lee_shively

May 13, 2018

You probably had DR set to 400. That changes ISO to 800.

December 20, 2012

I've almost bought the Panasonic 25/1.4 on a couple of occasions but I continue to be very happy with the pictures made with the Olympus 25/2.8 with a Panasonic adapter. It does double duty on my Olympus DSLRs as well. It doesn't get much respect in reviews but the lens does lend a very nice look to photos. The downside: slow AF.

Take a look at Robin Wong's website for some examples of photos done with the Oly 25. However, he does use it on Olympus DSLRs so slow AF is not an issue.

October 6, 2012

Is anyone familiar with this photographer?

Reportedly, he traveled with Lee Friedlander, John Szarkowski and Richard Benson on road trips, making photographs across the USA. He is mentioned in a couple of sources and he is in a photograph in one of Szarkowski's books. I'm not familiar with him or his work. Would like to know more.

July 23, 2012

I bought an X10 a few months back due to the glowing reports I had read about it. It was not available locally so I ordered one from B&H. The day after I received it, I called B&H and got a RMA number and shipped it back. It's the first time I had ever returned any piece of photo equipment simply because I didn't like it.

To me, there were too many things that did not fit. There were lots of positive points about the camera such as the viewfinder and the zoom ring (although the on/off control on the zoom ring was poorly placed, in my opinion). The Raw converter--SilkyPix--that came with the camera was virtually unusable. I was already familiar with SilkyPix since I own a couple of Panasonic cameras and the program works much better with the Panasonics than it did with the Fuji.

I don't own the G12 but I do own a G10. The Canon viewfinder is not as good as that on the X10 but the rest of the camera kicks the X10's butt, in my opinion. As for the new Sony, I read the review on Luminous Landscape and it sounds like a nice, but expensive, camera. It does not have a viewfinder which is not unusual these days. What kills the deal for me is the lack of a separate battery charger. The camera battery must be charged in the camera. While that saves carrying another charger when traveling, it precludes keeping a spare battery charging while you're out shooting.

July 5, 2012

My understanding is that the print heads on Epsons are part of the printer, unlike my HP printer where the heads are built into the cartridges. I'm not sure if the photo black and matte black use the same print head, however. You have to purge the photo glossy black to use the matte black and vice versa. That may or may not mean the same head is being used--I don't know.

I suppose it would be wise to occasionally run a sheet of paper through the printer using the matte black ink cartridge to keep the print head clear. Seems like a big waste of the photo glossy black ink to me, all this purging of very expensive ink. Wish I could just remove the matte black cartridge and leave the space empty since I cannot foresee ever using any papers that would require matte ink.

July 4, 2012

I recently bought an Epson r3000. I'm very satisfied with what I'm getting out of the printer. I do have one question concerning the ink cartridges. I think the printer requires all cartridge spaces to be occupied in order to function. From what I've read, switching back and forth from the glossy photo black ink to the matte black ink wastes a good bit of both in the process. Since I only use the printer for photographs and I only print on Epson's Premium Glossy Photo Paper or Glossy Exhibition Fiber papers, the ink cartridge filled with matte black ink will never get used in normal printing. Should I occasionally print something using the matte black ink or is it okay to just leave it unused. If I don't use it for printing at all, do I need to replace this cartridge occasionally even though it will never have any ink used out of it?

June 13, 2012

As Ariel stated above, accessory OVFs generally only cover a single focal length lens. Therefore, they are of limited use with zoom lenses. One possible and fairly available exception comes to mind--the variable viewfinders made for the old Leica/Contax camera copies from the former Soviet Union. They can be of surprisingly good optical and mechanical quality but they are clunky to use and bulky compared to single focal length accessory OVFs. These finders used to be cheap and readily available from Ukrainian/Russian online sources as well as a few domestic sources but that may have changed in recent years.

But even this is not a particularly good solution since you would have to adjust the viewfinder to the focal length in use on the zoom every time you change the zoom. Thus the "clunky" I mentioned.

June 6, 2012

There is a pretty good selection of P&S cameras right now with really good performance. Hard to go wrong if you define the characteristics that are most important to you and read the multitude of camera review websites. My personal choice for a P&S that kicks ass with features that are important to me is the Panasonic Lumix LX5. It's small enough to pocket but I usually wear it by the neck strap to keep it accessible and my hands free for normal grasping purposes. Larger and less pocketable as well as old and outdated by digital standards, I am still amazed at the image quality my Canon G10 can achieve at the lowest ISOs.

I hate telephones. My cell phone's capability extends to making and receiving phone calls but I seldom use it or even turn it on. Some say P&S cameras will evolve into a feature on smart phones and single purpose P&S cameras will disappear. Could be, I don't know. If so, I'll still hate the telephone.

May 23, 2012

Patrick---Here is a link to the dpreview side-by-side comparison chart:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras

Good luck. I know you'll find something you'll like eventually.

May 22, 2012

One of my first peeves about the X10 was the lens hood/filter holder. I thought it was a poorly conceived idea that was also too expensive. But it was the only way a filter could be mounted at the time. Unless someone is now marketing those 39.5 or 40mm filters, it may still be the only game in town.

I was unable to use the hood/filter holder. Once mounted, I was unable to get my large sized fingers between the back of the mounting plate and the front of the camera to turn the on/off control. I had other issues with the camera as well but, needless to say, it was not a good fit for me.

May 22, 2012

If you have at least a passing familiarity with digital P&S and dSLR cameras, you've got a massive head start over the place I was in about 5 years ago when I bought my first digital camera. I forced myself to buy one and forced myself to learn how to use it. Since then I've bought and used several digital cameras and every one of them had a learning curve but none of them was that different from any of the others as far as standard features are concerned.

I own three Olympus and one Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras. Both of them require some fiddling around to get through the menus and know what all the features do. The Panasonic menu is a little easier to navigate but I prefer using the Olympus cameras--just my personal preference. Olympus menus are initially difficult to navigate and can be frustrating to those unfamiliar with them but there is a simplified menu available at the touch of a button that gives you access to all the important controls. Once you get the camera set up the way you want, you will seldom need to delve into the menus again.

As to which of the two brands to buy, the best advice I can give you is to forget taking anyone's advice on what camera to buy. I'm pretty adaptable so I generally can get used to any camera in time but I know some people cannot abide the way some cameras must be utilized. If you already like and have familiarity with a certain brand of camera, film or digital, you will probably find it easier to adapt to another model of that brand. I sympathize with your inability to have hands-on contact with a lot of cameras. Here where I live there are now zero camera stores and Walmart, Target and Best Buy photo counters are pretty much only tethered cameras with no instructions and usually with no batteries installed. Don't even ask the sales staff anything and expect correct information.

May 19, 2012

I second Lex's recommendation for Picasa. If you're not interested in a lot of manipulation and you only want basic photo editing capability, Picasa is about as easy as it gets. I'm not into the whole Photoshop manipulation process and I love the simplicity of Picasa. I use it, along with various camera maker's editing and Raw conversion software, for everything.

May 16, 2012

I didn't read the other responses. Well, maybe a couple. But I don't know the direction the conversation was going as of the this time.

Speaking only for myself, I prefer a photograph that needs no context. Sometimes it's interesting to know the context or the story behind the photo but that's just anecdotal information to me. A bit of mystery or an unresolved story is more interesting to me than a literal description.

May 16, 2012

I have the Kindle e-book of the work referred to in the original post. I've read several of the essays but not the entire book. Of the essays I've read, none were specifically about missed photos or "the ones that got away". They were simple essays based on personal experiences that sometimes had only peripheral involvement with photography. Emmett Gowin's essay, for instance, concerned discovering that a reporter sent to interview him was the daughter of a favorite writer whose work he used in his classes. Since I haven't read all of the book, I can't really give an informed opinion on the content, however, it doesn't appear to be exactly like the promo described.

May 14, 2012

The 4/3 sensor is not THAT much smaller than an APS-C sensor, especially if you happen to crop your images to 4:3 format as I often do. (Yeah, I know. Somebody will come up with the "real estate" comparison between APS-C and 4/3 but I'm speaking in practical terms not mathematics.) Advances in technology that has improved the APS-C performance should also improve the 4/3 sensors. Sure, high ISO performance improves with sensor size but the fact is this means little if you make most of your photos during the daylight hours or you use lower ISO settings to maximize image quality. When you see how well a micro 4/3 camera like the OMD performs in comparison to APS-C when reviewed, you gotta wonder why the standard 4/3 format shouldn't receive the same benefits.

The main problem with 4/3, as I see it, is that the technology is not being applied to 4/3 like it is being applied to the micro 4/3. That and the fact that the 4/3 camera bodies are a bit too large. But camera makers build what the public wants and, right now, micro 4/3 is a hotter ticket.

May 8, 2012

Consider the format differential very closely. The difference in equivalent focal lengths may not be acceptable in the end.

I was attracted to micro 4/3 cameras initially based on the ability to use adapted Leica lenses, however, in practice I found I was not pleased with the 35mm and 50mm Summicrons (my most used lenses) becoming equivalent to 70mm and 100mm lenses. Those focal lengths are not interesting to me at all. Since I am unable to afford a digital Leica M (and I never will be able to afford one), I eventually just sold the Leica lenses.

May 8, 2012

Agree with Ariel on this.

I use an old Leitz 5cm finder with one of my E-P2 cameras and 25mm lens. I cannot recall any significant framing difficulties with the 3:2 finder used with the 4:3 format. If the picture needs precise framing, there's always the rear LCD.

May 8, 2012

Yeah, I agree about the menus. Ponderous and non-intuitive. But the good thing about the Olympus is that you don't need to go through the main menus much at all. Once you get it set up the way you want it, that is. The simplified menu has all the functions you normally want to adjust and it's easy to access.

Of course, it's difficult to know exactly what some of the menu items actually do from the manual. I bought the Magic Lantern Guide to the E-P1 way back when that camera first appeared and found it worth every cent spent when it comes to explaining what the menu functions actually do. Since the E-P2 is not that much different from the E-P1, the book was doubly worth the cost.

May 7, 2012

Micro 4/3 sorta stole the thunder from the standard 4/3 concept. But I recently bought a used Olympus dSLR and I've started using it quite a bit. Because of my infatuation with the m4/3 cameras, I had bought a couple of used Olympus 4/3 lenses and I was using them with adapters on my E-Pen bodies. I was astonished at the optical quality and impressed by the build although AF was very slow on the m4/3 cameras (the lenses I'm speaking of are the 11-22/2.8-3.5 and 14-54/2.8-3.5). Once attached to an Olympus 4/3 body, the AF speed is not an issue. And, truthfully, I still prefer an optical viewfinder to the electronic viewfinders for the micro 4/3 bodies.

May 7, 2012

Or you can just turn off the function in the menu.

The buttons on the wheel can be made non-functional--their tasks are redundant anyway since the settings can be addressed in the quick menu. The wheel will still turn but it only changes EV settings for a dedicated flash. If you're not using flash, no harm done no matter how much you rotate the wheel.

May 7, 2012

Yes. While in Playback mode, press INFO button a couple of times and this information will show on the LCD along with other shooting information.

May 7, 2012

Thanks for the advice. This morning I decided to go ahead and bite the bullet so I ordered the Epson R3000 from B&H. Their price for the printer was less than from Epson direct and both have a $150 mail-in rebate good through the end of the month.

After reading the reviews online and even though it's more expensive than I originally planned on, I decided this model will probably do everything I will need to do in the foreseeable future and may be a little cheaper to run than the other printers I was considering.

Thanks again.

May 5, 2012

My old HP printer has been needing an upgrade for some time but it's produced a lot of great looking prints over the years. But now, with the "improved" HP Premium Plus Photo Paper that looks like it's coated with Saran Wrap, I'm inspired to get on with it and dump HP completely. So I'm needing some input.

Here's what I do and what I want and need:

I don't print photos every week and I don't do a huge volume of prints. I'm not in the business of photography. Color is my primary interest but I do occasional B&W. I'm more interested in the quality of the print than the absolute archival permanence of the print--but longevity of the image when displayed under glass is also important. Wireless operation is not important. I don't care about exotic papers and finishes--I prefer glossy or a hard surface luster/pearl type finish for my photos. I want to print up to 13" wide borderless with most prints being about 11x14". I'm not interested in the technology, I want a simple operation after initial setup. I want something reliable and durable.

While I'm retired now and my income is limited, I'm willing to spend $500+/- for the printer. It would be nice if the printer isn't an ink drinker but I can put up with a bit of wasted ink as long as the print quality is high. Here's what I've been looking at:

Canon Pixma Pro 9000mkII and Pro 9500mkII (based on Canon's current $300 rebate only--otherwise, it's out of my price range). Epson Artisan 1430, Epson Sylus Photo R2000, Epson Stylus Photo R2880 and Epson Stylus Photo R3000 (this one is pushing my budget--it's only in the running due to current Epson rebates that get it down to a bit over $600).

What say you? Thanks in advance.

May 2, 2012

Despite having a few gripes with the cameras, I now own three of them--an E-P1 and two E-P2s. My main gripe is how close the AEL/AFL button is to the surrounding buttons. I set the AEL/AFL to do the focusing rather than use the shutter release and I sometimes press the wrong button when doing this--I have big hands with correspondingly large and long thumbs. I also had problems with the lower control wheel until I disabled it in the menu.

Sanford, as others have stated, you only have to set the focal length of the lens for the IS when using a lens that does not communicate electronically with the camera. I've never used the cameras on manual so I can't comment on how that functions. I've set every electronic shuttered camera I've ever owned to aperture priority and leave it there.

Unlike Harold, I've pretty much given up trying to use my older manual focus lenses with any of my M4/3 cameras. With the EVF on the E-P2 or with the Panasonic G1, they functioned and could be focused fine but the focal lengths were not very interesting to me once they were doubled. While the AF may not be the fastest around, it's still faster and more accurate than I am able to focus manually. With the DOF in the 4/3 format, I've found it's faster to zone focus in bright light--something I did a lot of when I used my Leicas.

While they're not perfect by any means, I like these cameras a lot. As I said, I have three of them and they've replaced my M6s.

April 20, 2012

My first Nikon F models were bought used in 1972. In 1974, I bought a new F2--black with a plain prism. Although both the F bodies were eventually stolen, the F2 was used both recreationally and professionally until late 1991. During that time, it was dented, dunked and, at one point, it was considered damaged beyond repair by my insurance company. I bought it back from the insurance agent and Nikon Professional Services was able to get it working again. It continued to function as good as new for several more years. I still have it. It looks like hell but it still works. During this same period, I also owned and abused several other Nikon F2 bodies. None of them ever quit working although a couple of them were destroyed while on assignment. Of course, at the point they were destroyed, they were no longer functional.

My first Leica was an M4-P sometime in the mid-1980s. I used it for several years professionally but it never suffered the abuse of the Nikons. Years later I bought a couple of M6 bodies that served me as recreational cameras for several additional years. All the Leicas were sold for more than I paid for them. All of them were dependable and joys to use.

While none of my Leicas ever got the serious abuse of my Nikons, I cannot imagine they could have withstood such treatment on a consistent basis and not required frequent maintenance and adjustment. Does that mean they had better build quality? Not really. It just means they are not the hockey pucks the Nikons were. For most normal people who take better care of their equipment than photojournalists, there's really no reason to choose one over the other.

To echo Joe Cantrell's experience, I also became frustrated with Nikon when they introduced the early FM and F3 models. Those early cameras had constant problems. I eventually bought used F2 bodies for their dependability and used them to finish out my career in newspaper photography. As an amateur, I later switched to Canon when I wanted autofocus--as Joe said, "another story".

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by lee_shively