This is Moose's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Moose's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Moose
Recent Activity
As Mr. Arthur points out, this is an example of Alces Alces, known as Moose in America and as Elk in Europe. They don't have the other sorts of NA Elk in Europe. So Soviet Era Russian, concrete and overly noble. Herewith an American, Maine moose, in both a more American pose and material - AND - it can fly!
"In the Wildfire portfolio, note especially photo #11. That's the overpass from which Ansel Adams took his famous picture "Clearing Winter Storm, 1935." Drat, ever the pedant. Not an overpass, the Tunnel View Overlook, parking adjacent to the east end of the tunnel on the Wawona Road. One may also use long lenses from this overlook. \;~)>
I love the juxtaposition. ". . . my 20mm ƒ/1.7. Optically it's still one of my favorite lenses, but it's remarkably slow to focus 20 mm, F1.7, 6/7, 55.5x20.5 mm, 55 g. "...But I'm still really GASsed out supine and stupid by the Olympus lens." 25 mm, f1.2, 19/14, 70x87 mm, 410 g.
Stan B took some words out of my mouth. Faced with a far less dramatic clearing storm than St Ansel, I turned around, walked up a few steps,and found this. Not as fabulous as Clearing Winter Storm, neither subject nor photographer in that league, but I'll bet the ratio of forward shots to this rearward one is in the realm of billions to one. \;~)>
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2018 on Not the Same at The Online Photographer
May composition transcend motif, even, perhaps, cliché?
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2018 on Not the Same at The Online Photographer
Lovely post!
Toggle Commented Jul 27, 2018 on Not the Same at The Online Photographer
Books I print myself or have printed only a quite small % of the images that go on my web sites. Another, somewhat larger % are printed in photo books. 100 images in 5/8" of shelf width. My personal experience is that friends, family, visitors, etc. relate in an entirely different, and much better, way to a book or books than to pile(s) of prints. I think it's related to a few things. First, there's the problem of handling the loose prints. If they perceive them as valuable, which is likely, they are hesitant to handle them much. Its hard to hold a print flat and at the right angle to the light. A book has a physical integrity that makes using it easier and safer (seeming). Second, there's something about the book form embedded in our culture that makes handling and looking at them different, more familiar, comfortable and pleasurable than other forms of presentation. ___________________ Then there's the effect on me of putting together a coherent, linear set of photos for a book. I never got ideas of discipline such as One camera, one lens one year. That would be torture for me. But I find the process of creating a book to be artistic endeavor, not arduous discipline. A not unpleasant process that results in a lasting sense of accomplishment. I suspect too that the process of selection into a limited space improves the quality of the content. As to PQ, I've been quite happy with the quality of the reproductions in high end photo book publishers. Those who view them often comment on the quality, both physical/sensual and visual. Are they individually as good as a great print? Mostly, I think so, and those that aren't are still quite good. I printed most of my books with MyPublisher, which has been absorbed into Shutterfly. My last big book was mailed from a different place than before, and packaged differently, which I assume to have been a Shutterfly printing plant, and was of the same quality. I've only done one small book directly with Shutterfly, and it was fine. I've seen AdoramaPix books that were excellent.
"—given that you have to balance three factors, 1.) telephoto reach, 2.) maximum aperture, and 3.) sensor size/IQ* potential, 600mm-e at ƒ/4 on a 1" sensor does sound like a nice, and useful, balance." I keep checking, as new models come out, 1" against µ4/3, using the wonderful DPReview comparison tool. Unfortunately, 1" still isn't there for me. Noise and pixel level artifacts even at base ISO. How about 600mm-e at ƒ/5.6 on a 4/3 sensor? A GM5 with Panny 100-300/4.0-5.6 is slightly longer at widest setting, but the same length as the RX10 IV @ 600mm-e. Sony is 1095 g., GM5 and lens, 731 g. Nope, not all-in-one, but significantly better IQ, even accounting for a stop more ISO needed for some shots. Being me, I have a bag with that combo, another GM5 with 12-60 and a 7-14. Then again, I also think 800mm-e @ f6.3 on µ4/3 is a good, useful balance. Photography has always been in large part finding the right compromise. \;~)> * "There is No Such Thing as Image Quality", TOP, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 - But I'm with Emerson on the consistency hobgoblin.
I LIKE long. I shoot 800 mm -e all the time with the PLeica 100-400. My 1 2/3" sensor 24-720 mm -e Panny ZS50 makes quite decent photos in good light. No one noticed anything wrong when I included one in one of my 8x10" photo books. The first two rows here are all ZS50, from 24-720 mm -e, mostly 720. RAW files were one reason I chose it; it really does make a difference in what I can get out of the camera. I stayed away from Nikon Super-zooms for the lack of RAW. Just pre-ordered through your above link.
"I'd love to see a photographer of major ambition sustain important work made with the Nikon P1000. That would be interesting. I'll believe it's possible when I see it." Would you define for me "important work" Who be the judge?
"Who needs a physical shutter? I admit though that I am completely ignorant of what-all's involved in such a design. It would be great if the camera could just snatch a still image from the video that the sensor is already apparently producing. No loud shutter. . . I am sure I am oversimplifying this." Many contemporary mirrorless cameras have full electronic shutters as an option. Some do the video frame capture thing. Some do shutter things well beyond that; anticipation, bracketing, and so on. There are technical limitations with image quality consequences such that mechanical shutters can't yet be eliminated for all uses.
". . . sometimes Japanese companies target mainly their home market, or women, or Japanese teens, and beardy grumpy white-male American and British enthusiasts argue over these products just like the development teams for those products gave a flip about their opinions. No no, Grampa." Olympus has been doing this with the Pen line from the beginning. Actual changes in underlying capabilities occur far less often than name and cosmetic changes.* The E-PL7 introduced real improvements. The E-PL8 is almost purely cosmetics and marketing. (more AF points?) Like some earlier iterations, the E-PL9 actually loses some function, while again looking, accessorized and marketed differently. (Added visual help for newbies, better video, even weaker pop-up flash, as the accessory shoe for the prior one is gone.) Both have a selfie LCD mode below the body, which can't be used with a tripod. I'm surprised the E-PL9 has a tripod socket; there is no mention of one on their site or in a couple of reviews, nor pix of the bottom. I had to do an image search to find out. I'm just happy to have an E-PL7. I am far from stylish enough for an E-PL9. Anyone here need a Protective Leather Lens Cover, for $45? \;~)> * Absolute rule: each new model must add, radically change or delete the finger grip.
I have not eight, but tens of AA and AAA rechargeable NiMH batteries. I don't think I've reached 100, but they are spread out in many devices, so I don't really know.* I've had a La Crosse Technology BC700-CBP charger for over nine years, and am pleased with it. It does some tricks other than reliably and fully charging my batteries, but I don't remember what they may be. It's significantly less expensive than the Powerex. I've also been very happy with the second choice you offer, the Panny BQ-CC17 Advanced individual cell charger. The early Panny charger was poorer, charging only in pairs. That doesn't work well with batteries mismatched by brand or age/use or with the many devices that use one or three batteries. I've done no testing, other than recharging and using many batteries many times. But batteries charged in the Panny, then put in the La Crosse show as fully charged on the LCD display. The Panny does no tricks, but I think it does its task of safely and fully recharging low discharge NiMH batteries very well. My batteries are mostly Eneloops, with a significant minority of Amazons. Eneloop invented the low discharge battery, and were for some time the only, then the only first quality brand, which is one reason why I have mostly Eneloops. I'm trying to remember if I've ever had to throw one away. That I'm not sure says it all. The Powerex batteries look to be comparable, although with a slightly poorer customer review profile. I rather suspect that several brands are essentially the same in quality. * I see 22 here in little plastic cases of four waiting in reserve, to re-serve.
A number of DIYers have attached flatbed scanners to various bellows and lenses over the years. I believe Canon LIDE scanners were preferred for their modest size and light weight. 8x10" @ 1,200 dpi is 115 MP. I don't really recall the quality of the results. I suspect it was more the potential than progress to date that interested me back when.
"Essentially a "black box" test like we used to do with B&W film.) I found that on the exposure with the sunlit white cladding barely holding, the interior still dipped too far into ugly noise—and with the interior just barely holding, I couldn't recover quite enough highlight detail." Taken with the earlier sensor and processor in a GX7: 100% "So I agree that the proper exposure is important with the GX8, and when the subject brightness range (SBR) is as high as you'll encounter in daylight, a single exposure won't quite hold all parts of the range." The degree to which this is true is quite dependent on the digital darkroom software and operator. The second and third images above are indeed the first, processed. The white in the left windows and just above the water on the right are not blown. The fine mist/fog of the Pacific marine layer diffuse the light of the sun, which is just out of frame, top left. The subject is not ideal for showing noise, as it can be easily confused with the surface texture of the fresco and the way the paint interacted with the wet surface when applied. Whatever combo it is, it's perfect for a print.
Toggle Commented Jun 17, 2018 on Never Mind All That at The Online Photographer
"but FF photos look nicer. I dream of a mirrorless FF camera with a large cellphone sized display. " With Sony, Panny and Oly, the WIFi connection allows remote control with cellphone or tablet, including viewing on the cell LCD. I imagine that's true for all major brands of mirrorless cameras. Upside down Gx7 being controlled with iPad Mini. There are, of course, endless variations on mounts of phone to camera using hot shoe or tripod screw. At other extremes: The Oly Air-01 has no screen of its own, and a mount for cell phone on the back. There are many separate viewscreens made, primarily for videographers
". . . not just the accuracy of the colors and the impressively easy way it has with dynamic range." It's not easy to make good web illustrations of camera/lens qualities. Folks like me will all too easily see the anomalies 'tween word and image. The daffys clearly have badly blown highlights in the posted JPEGs. Red channel is obvious, but Green is also slightly clipped. One consequence of clipping difference between channels is inaccurate color in those areas. Where those highlights got lost is impossible to tell from here. It's exceptionally easy to overexpose red/yellow flowers in direct sun, but also easy to clip highlights in post and/or in conversion to sRGB JPEG. Not that I think the A7III doesn't have good/great DR, but one still needs to watch auto exposure and average or center weighted exposure. That's why there is a big EV compensation wheel just above your right thumb. That's why they have 'sparkly' EVF warnings for over/under exposure of small areas available. My original A7 has good DR, but I still would have shot those flowers @ -1.3 and -2.0 EV. Then 'ya gotta pull up the middle, where the very forgiving files shine. (Then again, I feel the same way about my µ4/3 files.)
"Subsequent iterations of the Epl5 were, in my opinion, utter BS." E-PL6 = Auto switching with VF-4. E-PL7 = 3 axis IBIS that does work better. BS thereafter.
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2018 on 'Mark II' at The Online Photographer
"A Panasonic GM5 MkII, pretty please..." Do I hear a call for a vote on Abbazz' motion? Actually, sitting here, holding one, I'm trying to think what they could add that wouldn't screw it up. Well, the 20 MP sensor would be fine, and maybe a higher rez EVF. Most important is no increase in size. Unfortunately, John, I've yet to see addition of a tilting EVF without an increase in thickness and weight. If possible, it would be good. I guess all I really want is for the GM series to go on. At a time when even cameras with the small µ4/3 sensor seem disproportionately large, such a small, elegant and capable camera is a treat to carry and use.
Toggle Commented Jun 6, 2018 on 'Mark II' at The Online Photographer
Alfred Korzybski famously said "the map is not the territory" and, less famously, "the word is not the thing" Paraphrasing, "Words are not the experience" Your lists are long, and I agree with many points - BUT -all those words are completely unrelated to the actual experience of using a rangefinder. I dislike using rangefinders. I have looked through a few, hoping the experience will improve, but it never did. I used an Olympus XA for some time in spite of that deficiency for its other unique qualities, but never liked the RF. In other news, you have got an item in the wrong list. "Prime lenses of moderate focal length make the most sense; you're not tempted [able] to use zoom lenses or telephoto lenses longer than about 135mm, and you're discouraged from doing closeups." This is a major disadvantage, where I am. \;~)> My Gestalt and yours differ. Dealing with those overlapping bits distances me from the world. Then again, all those bits of tech info in the VF? I just don't notice them, I see past them, to the occasional detriment of the results, but like having them there when I do want to know. BTW, it seems to me that using an LCD panel clearly shows the relationship between what is in the frame and the larger world. I use that a lot when working with a tripod. Hand held, I generally prefer the EVF.
"Dear God, someone fix those damn Olympus menus. " Whomever may be In Charge, Please fix those damn Sony menus!! Then Panasonic. Don't touch Oly. Yes, I have and use all three. None are any good in the field. The Oly Super Control Panel and MySets on Fn buttons mean never using the Menus in the field. The Sony control panel brought up with the Fn button on my A7 is pretty useful. The Panny Quick Menu and touch tabs are third place. All three menu systems have too many items, each poorly organized in one way or another, because it's an impossible problem. But I, for one, don't want my camera less customizable.
Toggle Commented May 31, 2018 on G9 vs. E-M1 II at The Online Photographer
"still only available in a kit with the slower 12–60mm lens, grrr." The problem for me is not so much the speed, but the optical quality. I tried the Panny, tested it and sent it back. I bought the Leica when it appeared, and am much happier with the it. It lives by default on one of my E-M5 IIs. No, the Panny one isn't awful; it's a pretty good lens, while the Leica is outstanding.
Toggle Commented May 30, 2018 on G9 vs. E-M1 II at The Online Photographer
"Have you made that decision one way or the other?" Sans aucun doute. In accord with your last post, I have chosen the camera that has the least flaws for my needs and desires. I used and liked a GX7 and use and love a GM5 for my light, compact kit, so I'm not anti Panny. However at the moment, no Panny has Focus Bracketing/Stacking, which is a big part of my photography now, so the G9, whatever it's other sterling qualities, is a non-starter. With the E-M1 II, Oly has chosen to copy the big, PRO DSLRs, with three Custom Settings on the Mode dial. Nice looking, might be a draw for those coming from CaNikon, but a very real step backward in actual usability for taking pictures from the MySets they've had forever. MySets may be assigned to Fn buttons, E-M1 II Custom Settings may not. One push, and I'm in my custom settings, another and I'm back where I was. Using the Mode dial, unlocking and turning to get to the custom settings; turning again and relocking to get back, is much slower and more awkward. My answer to your choice is a highly informed and firm Neither. The clear winner is not in your choice nor on your list, E-M5 II. I have two, use them extensively, often both around my neck at once, and they are, at this time, the best camera - for me. My great hope is that Oly will continue to reserve the premium feature of Custom Settings on Mode Dial for their premium model, and the E-M5 III will retain MySets.
Toggle Commented May 30, 2018 on G9 vs. E-M1 II at The Online Photographer
"The best camera is the one you have with you." I assume your misunderstanding of the intent of that quote is intentional, an entree into a mild rant. My understanding of the quote has always been: "Any camera is better than no camera, especially if it is one you chose to have with you." I include the second part because my experience is that my iPhone camera is often not better than no camera at all. I tend to notice, and want to photograph, small bits of the visual field, i.e., macro and tele. The phone is mediocre at one and completely useless at the other. And no, aux. lenses aren't a solution. It I'm going to carry them, I can just as easily carry a real camera. Less fuss and better pictures.
" . . . the new Fuji's sensor is larger in dimensions and number of pixels." Pendantic Notes on Formats and MegaPickles: When talking generally about MPs, it easy to forget that they are area measures, whereas resolution is linear. At 25%, the increase from 16 to 20 MP in the latest µ4/3 bodies seems significant. However, the linear increase in pixels/mm is 13%. This is below the level that's usually detectable in actual images. Ctein says "As someone who currently has both an E-M1 II and a E-M5 II . . . The difference in pixel count is insignificant." I can't think of anyone better qualified to test this.* When talking about formats of different shapes, it is easy to forget the resolution implications. The 24 MP X-T100 sensor is only 3% larger in pixel count vertically than the 20MP µ4/3 sensors, 4,000 vs. 3,888 pixels (21% in mm.) Almost all the extra MPs are in the horizontal direction. Good for landscape, right? But then, the actual linear pixel increase horizontally is only 16%, and any amount less than 20%** is unlikely to be visible as increased subject detail. The likelihood of any noticable increase in resolution of fine detail between the latest 20 MP µ4/3 sensors and the 24 MP Fuji APS-C sensors is close to zero. What about the comparison you make between 16 MP E-M10 III and 24 MP Fuji X-T100? The horizontal increase is 30%, probably significant for those who like the wide format. At 16%, the vertical increase is not significant. * I personally compared the last generation Fuji 20 MP vs. µ4/3 16 MP sensors, using DPReview's studio samples, flipping layers on and off in PS, and came to the same conclusion. Slightly different for some of the test subjects, one or the other a tiny bit better, but essentially the same. If there was a subtle edge, it was in favor of the Oly body (but could be signal processing, and/or lens, not sensor.) ** Although there are good reasons that could explain why this is true, it's an empirical number, not calculated; probably more in most cases.