aperture all the way, which is typically fine) and use Auto ISO to get to where the meter says I need to be. So I think I was probably at about 1/125s. http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com/Other/RX100-Samples/i-bK3r9cp/0/O/DSC01777.jpg - Dennis
Toggle Commented Oct 8, 2014 on Sensor Size at The Online Photographer
I agree that (a) it's about time and (b) the SL1 is a surprisingly nice camera for a lower end model. The main use of a lens like this, to me, is to take away a reason existing DSLR owners have for looking at other platforms. Not so much to present real competition. Compared to various fixed lens and mirrorless offerings, what I see in the SL1/pancake combo is: - potentially excellent image quality and traditional DSLR performance and usability - typical, small, pentamirror viewfinder - a camera that's still pretty big - no IS - lacking other benefits of mirrorless While my main camera is a DSLR, I'm finding mirrorless and fixed lens cameras more and more intriguing as time goes on. The lens lineups for mirrorless keep getting better (at least Fuji & m43; Sony APS-C not so much) and smaller sensors keep getting better (m43 is great right now, and Sony's 1" sensors in the RX line and the Panasonic FZ1000 are excellent). Here's a gallery of photos taken over the last 18 months with my RX100: http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com/Other/RX100-Samples/ Still, if I *were* a Canon user, I'd snatch that new lens up in no time. (Nikon, are you listening ?)
Toggle Commented Sep 11, 2014 on At Long Last Canon at The Online Photographer
I had dogs as a kid, but since then, my wife and I have had cats - we've had 4 come & go (up to 3 at a time; it's not like they don't live long lives !) and our 5th one now. Of all 5, the first one was unusually intelligent. On at least two occasions, my wife was talking on the phone and the cat wanted her attention, so after being rebuffed a few times, he bit through the phone cord while she was talking ! (I imagine most of your readers still remember phone cords).
One of your other favorite cameras (as I recall) is on sale, too. The GX7 is $300 off ($699 body only).
I can understand the temptation. Fortunately, we bought a house that offers no such tempation. After looking at what seemed like countless houses, including a pre-1800 salt box in a historic district (which would have brought with it restrictions on what we could do in the way of repairs/upgrades), we ended up with a dutch colonial built in 1979 with vinyl siding, hollow core lauan doors and a carpeted kitchen; there's nothing authentic about it. That's very liberating, even if it lacks charm.
Well, sure, but you can put a 24-85/3.5-4.5 on the FF body and do everything you could do with the f/2.8 lens on m43. I know, I know, whenever this topic gets brought up, somebody objects to the notion of equivalence, but every FF user knows he doesn't need an f/2.8 lens to match the capabilities of f/2.8 on m43 ... I really don't get why people insist on making the comparisons and then objecting when it gets pointed out that they're irrelevant. [The Olympus's superior depth of field is implicit in the comparative sensor size, which I mentioned as one of the major differences. --Mike]
Toggle Commented Jul 23, 2014 on Changing Fashions at The Online Photographer
In reply to Tom Burke's question: "Isn't it just that new things are fun?" I would say no, not necessarily. New gear always has that fun factor associated with novelty. It's when the novelty wears off that you find out what kind of camera/car/whatever you have. Some cars beg to be taken out and driven. Some cameras beg to be shot. Unfortunately, the most fun models aren't always the most practical. Some people end up tailoring their photography to shoot what's able to be shot well with a (Leica & prime, whatever) while others use the fun camera when appropriate, and the workhorse when needed. My 70s rangefinders and my Rolleiflex TLR were far more fun than most all of the film SLRs I ever used. Of the AF SLRs I owned, one stood out above the others, for some combination of solid (but compact) build, 100% viewfinder, satisfying mirror/shutter (like the satisfying sound of a solid car door shutting), efficiently minimal controls, lack of extraneous features. I had another, newer model with more features that was better suited to handheld photography, but the other one remained a favorite. In the digital era, I've yet to use a truly "fun" DSLR. My first decent digicam was the Sony F717 and that was a gem until it was eclipsed in terms of responsiveness and IQ by my first DSLR. And my Sony RX100 has remained fun for a year now. The novelty of my NEX-5 wore off very rapidly and it quickly became one of the least fun cameras I've used (oddly, with some fun aspects). So for me, anyway, fun has little to do with novelty; new is fun so long as its new, but a camera that begs to be taken out and used is something a little more rare.
Toggle Commented Jul 23, 2014 on How Are Cameras 'Fun'? at The Online Photographer
Ahhh ... a timely topic that hits home ! I own a Nikon D7000. It's like a Ford F-150. It's very competent. I shoot with a 70-200/2.8 and track moving subjects in low light; I freeze them with fast shutter speeds and let the ISO wander as needed. I can change settings without taking my eye from the viewfinder. But it's boring and it takes up too much room in the garage. I primarily shoot the 70-200 or one of two f/1.8 primes. My 16-85 sees virtually no use since I got my RX100. The RX100 is fun ! It's with me a lot, it fits in my pocket, but it goes a bit beyond that. I carried my D7000 and my RX100 to Boston with me a few weeks ago. I split up my shooting ... some with each camera, and I used the 16-85 as well as 85/1.8. And the RX100 was just more fun. I whittled down my photos and my keepers matched my initial shooting - close to 50% with each. What made the RX100 fun ? Well ... live view, for one thing. The level gauge for those cityscapes. The solid build (even the D7000 and modern lenses feel plasticky to me). The silence of the thing ! So I started thinking about picking up something else to make travel photography more fun. I like the specs on the RX10 and found it well built when I tried it a year ago, but I suspect the power zoom feature would sap the fun right out of it. I know the X100s would be fun. (The Fuji X series in general). I'm not sold on the A6000 ... I've only tried it once and found it a little cheap feeling. The EVF isn't up to the better EVFs out there, and Sony, in its infinite propensity to do dumb things, removed the level gauge. From a live view camera. (I know, plenty of you can shoot straight without it, but I thought on-screen displays were part of the argument for mirrorless). I'm also thinking that the NEX-6, available at nice discounts, could be fun, but it still has the old not-fun-at-all NEX menu and lacks Auto ISO in M, so I'm not sure there, either. Something about compact mirrorless, especially when well built, does seem more fun to me. Just like my 70's era compact rangefinders always seemed more fun than my SLRs. Maybe because I shoot so little from a tripod any more. (A DSLR still seems right on a tripod). Also, when out & about, I find myself shooting video clips when armed with a camera like the RX100; something I don't bother doing with a DSLR.
Toggle Commented Jul 22, 2014 on How Are Cameras 'Fun'? at The Online Photographer
I think the cheapest (current) FF camera has to be the Sony A7.
I used the Minolta version on a Maxxum 7 film camera. My landscape kit was a backpack containing a WA zoom, then 50, 100, 200 & 400mm primes. The 50 & 100 were both Minolta macro lenses. Then when my daughter was born, I used it as a (very close) close up portrait lens for a while. It was great for faces, noses, toes, ears, fingers, etc.
Toggle Commented Jul 17, 2014 on A Recent Favorite Lens at The Online Photographer
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/pdf/lenses_accessories_catalogue_01.pdf
Eric, as I just mentioned in another post, Mike wasn't complaining about a "lack" of lenses. He indicated that Fuji's lineup is desirable, coherent and consistent. Sony's is just a bunch of stuff.
Omer wrote: "Times are changing. Is there really a need for an extensive lens line? " and "What will sell more cameras, an extensive lens line up or connectivity and simplicity? " That's an interesting question. The thing is, when you consider that "times are changing" you have to look at who is migrating away from ILCs and who isn't. There was a time when consumers were looking to entry level DSLRs as the only way to get reasonable snaps of kids, and I think the 2-zoom kit buyer is among the casualties of all the innovation that's happened recently. Then you have the new, excellent larger sensor compacts that can effectively replace a very modest DSLR kit. I think that the niche market that's left is a market that is concerned about the "system". Fuji may never be as mainstream as Sony, but volume alone doesn't equate to success. (Look at Leica). Sony could probably have 1/3 fewer e-mount lenses than it currently has and the lineup would be no less interesting; r&d is wasted on the scatter shot approach (throw it at the wall and see what sticks, as I believe Thom Hogan said). The other thing I'll point out, because there are bound to be people who defend Sony by pointing out the number of lenses and the variety, is that Mike used the adjectives "desirable, coherent and consistent" to describe the X lineup. Sony has a lot of "stuff". Some cheap, some lousy, some great, some very expensive, some third party, some stabilized, some not, some APS-C, some full frame, some with power zoom, some without. And then A mount lenses with adapters. It's kind of a hodge podge and none of those three adjectives applies at all. It's more like Sony hopes you want the camera *body* enough that you'll piece together a usable lineup, where people will choose Fuji for either the bodies or the lenses. I will say that if you look at Sony's FE lineup alone, it's much more coherent/consistent/desirable than any of their other lineups ... just far from complete. The 24-70/4 and 70-200/4 make a great 2-zoom kit and the Zeiss 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 are both nice primes. Unfortunately, based on Sony's past history, I can't expect anything else - there's just no telling what else they'll deliver or when.
"A Sony camera owner who is completely satisfied with the lens options for his or her camera is the owner of a fixed-lens Sony camera." Brilliant ! The A mount lineup isn't in terrible shape, though that evolved from Minolta's lineup. Like many other photographers, I'd been dreaming of the potential of ILCs even before they'd been invented. I saw the Olympus Pen mockup at Photoplus Expo and then had a half hour tryout with the EP1 at the Expo the following year. I waited. The NEX-5 came out. I was planning a trip to Disney with my family and decided that it was time to make a decision. Neither Olympus nor Panasonic offered a portrait prime (m43 users were adapting all manner of legacy 50's) while Sony's road map promised a portrait tele. Fast forward a few years: Olympus has a wonderful, little 45/1.8 while Sony's idea of a portrait prime was a 75mm equivalent. A 50mm designed for APS-C. The initial lineup consisted of 2 zooms and a 16mm pancake. It took a long time before they offered a normal. I give them a little credit for appearing to "get it" with the recent f/4 zooms and a couple nice options for the full frame e Mount, but I have little faith in Sony's intentions when it comes to developing a photographer-centric system like Fuji. On the other hand, the RX series of fixed lens cameras are gems. Last week, my family vacationed in & around Boston. We spent a day in Salem and my daughter dragged us into one of those cheesy nostalgic photo booths, where we dressed as witches/wizards. The photographer was using ... drum roll please ... a Sony F717 ! And the reason was for the "night shot" feature (perfect for glowing witch photos). Fuji's X system tugs at me. I love the lenses - both the specs and the build. I don't like that they muddied up the system by introducing low end lenses that lack aperture rings. I'd love to see what Fuji would do with Sony technology. Interestingly, on this recent Boston trip, I saw more mirrorless camears in use than I've ever seen before (note: I don't get out much). One Fuji X-something, at least two NEXes, a couple of micro 4/3, and - a first - a Samsung.
Holy cr*p !
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2014 on The June 3rd Storms at The Online Photographer
This is all fascinating stuff ! Of course, while it only comments on the type of photographers that spend time at this site, I find it interesting to know this information as it pertains to like-minded photographers (I'm less interested in knowing how many Rebels the general public is buying). I love the timeline and tree presentations of the data. It raises all kinds of questions. Have the people who chose older cameras (D700, for example) bought newer models ? Is the D700 still their favorite despite having experience with a D600 or D800 ? Or do they just enjoy it so much they haven't bothered with a newer model ? In general, how much experience do various respondents have with other cameras ? Is it your favorite out of 4 cameras you've used ? Out of 10 ? Did anyone choose a favorite that they don't actually own ? I shouldn't be surprised at the D700, but was, for some reason. And I was a bit surprised, at first, at the E-M5, but really shouldn't be, because it represents the "arrival" of micro 4/3 ... the first micro 4/3 camera a lot of people can agree is good enough to be their primary camera. (Previous models were probably great for this person or that, but not for large numbers). I think I'm a bit surprised at the popularity of mirrorless and fixed lens cameras in general, but that's where it gets interesting to see what TOP readers are using, versus the population in general. (I also wonder if those cameras are the voters only/primary cameras, or if they're compact alternatives to DSLRs that just happen to be favorites anyway). I was amused to see the tree for film cameras done in shades of gray :)
Toggle Commented Jun 5, 2014 on Our Favorite Cameras at The Online Photographer
And just one more comment ... many years ago ... 15 maybe ? ... I attended a camera club meeting (my one & only) because Joseph Meehan was the guest speaker (he's a local) and he said, way back then, that while digital capture hadn't caught up to film, digital output was already superior.
Toggle Commented May 20, 2014 on Big Mystery at The Online Photographer
Hmmm ... maybe not just availability, but repeatability ? Maybe art collectors love knowing that it's difficult to make exact copies of prints and that it's time consuming ? It seems a lot more reasonable to limit a print to 'n' copies when each one of them is made by hand, but kind of silly to limit a print when all you have to do to make more is bump up the counter in the dialog ;)
Toggle Commented May 20, 2014 on Big Mystery at The Online Photographer
Sounds like a reasonable assessment ... printmaking was more of a craft in the past. I suspect this is the reason behind the use of the word "giclee" to describe ink-jet prints. Maybe if there were some kind of training that could make you a certified master ink jet printer, your prints would be more respected ? Not everyone made darkroom prints, but lots of people print with an ink jet printer. (Just like not many people paint, but everyone takes pictures). Your post recalls that part of me I've subdued that wants to learn to print well. It seems intimidating; time-consuming ... something I'll save for retirement. (I know a bit about color management, but between Windows and Lightroom and the printer, it seems there are still too many ways to control color and if there are 200+ page books on the subject, it can't be that simple !)
Toggle Commented May 20, 2014 on Big Mystery at The Online Photographer