larrybc

July 10, 2015

I have an Olympus FL600R that I have used both on-camera and off-camera in RC mode with my Panasonic GX7. No issues.

November 13, 2010

Roman, regarding your question about the Tokina 12-24/4, I shoot mine wide open a lot and have been quite pleased with its performance. But if you can live with the narrower range of the 11-16/2.8, I'd give it more consideration simply because of its wider aperture which would make it even more useful for indoor shooting (where the wider field of view would often be useful).

- larsbc

March 3, 2010

Go Pro makes a non-HD version which costs less. Have you looked at it?

March 3, 2010

Going to the Big Island next week. 3 nights in Hilo and 9 nights in the Kona area. Anyone have photo suggestions? Will be travelling with two small children so long hikes are not possible, but we will have a rental car.

Where's a good place to experience the lush vegetation around Hilo? Are there any particularly photogenic bamboo forests there?

larry

January 23, 2010

I converted to digital printing when I received some sample b/w prints from a member of photo.net quite a few years ago. Until I saw those photos, I had no idea that digital b/w prints could be so good. Not long after that I bought my first inkjet photo printer and aside from maybe ONE darkroom session very early on, I haven't gone back. It's been digital all the way.

I like the consistency and the ease of experimenting to get the most out of my images. Plus it's so easy to make copies for people. Before, I used to dread people asking me to make extra prints for them.

Oh, and I'm very happy that I no longer have to clean chemical containers and whip up fresh batches...and monitor temperatures.

The only downside is that ink prices are quite high. And I was forced to buy a newer photo printer when I switched to 64-bit operating systems, since HP wouldn't provide a suitable update to their printer driver.

larsbc

January 23, 2010

No, Ken did give a favourable review for the 70-210/4-5.6D.

FWIW I have and it's a good lens. Not amazing, but it did the job (I use a 70-300VR and 70-200VR now). For me, the big problem is that it's hard to hand hold 200mm on DX without VR, and I usually don't use tripods.

January 23, 2010

I like how the statue appears to be looking at the "No Limit" banner. Changing the point of view so that it looks more like the statue was looking directly at the sign would be an improvement, as would a tighter crop, I think. At a minimum, a tighter crop would remove the black thing intruding into the left side of the frame. Likewise, the red and white banner at the bottom of the pic is distracting, too. I do like the irony of an inanimate representation of a person contemplating "no limits," though. - larsbc <img src="http://larsbc.smugmug.com/Photo-A-Week-PAW-Project/PAW-2009/week4020091011175442P1030938di/743807791_CgB4f-L.jpg" alt="" />

July 3, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4579529">Phoenix Kiula</a> wrote: A beautiful, shallow DoF leads to creamy bokeh. That changes the aesthetic of the photograph. What exactly is the confusion in that? No confusion. My point is that you didn't say anything about bokeh or even shallow DOF regarding the Canon lens in your first post. You only said that you were impressed by the Canon lens' DOF. That's why people were responding with DOF calculations. Bokeh, or the characteristics of the out of focus areas, is something entirely different.

July 3, 2009

In your original post, you mentioned that the Canon lens' DOF really impressed you. Now you're talking about its bokeh. The responses regarding DOF calculations refer to your DOF comment, which is not necessarily the same thing as bokeh.

April 24, 2009

Paul Marbs wrote:

Second although generally quick was too slow for s ome grab street shots and I ended up with shots of my feet after lifting, shooting and then dropping the camer a down again. I switched to MF.

I usually shoot in MF mode as well. The DOF, obviously, is very deep with this lens and sensor size.

Again each time the LX3 powers off or you go into review mode for 15 seconds or mo re (!) the lens retracts and you lose both zoom and focus position - b loody annoying.

Paul, have you tried reviewing the image using the DOWN (FUNC) button (this is an option you have to activate in the menu, first), or do you only bring up the review image by pressing the Playback slider switch? When shooting, I just press DOWN to review the image. It doesn't cause the lens to retract because it switches back to shooting mode after a few seconds.

The GX100/200 was perfect in this respect with its step zoom and custom settings a nd snap focus.

That's definitely something I'd like to see on the LX3.

larsbc

April 23, 2009

Paul, what I find works with the LX3 is to half-press the shutter release every 5 min or so. It's annoying for sure but it keeps the camera awake and all your settings intact.

larsbc

April 17, 2009

Robert, where in Canada are you located? In my area, Vancouver, the D90 retails for around CAD$1050. For instance, Photo Expert has it for $1049: <a href="http://photoexpert.com/spec_sheet.html?catalog[product_guids][0]=07acc8f5-65ea-450a-adcf-cc4f01699405">http://photoexpert.com/spec_sheet.html?catalog[product_guids][0]=07acc8f5-65ea-450a-adcf-cc4f01699405</a>

larsbc

April 3, 2009

When VR is operating, it can also affect the bokeh of the lens. I believe it was Thom Hogan who had some bokeh samples with and without VR.

larsbc

April 2, 2009

I had the Sigma 18-50/2.8 (non-HSM, non-macro model). I found it to be not very good wide open (can't recall if it was AF inaccuracy or softness) so I ended up avoiding taking advantage of the f/2.8 aperture....which is why I bought it in the first place. Bokeh could also be ugly at times.

I found a Nikkor 17-55/2.8, used, for CAD$1000 so I bought it. AF is very fast and accurate and I have no qualms about using it wide open. Bokeh is also good.

That's not to say that the Sigma is a bad lens. It just wasn't as good as I'd like it to be in some respects. And while I like my 17-55/2.8, it's bulk/weight can be limiting at times, which is why I also have a 16-85VR.

larsbc

March 13, 2009

Today's P&S cameras are still a bit limited for me. Particularly with regard to the dynamic range (tendency to blow out highlights) and high ISO ability. Spent a week a Disneyland and the San Diego Zoo earlier this month and brought my D300, 16-85VR, 70-300VR, 10.5, and Panasonic LX3. I figured I would spent most of my time going on rides with our two kids so I'd carry the LX3 every day and the DSLR only at the zoo and maybe one or two times at Disney for special shots. But that's not how it turned out.

Although I'm not a big tele user, the 70-300VR was quite useful when we went for a visit to Huntington Beach where I was able to use its range to get close-up shots of the surfers and to use the tele's compressed perspective to juxtapose the beachgoers against the off-shore oil-rigs.

The 10.5 was quite useful for photographing the kids while on rides (very cramped quarters), and I even used it to get some shots at the apogee of the Maliboomer vertical shot ride at California Adventure. I could've gotten away with my 12-24/4 but the 10.5 is smaller, faster, and I didn't think I'd need superwide very often. But in the end, I was surprised by how much I used it.

And of course, the 18-65VR was useful as well. The VR was great for taking handheld indoor or night-time shots, and it had enough range that I could photograph friends and family who were on the rides while I was waiting at the bottom (I didn't bother bringing the 70-300VR into Disneyland).

Looking at my keepers, I'd say that my LX3 accounted for 25%-30% of them. And of those, some of them still exhibit some blown highlights, despite the fact that the LX3 is, for a P&S, actually quite good and avoiding that problem.

With today's digicam technology, I will continue to carry a DSLR kit and P&S while on vacation. A cruise ship is a pretty safe place to leave the gear you don't need when you are on shore visits, anyway.

And yeah, 35mm to 24mm is a big difference.

larsbc

February 25, 2009

Just to chime in here, since I also have experience with these two lenses: Even if I had to choose a SINGLE lens for a trip, it'd still be the 16-85. I shoot at the wide end a LOT and the strong barrel distortion was quite annoying to me. And as others have mentioned, it was soft at the long end. Zoom creep was also a nagging problem. It was usually fine if the lens was racked back to 18mm, but if it was even at 19mm, it would creep. Viewing the images in Lightroom, it was pretty obvious that it lacked contrast compared to my other lenses, too. I even created a preset specifically for that lens. After a year of using it, I bought a 16-85VR. I don't miss the long end at all. 200mm is a nice to have but it was only occassionally useful and limited by its softness (had to stop it down a fair bit). In short, I found myself using the 18-200VR like an 18-135 simply because I disliked its performance at the long end. BTW, unlike a previous poster's experience, my 18-200VR doesn't come close to comparing to the image quality of my 70-200VR. Sharpness and contrast are clearly worse than the 70-200VR. It's true, though, that the sharpness won't be an issue in your typical print size. IMO that's up to 8x10 or 11x14. Go larger and I think it would be an issue. OR...if you want to crop your shot, I think you'll be limited, too. Also, it's true that you can fix the distortion and contrast in post processing. But the sum of these small problems was enough to make me dissatisfied with the lens. larsbc

February 25, 2009

We've been going to Maui and the Big Island every year for the past 4-5 years. I've always brought an SLR or DSLR. I just carry it in a backpack or slingpack. No worries. Our kids are 3 and 5 now and they've always travelled with us. I generally don't take my big lenses on these kinds of trips. It's usually something like a small mid-range zoom (Sigma 18-50/2.8 or Nikon 18-200VR or the 16-85VR next time we go), plus a super wide zoom and a telephoto zoom. Telephoto zoom usually stays in the hotel unless I know I'll need it or if we'll be travelling by car for most of the day. My most-used lenses are the normal zoom and the superwide (Tokina 12-24/4).

In your case, I'd go with the 17-55/2.8 and a 70-300VR, since you don't seem to be fine with 17mm as your wide end. The 70-300VR provides pretty good results and the occassions when you use it will usually have enough light.

I recently got the LX3, too. Like any digicam, I'd do my best to avoid getting sand on it. The sand there sticks to your hands and gets on everything you touch. For beach/water use, I use a Canon A610 with a diving case. No problems after 3 years of beach and pool use.

Image quality of the LX3 is way better than the Canon, though. Noticeably better dynamic range and much better at not blowing out the highlights.

larsbc

February 10, 2009

It's a setting. You've got red-eye reduction turned on on your camera.

larsbc

February 10, 2009

George Paris wrote:

The salesman is saying that i don't need to buy the 70-300mm lens if i'll have the 18-200mm and this one performs better than the 70-300mm. and the range is almost same.

What do you think, is he saying the truth when he says 18-200mm performs better than the 70-300mm. or he just want to make more money.

George, I just sold my 18-200VR and replaced it with a 16-85VR and 70-300VR. My 70-300VR is clearly sharper and contrastier than my 18-200VR was at 200mm.

I am leaning towards buying 70-300mm for the zooming range function. Also, i will shell out US$590 but i'll have 2 lens whereas if i'll trade my 18-105mm VR lens for 18-200mm VR, i'll still have to spend US$500 and have to be contended with only one lens.

If image quality is your primary consideration, then I'd definitely go with the 70-300VR, as far as telephoto images are concerned. I don't know how the 18-200VR compares to the 18-105VR at the wide-to-normal focal lengths.

larsbc

January 28, 2009

Starvy Goodfellows wrote: > the lenses for the cheaper nikon and canon won't work with more expensive bodies > when you upgrade. You're mistaken with respect to Nikon. The entry-level Nikon bodies (D40, D40x, D60) will only autofocus with AF-S and AF-I lenses. If you have an AF lens, they will not autofocus on those bodies, but they will meter just fine. *ALL* AF-S/AF-I/AF lenses will autofocus and meter on all other relatively current Nikon bodies (D50, D70, D80, D90, D200, D300, D2*, D3, D700). So any lens you buy for an entry level Nikon body will definitely work in its full capacity on a higher level body. larsbc

January 27, 2009

Video vs. still photos...

If this were 5-10 years ago, I would agree that still photos would easily be more important than video because who wants to sit down and watch a video tape of the kids? How often would that really happen?

But with digital video, and the depth and breadth of the computer's reach into our lives, it is now very convenient for many people to view video clips at a moment's notice. We only bought a video camera about 3 mos. after my son was born but its use was limited to vacations and special events. So the video clips were in chronological spurts. But once P&S cameras started getting better video quality, I started shooting much more video and on a much more regular basis.

And best of all, these days, unless you have pro requirements, you don't need to choose between a camera or camcorder. You can get both features in one device. Or even if your DSLR doesn't shoot video, it's very easy to bring along a small, pocket-sized digital video camera as well.

So definitely make sure you record your child from the beginning. They grow up so, so fast. I make a point of recording my kids' idiosyncracies, like how they mispronounce certain words, or their gestures, or their ideas of how things work (marriage, cars, birth).

My current P&S is a Panasonic LX3. Video is quite good (720HD) and I also like the still image quality. It's the first P&S that I don't mind using at ISO400. That, plus image stabilization and a fast f/2.0 lens make it great (for a P&S) for indoor shooting.

January 27, 2009

Wai-Leong Lee wrote: > I don't see why there are people who are just anti-manual photography types. Has anyone in this thread adopted that position? > Asim has explained his reasons for preferring a manual camera. It's the difficulty and > skill of using one that makes his photography enjoyable. > > Is that so difficult to understand? Not at all. I only responded because, imo, he was also suggesting that this gear struggle was a necessity for other photographers to enjoy their hobby, too. > To use another analogy, runners train very hard to win the Boston Marathon. And when > they win, they are happy to win because they know it was the product of their own hard work. So should they train and compete wearing flip-flop sandals to enhance their struggle? > If I gave the winner a Sedgeway and an invisibility cloak so that he wouldn't be > disqualified, and he won the marathon because of the Sedgeway and he didn't have to > break a sweat, do you think he would feel a sense of triumph? No. But are you suggesting that buying high end camera gear is all that is required to reach one's photographic goals? That the equipment itself dictates the end result? Peter A wrote: > Why dont peeps post pics to back up their opines - pics are more interesting thanall > dis word@Ge. How would a photo backup someone's assertion that they enjoy the struggle of using a manual camera? You don't see the process in the result. larsbc

January 26, 2009

Asim Raza Khan , Jan 24, 2009; 11:37 a.m. [snip] > This brings me to the thought that photography in its raw > form is best enjoyed with a manual camera. Using an auto > camera (and especially a digital camera), one tends to start > firing away like a machine gun with little thought put into > the process as well as the end result. Consequently, this > machine gun approach takes away from the joy of using the > camera and the 'struggle' and challenge in taking the > photograph. I think you've over-emphasizing the process and ignoring the end result. What's wrong with taking multiple shots? I've seen plenty of top-calibre professional photographers take lots of shots while working a scene. Do painters try to limit their use of paint to avoid wasting strokes? You may enjoy the process as an exercise but suggesting that it is the best way to enjoy photography doesn't make any sense to me. > This 'struggle' is a must in order to enjoy the hobby and > art of photography. If cameras could do everything for the > photographer and guarantee a perfect shot everytime while > also making your breakfast and cleaning your house then we > wouldn't really have to take photos at all. A couple of > analogies; Why do people climb Everest? I'd say it's because > individuals needs a struggle in order to acquire a sense of > achievement. You're basically drawing a line across technological progress and anyone above that line is not struggling enough to reach a sense of achivement. But that line is arbitrarily chosen by you. Instead of spending $1500 on a new system, why not build your own pinhole camera? Why not make your own light-sensitive emulsion? How can you feel any sense of achievement when you've had to spend $1500 in camera gear? > Why do people with endless amounts of money remain > unsatisfied? I'd say its because they have no 'struggles' in > their lives. And I actually dare to add on this photo > website in a digital era that the reason we often find > people turned off from digital photography is that their is > a lack of 'struggle' in taking photos, and photography > begins to feel bland and no longer challenging. It goes back to your earlier assertion about the end result not being the only consideration. Perhaps, but if it were the major consideration, I'd be surprised if merely switching to the digital process resutled in photographers' images suddenly achieving their goals. Perhaps these photographers need to raise their expectations a little higher? Thinking that switching to older technology is a solution makes you just as gear-focused as thinking that switching to newer technology is a solution. Machine-gun shooting won't make you a better photographer, but neither will single-frame shooting, either. A tool is a tool. It's up to you how to use it. You might try to limit your tool set but you're missing the point if you think it is your tools that are the problem. larsbc

January 19, 2009

I bought my LX3 as a carry-everywhere camera. So for me, additional accessories would be more of a hassle than anything else. As such, I only carry these three items for it:

1. Spare battery.

2. Spare SD card.

3. Ricoh LC-1 "automatic" lens cap. (<a href="http://ianho.blogspot.com/2008/11/ricoh-lc1-auto-lens-cap-on-leica-d-lux.html">http://ianho.blogspot.com/2008/11/ricoh-lc1-auto-lens-cap-on-leica-d-lux.html</a>)

January 19, 2009

Zack, if you want to do indoor portraits with flash, I strongly recommend reading strobist.blogspot.com. The blogger promotes a low-cost yet very effective philosophy of using inexpensive flash units to obtain professional results. Learning how to use flash will give you much greater portrait versatility than buying a single portrait lens, imo.

larsbc

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by larrybc