desmond_kidman

June 8, 2013

You will likely, very nearly surely, get nowhere with the insurance company, this depreciation is SOP: standard operating procedure.

They almost never offer it up when you purchase insurance, but everything is subject to depreciation unless you buy, in advance, actual replacement value insurance, which is not that much more expensive. Sometimes they still try to replace with a lesser model, but with the replacement value insurance you will likely win that battle. And forget getting cash with replacement value insurance: they will use their channels to get the lowest price on the replacement item. This is how they prevent scams with folks looking to dump equipment and getting cash.

You are dealing with one of the most rigid and heartless industries out there, the insurance biz, don't expect them to go an inch beyond that which they are absolutely required to.

Member's Photo News · January 25, 2013

Congratulations on the many very nice images. Beautiful, enjoy.

December 15, 2012

Oh darn it. The photo shoot I just did that I thought was so great - suddenly to lean that it can't be since it was not done with a top 10 camera - it's devastating, really.

December 15, 2012

I shot a lot of MF and 4 x 5 for commercial use, including 30" by xx posters. I am still impressed with posters that size from my lowly 1DsIII's 21.1 mpx, relative to film, so much so that I forget to worry about more megapixals. Must be the extra .1 mpx Canon tossed in really made the difference.

August 27, 2012

The more possible features a camera can have (add all of the features up of all the cameras available today to get that list) the more chance a given camera will fall short of everything a particular person wants.

To gain perspective when I am disappointed nobody NAILS my wish list exactly, I go back to HCB, Paul Strand, Doisneaux, Ansel Adams......(insert your favorite photographers here) and I ask "am I fixating too much on a particular feature set?" "Am I thinking the camera is the show, and not my creativity?"

My advice to myself is then "Get what comes close, the waiting game can be an infinite tease for the future, as days of my life tick past, and then SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT.

For me that is the X100 and XPro1, along with my FF slr.

I stick them all in manual and do it the "old fashioned way with a modern camera".

If I have image issues with any shots I then look in the mirror and say "don't look for a different camera, these are highly effective, and the problem is the brain in the head you are looking at in the mirror, go out and shoot! Gosh are you spoiled rotten. The job is so much easier these days yet those guys (my list) made images to die for, to cry for."

That is what I say to myself. Not saying it applies to you, whether or not it does is your decision.

August 22, 2012

The difference in selective focus (blur of background) between an inexpensive 50 1.4 and even a very expensive zoom, set at 50mm with its max aperture of 2.8, is very noticeable, really a totally different effect. If you really want to get that great effect when the main subject absolutely POPS from the background play with a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8. Anyone who says there is not a clear, impactful difference between these apertures and 2.8 has not done the comparisons.

This is not a war against zooms, but the OP asked about primes and blurred backgrounds. For that, the fast primes simply excel.

August 22, 2012

Nothing is "black and white" in life.

Can equipment, sometimes, make one a better driver, or photographer? Yes. Depends on the person, to a degree. Since driving examples have been used, I'll follow that thought for a moment. Learning to race, using a less powerful car or motorcycle, during the process, absolutely does let one focus more on cornering speed, and the all important corner exit speed, to a greater degree. This is true for everyone. Too much power leads to fear in corner entry, which leads to over-breaking, which hurts the process of learning to maximize corner speed.

Back to photography: having too much gear, too many decisions about which lens, which focal length setting can get in the way of "learning to see" for many people. I won't say everyone. But certainly for some. Many very good and great photographers have forced themselves to live with, for a certain amount of time, a single lens, for this reason.

Are you one of those that would be helped? Only you can answer. But, the test is not expensive and does not mean dumping all your gear. You want to see what selective focus is like (and even the most expensive zooms are limited in this regard, that is a fact)? You want the "prime experience"? Get a 50 1.4, stick it on your camera, and don't allow yourself to use anything else for several weeks. Take portraits wide open.

Now here's an exercise that too few people do IMO. EDIT YOUR PHOTOS! Don't just glance at it, and delete it if you don't like it. Limit the photos you take as if it were film. Explore the subject from different angles and distances. Then bring each one on screen. For ones you don't like, try cropping in lots of different ways to discover what you saw that was interesting, but did not translate in the photo. Many times you'll see the "photo within the photo" that was the real picture you should have taken. This exercise will improve your vision dramatically. This process is not used much in the age of digital. It used to be that many of us, in the film days, would sit at the lightbox, or with proofs on the table, with "crop cards" (L-shaped pieces of cardboard that would allow us to try different crop options) to find "the real image". Enough practice doing this and the real image becomes easier to recognize when you look through the viewfinder. Now, with your single lens, making the real image might mean moving your feet. So move your feet, make the "real image"!

Try the above exercises (live with the single focal length, edit your images). It takes effort, dedication, focus, time. If you have the talent in you, you'll find it.

July 16, 2012

You have to try it! I just got it and I have no idea what they are talking about focus issues.

Now, I do use it in a simply way: I select the central focus area, I do not use continuous (not because it does not work, I don't know, since I don't use this for sports, racing, etc.). I focus, which is always very fast and reliable even in deep dusk, recompose, shoot. Hit rate is extremely high.

Image quality is fabulous, high ISO great, focus speed more than acceptable, reliability of focus very good.

For an idea where I am coming from, my regular camera is a Canon 1Ds3, which I use the same way: central focus point. It's no slouch, but still I don't find the focus on XPro1 lacking.

June 8, 2012

I find it absolutely amazing that this is delayed, and that Canon has no pro studio camera to sell. Could it be that the effects of the tsunami and subsequent nuclear disaster still has vendors reeling? Surely corporate Canon must have the money to pull this off, but money does not help if key vendors are still out of commission.

March 11, 2012

Glade you pointed out the OOF quality, Arthur, I was so taken with the technical quality at high ISO I forgot to mention that I too was impressed by the nice blur. Very pleasant, non-edgy looking, inobtrusive qualities. I have an X100 but the XPro1 with the 35 may be my general walk around camera....and I do prefer a bit longer focal length than the X100.

March 11, 2012

Justification/rationalization is up to each individual, and nobody else can decide it or should criticize someone else's decision in this regard.

I would submit that life is short and one cannot put a price on enjoyment or satisfaction during this short life.

I'm lucky, the cameras pay for themselves in a year or 2, so a new 1Dsxx body, when they upgrade, is not a grave decision. That's what I mean about others criticizing a buyer's decision: if I'm hung up on pro-body construction, and it pays for itself either way, why not indulge my hangup of paying more for something built more like a tank?

Make your decision, don't look back. Just remember to enjoy!

March 11, 2012

Thank you for the confirmation, Patrick.

Wow, with the noise reduction turned off, the performance is wonderful. For a camera much more compact than a full sized DSLR this really represents a nice, carryable package, just a bit bigger than my Leica M6 was, with DSLR performance. I am definitely get one for a general "walkaround" camera.

March 10, 2012

Hi, does the camera have any noise reduction dialed in? I ask because the high-ISO images look remarkably clean.

Thanks.

February 12, 2012

Have you used an X00? Or are you just reading about "slow focus"?

I have a Canon 1Ds3 so I should be spoiled by fast autofocus. Yet my X100 never bothers me unless shooting in near dark. Focus confirmation is reliable, and always much faster that I can focus with my favorite manual focusing system of all time, a Leica M. Try the X100!

February 10, 2012

Zack, I read the post very carefully the second time. It was just your name I did not read carefully......!

February 10, 2012

I have used FF slr since they came out. 5 months ago I bought the X100. The image quality stunned me. The portability and ease of use is great, and I'm a menu and complexity hater.

As for focus issues, I don't get it. I'm spoiled having always used the top Canon model, yet I am not frustrated in the least with the Fuji AF except when shooting after dark at a carnival or some such venue where the subject is very dimly lit.

I'm not the greatest fan of 35mm equivalent lenses, yet I still love the camera and like the simplicity of working around the single length. This camera has such great IQ and stimulates my creativity through its size, simplicity, single focal length, and great viewfiner that it really brings me great joy. For work I still have to use my Canon 1Ds3. For for personal use it's the Fuji 80% of the time. Try it!

February 10, 2012

I'm only responding again in the interest of fairness to readers who wish to understand and in fairness to Zach.

First, in my last post, by "equivalent" focal length lenses on different formats I mean that each format use a focal length that will give the same field of view from the same distance. In other words, the scene will be the same when shot from the same spot.

Somehow I misread Zach's post. I went back and read it carefully, and noted this line:

This means that a 35mm lens on an APS-C camera, focused 10 feet away, will give a similar image to a 50mm lens on an FF sensor, but with greater DOF. A 25mm lens of an m4/3rd will have more DOF still.

</blockquote>

So, since this is what I was saying, greater DOF for smaller formats, we appear to be on the same page.

I have observed that viewers tend to like limited DOF along with nicer blur, I maintain that the larger format, the greater potential to use bokeh as a tool.

I also agree with Zach on the issue of lenses. Since the 35mm frame (24 x 36) was present for a much longer time than APS and smaller frames, the quantity of lenses optimized for certain uses, such as portraits, is greater, and more effort has been put into the designs to deliver qualities that fit those uses. Hence, the common knowlege about the existence of lenses in the 85mm range that have nice qualities for portraits (in addition to just the focal length) including very nice bokeh.

I use just about all formats, and I'll stand firm on the opinion that with DSLRs, if you want the best bokeh, and the greatest amount of potential for out of focus blur, go with the full frame sensors.

February 9, 2012

When I went from 35mm to medium format years ago I was confounded with the episodes of flare, even with CF T* lenses. That big glass surface on MF cameras! Always use hoods (on tripods I use pro hoods, and found the pro hood more effective than the correct shorty hoods), watch for sun, and (this will be controversial) get rid of filters in bright-light source situations.

February 9, 2012

Zach, not so. If you capture:

1. The same field of view (meaning same equivalent focal length)

2. From the same viewing distance

3. At the same numerical aperture

4. Enlarge to the same print size

from different format cameras then the smaller format will have greater depth of field / less blur.

This is clearly stated in books from the best experts, and anyone who has shot 8 x 10, 4 x 5, 6 x 7, 6 x 6, 35mm, APS will be VERY aware of this from direct experience.

Just the way it is. My latest move from 6 x 7 to 35mm size frame makes it painfully obvious when trying to get extreme blur and gleefully obvious when going for DOF.

I believe the mathematics of this are laid out in Feininger's (sp?) great work, "The Complete Photographer" as well as numerous other reference sources. But you don't need the experts, try it yourself on different formats.

February 9, 2012

1. Bob Atkins and several other posts and sites will all confirm the truth, that the same "equivalent" focal length lens at a given f-stop will give more background blur on a larger sensor camera than a smaller sensor camera.

2. Although amount of background blur and quality of background blur are 2 different things, my experience is that most folks will require a good amount of blur plus nice quality blur to be pleased. If the amount of blur is not enough to make the image "pop" from the background then the effect is not what most folks want. The quality of the blur just does not show up very much unless there is a good amount of blur.

3. Based on my experience, getting enough blur is more of a challenge with 35mm sensor (or film) size than medium format, and more of a challenge yet with APS size relative to 35mm size. The quality of blur starts being relatively meaningless if you can't get enough blur to begin with.

4. My experience is that if you want to play with really effective selective focus effects you want the largest sensor camera you can get. Stretch to full frame (35mm size which equals 24mm x 36mm sensor) if you can. You will less often wish you could get more blur in the out of focus ares. You will have less expensive fast lenses available to you for evaluation for the type of blur you want.

I personally think that the Canon 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 lenses, inexpensive relative to their quality and max aperture, give great blur with full frame cameras. I think you'd be hard pressed to get as much and as good blur with an APS sized camera.

I don't think I ever read about anyone saying "I have both FF and APS and I like the bokeh better on my APS".

I have to repeat myself here as I think it is the most salient point: The quality of blur starts being relatively meaningless if you can't get enough blur to begin with.

January 24, 2012

Leica will not lose sales to the Fuji. Those buyers are the one's who cannot afford a M-9

</blockquote>

Really? I would own a M9 if not for the poor high ISO performance. So, while waiting for the next gen M9, and still debating whether I should buy the M9 even with the poor high ISO performance, out came the X100. Wow, beauiful sensor, just great performance, I don't need higher res for a hand held camera.

Now the X1 Pro comes out. If it has anywhere near the high ISO of the X100 I will own it and the 3 first lenses. After that, I doubt that Leica would have any chance to sell me a next gen camera no matter what it does. I mostly forgot about the M9 when I got the X100, the X1 Pro could make me totally forget the M9 or later variants.

Certainly there will be X1 Pro buyers who would not be potential Leica M9 buyers. But there will be others, like me, that would be prepared to pay for the performance, if they had done it before Fuji.

January 23, 2012

I'm somewhat of an idealist, so I find it routinely disappoints me when companies do that which you mention, change something and call it an improvement, and then go back to the original and call that too an improvment. I won't focus on Leica in particular here, since it is so common in the commercial world. It always serves to remind me to take anything any company says with an appropriate amount of suspicion.

January 21, 2012

I decided to check out your gallery. I hope you share more and show us how the new viewfinder is working out. That "Making Rotis" image is gorgeous. Beautiful rich background, but not distracting. Great subject, captured as if she is alone in her own little world (which would not be the case if she were looking into the camera). Beautiful.

January 21, 2012

For sure, Mukul, I never thought you were denigrating Leica! Maybe some thought I was....but the M6 is a great camera, as I guess all the M series cameras are.

I'm just glad you will now be free of the glare and enjoying, and I hope you can beg a fast turnaround.

Have fun. Create. Share!

January 20, 2012

Count me as another giving a big yawn. The Fuji X100 opened up the world for me in compact cameras (my main camera being Canon 1Ds3), which my G11 was was a love hate relationship (mostly hate). Based on my experience with the X100, the Fuji Pro is an absolute no-brainer for me. Canon, please spend more time with the X100, paying attention to the viewfinder, the high ISO performance, the fast lens, and the easy ergonomics based on earlier, simpler times. Then give us a Fuji Pro beater at a lower price.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by desmond_kidman