This is Dennis's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Dennis's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Dennis
Recent Activity
Just settings ? You're obviously not looking at enough selfies !
You can also look at Manfrotto bags. I own a smallish Kata bag - they've supposedly been merged into Manfrotto. Never bought a Manfrotto-branded bag, but it's another option.
Mike, The Lowepro logo isn't there so that you look cool carrying a Lowepro ... it's there so THEY look cool when Mike Johnston carries their bag ! I can't help much. I haven't really carried a camera bag in a while - I used to haul a backpack full of lenses around, with a tripod, doing nature photography, but these days, I typically carry one camera & lens on a BlackRapid strap and then an RX100 on a little belt pouch. I mostly use camera bags for transporting gear (in a vehicle) - to a vacation spot, to a friend's house, or just for a drive - but then I don't carry it around. I have one (Tamrac, I think) bag for carrying a small Sony e-mount kit that's pretty small & convenient for body&lens plus a second lens, but it would be too small for the G9 - an A6500 just about fits in sideways, grip up, like you show. I've always been partial to Tamrac bags. p.s. I agree about Loo Mix (or is it pronounced "lummox" ?). They had the right idea with a two syllable name, but that was about it.
I kind of wish I hadn't read this before finding time to do the first parts of the exercise ... and at the same time, I think that knowing the goal will help me with the initial 25 (though it might bias me on the prioritization.) I expect the 25 to be challenging because there are so many ways of looking at what I like to shoot, from subject matter to lighting to times to locations to moods ... But I definitely appreciate the intent. I imagine I'll still be "photo dad" and take snapshots of the cats but I'll identify areas of focus for the kinds of photography I like to do when I have to do that kinds of photography I like to do. By the way, I've done a half-hearted job of this in the past for another reason. I've looked at EXIF stats in Lightroom to see how much I shot with a given camera or lens in the last year to get a sense of where my priorities are, gear-wise. But then I've also done the same for a subset of pictures I consider to be more the kind of stuff I want to spend my time shooting. It may or may not help me with gear decisions in the future, but it's interesting (to me, anyway). If I can ever get serious about categorizing photos, I can see what I use to shoot the things that are most important to me.
I think you're wise to follow the advice you espoused here. There are lots of vloggers out there (TOO many vloggers) to compete with and even a lot of the enthusiastic ones are pretty painful to watch. It's good to try new things, but also good to know your strengths and weaknesses. Life is short and I'd rather spend more of it doing things I'm good at and enjoy, than forcing myself to do things that don't suit me for the sake of a "challenge". I also wish that more "content providers" would write rather than vlog - video is a lousy medium for a lot of the content people are using it for.
Toggle Commented Jan 3, 2019 on Go With Your Gifts at The Online Photographer
You might want to double check that math ... If you drive a whopping 20,000 highway miles and get 30 mpg, you're using 667 gallons. Drop that by 10% (27 mpg) and you're at 740 gallons. At $3/gallon, that's an increase of $220. Your 2.5 minutes estimate suggests a 15 mile round trip, which only adds up to 5000 or so miles a year. One of the things I looked in before picking our last car is diminishing returns with fuel consumption. You save about as much going from 15mpg to 18mpg in an SUV as you do going from 30mpg to 45mpg in a car. It's kind of like megapixels ... those big numbers sound impressive, but they don't really buy you that much.
Toggle Commented Dec 20, 2018 on Open Mike: Find the Time at The Online Photographer
Re: the world moving onto the SUV/FFM and being left behind, I don't mind not being part of the wave. The bigger concern is that manufacturers pull a "Ford" and announce they're going to stop making most passenger cars in favor of SUVs/crossovers.
Is there something going on here ? You've recently written about car mags and supercars and about not overbuying, interwoven with posts about the Zeiss ZX1 and Tamron Opera and Zeiss Batis lenses. I don't know whether I should view it as a double standard or ironic commentary.
Hmmm ... I'm only 160 (used to be 150) at 5'11 and like a car with legroom. I've been driving either a pickup truck or SUV for at least 25 years now, so it's not about ease of getting in/out for me. However, I will freely admit that the number one, overriding factor in the choice of the SUV I bought a year ago (and any car I might buy going forward) was seat comfort for my creaky back.
I don't have a favorite aspect ratio - I agree, at least based on my own experience, that photographers can adapt. I've been shooting 2:3 for 30+ years, dabbled with square (6x6) and when I experimented with shooting for square crops for a little project, I loved it. I'm comfortable with wide horizontals and shorter verticals, but I think you (can) just end up composing for whatever you're using, so I've seen great 4:3 horizontals and 16:9 verticals as well. I think that if I were to switch from APS-C to m43, I'd probably adapt, rather than crop, except when needed (and I crop APS-C now as suits the photo).
Toggle Commented Oct 4, 2018 on That Was Nice at The Online Photographer
This was an interesting read that seems to express a sense of missed opportunity that I think others probably feel at this post-September-Revolution juncture. However, I believe that the part about telephotos showed your own bias. You stated that you assumed bird/wildlife photographers would flock to m43 for the reach. And when they didn't you determined that they use big lenses for the prestige. It's pretty easy to find some impressive wildlife & bird photography out there by people using these lenses and I'd conclude that they're using them for the results, not the prestige. Personally, I went years without a long tele (since switching from film to digital) and only recently purchased a Sony RX10 III. This should handle my backyard wildlife needs (though AF at the long end is dodgy compared to my DSLR). I'm not enamored with the idea of carrying around a big tele (nor do I see any prestige in it). But I've dabbled in it and read about it enough to believe that those who do bother carrying long teles do so because they're very passionate about what they do and about doing it well. Personally, I see FOMO as being a bigger factor than prestige in people's irrational attraction to larger-than-necessary sensors. When I see the word prestige, I think of the guy in the Honda looking at the guy in the Mercedes. Maybe he wants a Mercedes, maybe he doesn't, but there's nothing wrong with his Honda. With cameras and sensors, I see the guy shooting APS-C looking at the guy shooting FF and wondering what he's missing out on. He's thinking about noise in 100% views at ISO 6400. If the FF guy is using a Leica and he's envious, then it's prestige, but if it's just a bigger Nikon, then I think it's insecurity.
Mike, I think you've hit the disconnect squarely on the head ! At this point, I think it's finally clear where the companies are headed and where they want buyers to go. The big question is whether buyers will go and what happens if they don't. Will the APS-C DSLR users migrate, stick stubbornly to their DSLRs, or look elsewhere ? Will one of the companies "break ranks" and offer Fujifilm some serious competition in mirrorless APS-C ? What are Canon and Nikon offering to entry level buyers ? EOS-M isn't compatible with EOS-R. (Is that it ? You buy one or the other ?) Nikon doesn't have APS-C mirrorless (or any promise to have it). It's a tough time to try to figure out which system to buy into, when m43 offers more quality than you need, but the m43 system you want is $1700 (and so is the 1" fixed lens digicam you want !) and a Z6 with a 24-70/4 can be had for around the same price as a G9 with a 12-35/2.8 ... I tend to think that manufacturers are going to win out and get a lot of people who never planned to buy FF to buy FF. But who knows ?
(In reply to my own question: oh, it's apparently a NEW URL !) [Right, created because of the new consortium. --Mike]
Would would have guessed there were enough SL rumors to warrant a URL ?
I don't buy into the squeeze from the bottom. After all, Sony's 1" sensors helped several manufacturers carve out a niche (for several manufacturers in the presumed-to-be-dead compact market. Rather, I think it's because (most of) we photographers have this ingrained belief that "bigger is better". Years ago, 35mm was the ideal balance between film size and cost/practicality for most people. In the DSLR era, it's been APS-C, but costs of FF have been dropping, FF systems offer the broadest selection of gear, and it's no more impractical than it ever was. The thing that doesn't come up in that is image quality. In film days, 35mm was sufficient without being overkill. Indeed, compared to what we can do today, we were considerably more restricted. Today, except for shallow DOF, a 1" sensor probably meets the same standards, but sufficiency just doesn't factor in for most people, any more than it factors into their choice of a flat panel TV (what's the biggest I can afford that fits on the wall ?), cars (what's the biggest I can afford that fits in the garage), houses (what's the biggest I can afford), cell phones (you get the picture). In short, the move to FF is being driven by consumers' irrationality, but there's no point in judging ourselves too harshly, because the downsides of choosing FF over something smaller just aren't all that significant. I'm getting ready to do some test prints to see if I could live with 12x18" prints from 1" sensors and if I could be happy with m43 instead of APS-C. But then again, a couple of my Nikon lenses would work fine on the new z 6 and that 24-70/4 looks pretty compact. Go figure.
Re: "Other Lenses" ... Just thinking that Nikon might want to lay claim to a letter of the alphabet sooner rather than later. Sony has A mount and E mount (but muddies that up with "FE"). (And, of course, they're all Alphas and use 'A' in their camera model names). Canon uses EOS, but has EOS-M and their new mirrorless system is rumored to be called EOS R. Nikon, itself, has F mount (in DX and FX) and the old Nikon 1 mount (in CX) and uses 'D' on DSLR names (and Z, now). Olympus uses E extensively for various camera models and Panasonic likes 'G'. Sony also uses G for high end lens designations (the old Minolta 'G' lens updated to be GM or "G-Master") while Canon uses 'L' (and Nikon just puts gold rings on theirs). Pentax has K (and has used Q - they've probably ruined Q for anyone else). Fuji is all about the X. I'm not even going to go look up all the letters Sigma, Tamron and Tokina use. I suppose, though, that Nikon will simply not give the "other lenses" a designation (reserving the designation 'S' for its higher end lenses). That would be a lot easier than trying to pick a letter from what's left. Maybe they should take a page from Zeiss' book and come up with seemingly meaningless names, like Touit, Batis and Otus.
Toggle Commented Aug 31, 2018 on Great News from Nikon! at The Online Photographer
"You buy a camera for the lenses" - that is the key ! Right now, Z is the obvious FF mirrorless for Nikon F lens owners and probably should not be under serious consideration for anyone not planning to adapt F mount lenses. I mean, if it interests you, then by all means, look at it, but I would wait for the native lenses I want to be available. Like you, I was sort of burned by my eagerness to buy into APS-C e-mount early on. I even upgraded along the way, added a couple 3rd party primes, tried lenses that I didn't expect to be good because some people insisted they're not so bad (and found that my expectations were right). At this point, I have a couple of bodies and half a dozen lenses to sell off. The latest & greatest Sony rumors even have a new high end performance-oriented APS-C body with dual control dials ... but still no mention of any new APS-C lenses. The Z intrigues me as a Nikon lens owner, but as an APS-C Nikon owner, half my lenses are DX and the cost to upgrade is more than I need to spend. And, like Sony, Nikon seems to have zero enthusiasm for APS-C. (I'd consider switching to Fuji or m43 just for their ongoing commitment, but there's no compelling reason to spend money to do much of anything right now, except keep taking pictures).
I sort of fell into a job with a big company, but somewhere along the way, realized that it's the best place for me. I'm not an entrepreneur, don't want to market myself, find work, research health insurance options, taxes, retirement savings or any of the rest. I just want to come in and do the work I'm paid to do. So I put up with the corporate BS because it's better (for someone with my temperament) than the alternative. It also seems logical and efficient: civilization advanced when we moved beyond subsistence living and were allowed to specialize. So it makes sense for me to spend my time on what I'm good at and let marketers do their thing, let HR and IT do their jobs and so on. I give lots of credit to those with the passion and drive to run successful small businesses. I know I'm not cut out for it.
A couple of things came together recently and led me to a purchase of an RX10-III. First, after using a Sony mirrorless system for years as my compact alternative to my Nikon DSLR, I decided that I really dislike dealing with multiple lenses when out and about shooting casually. Second, I've been without a long tele for years, but have missed having something to shoot backyard & local wildlife (which I do half-heartedly at best). And while there are nice, affordable options available for Nikon, the idea of the RX10 was appealing because it's something I can keep handy in the house to run outside when I do see wildlife. The RX10-III was an open box model ($700+). AF hunts at the long end at times and if I were considering spending $1400 for a new one, I would definitely pony up for the 'IV'. At this point, I'm enjoying the camera enough to consider upgrading to the IV and resolving not to buy a long tele for the DSLR. Or maybe not, time will tell. But aside from the AF (which is fine for most of my uses) it's proven extremely capable and handy (I also have an RX100 for even more convenience). I've shot deer in the back yard, got a slow motion clip of a hummingbird and have even used it for a couple of events where I'd normally take my 70-200/2.8. I expect to put it to good use on summer vacation. The lens is very sharp and when you put that together with the speed (f/4 at the long end) and the reasonable high ISO performance, it's not far off the mark from an affordable tele for a DSLR (those tend to be f/6.3 at the long end and don't exactly exploit a 24MP sensor). For a casual (at best) wildlife shooter like me (or anyone who wants to shoot long with something light) it's an interesting option.
I have been a Featured Commenter on TOP on more than one occasion.
Toggle Commented Jul 10, 2018 on Devilish Question at The Online Photographer
I have not had the same experience at all as Jim when it comes to upgrades. Of course, old stuff fails. New stuff will, too; usually sooner. Newer appliances are usually more efficient and quieter, though the quiet doesn't always last. Our new dishwasher probably is better than the old one in every way - time will tell if it will last 30+ years. The newer fridge has been problematic, requiring a new control board within a few years, and is still prone to "overcooling" and freezing things in the back of it. The new microwave has all kinds of automatic features we don't use; meanwhile, it heats inconsistently every once in a while. I'm sure we could all go on and on. I will say that digital cameras seem to keep getting better and better. They might feel a little cheaper than older models, but I think they're getting even more reliable. The only downside is when an "upgrade" removes a feature or dumbs something down, but the net is usually very positive.
Speed Queen. (Craig Yuill recommended it in your 2013 post). https://www.speedqueen.com/the-speed-queen-difference/american-quality The local appliance repairman told me he won't touch Samsung or LG appliances ... too much bother: repairs are so expensive, you're halfway to buying a new one, and customers complain when the expensive repair part fails.
I mean it as a compliment when I say you're not the McDonalds of photography blogs. BTW, have you seen "The Founder" (Michael Keaton as Ray Kroc) ? I recommend it.
Toggle Commented Jul 1, 2018 on 70 Million Served at The Online Photographer
I really need to go get my eyes checked and get a new prescription. Anyway, when I need to read tiny print (and my daughter isn't around to read it for me !) I use ... drumroll please ... my iPhone ! No app, just the stock camera.
Beats me. It looks like they took out the things that make Fuji's X system good (retro control layout in a comfortable body with X-Trans sensor) to make a camera that looks vaguely like every SLR from the 70s. I suspect it will sell to people who want to use Fuji lenses with a Bayer sensor, but it has none of the appeal of higher end models for me.