jim_rais
-
Posts
312 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by jim_rais
-
-
<p align="justify">Well, after all this excitement of the coming of M9, I wonder why other brands are not coming forward to challenge Leica. It will be interesting for the sake of (price) competition if the late brand Contax, for instance, rises once again. Zeiss has already a bunch of good ZM lenses out there.</p>
-
<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicGF1/">Panasonic DMC GF1</a></p>
-
<p align="justify">Yes, I remember that attempt of making the e-film 35mm digital back, but ended up with nothing. If the filter stack is that thick as Vivek said, no wonder that it ill-fated the e-film. Otherwise that would be the real solution for so many of us who want to keep our analogue gear forever. It's just a pity that such a luminous idea died prematurely (and my Rolleiflex and Contax are gathering dust). It's not that I'm not happy with the E-P1, though ...</p>
-
-
-
-
<p align="justify">What have I opened here? Pandora's box? Oh boy, oh boy .. First, thanks, Bob, for the link. You're right. I'm not aware of that article and as it's obvious now - all the side digital happenings as well. My eyes were only focused on (RAW) photographing :-) Of course there are lots of reasons to erase the EXIF data like mentioned by some here above, but as old school photographer why would one afraid of being spied on the technical skills? Another story is when the existed EXIF data is deliberately deleted/erased by others other than the photographer self. I call this theft, or attempt to thievery.<br /><br />So, Peter Blaise Monahon, the real story behind this question lies in the illogical answer I got from the one who had introduced me into that idea to erase EXIF data. As I said before, why would one erase his own EXIF data when this can be seen as a substitution of a note book from the analogue days. Now I get some clearance from you all. No hidden agenda here, really. And I also believe every word you said, included removing all labels from your shirts and all. I even believe that you're photographing with brandless camera as it's already stripped as well. If one consequently follow this path (by removing everything that has nothing to do with the essentials of photography), maybe we'd go back to the real meaning of photography as it was meant to be. Just see, absorb, compose and click that individual impressive impression. Finally we have more time to photograph rather than mingle with the which-one-is-better Canon versus Nixon :-) "discussions", for instance.</p>
-
<p align="justify">Why would a digital photographer want to erase the EXIF data of the images taken is beyond me, as this is one of the strongest arguments to shoot digital images without having to note down the aperture, shutter speed, ISO and everything just like some of us did in the analogue days, but a fellow photographer claims that there's somehow a manner to erase the EXIF data by layering that EXIF data (?). I've never heard about this, so I don't get it. Is there anybody who can shed some light about this? Thanks.</p>
-
<p align="justify">Amen, D. Whatever you say about the Rebel series is the truth. Some might not agree and still see the Rebels as "toys". Who knows Canon will wake up one day and produces those "toys" in the style of Leica M. Tough, all metal, weather sealing and everything :-) Unfortunately it will surely be one expensive toy by then. Thanks for your comment on the pics. Yours aren't bad either. Not at all, in fact. Well ... great actually. Love those smooth colours. Keep photographing, with or without your Rebels.</p>
-
<p align="justify">Got this one recently and I must say it has a best IQ, similar to 50D. Unfortunately I don't pixel peep, but overall impression of what this little fellow can do is positive - except for the smallish view finder. Shooting RAW, I barely have to correct the images in DPP but a few minor tweaks. It's easy to like this little fellow, which paired well with primes such as the used EF 24/2.8. Small, light and inconspicuous. That is if you're not too lazy to feet zoom :-) And now an <em>affordable</em> UWA prime, mister Canon! Just like what mister Pentax has rightly done. Some images here:<br /><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=913385">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=913385</a></p>
-
<p align="justify">I remember writing this short "review" of 70-300 DO somewhere back in 2006 and I still can stand behind my own conclusion after these years. I still own the lens, BTW.<br /><br /><em>Seems there are differences in image quality coming from this lens, but I think I'm lucky not to have to deal with image quality problems. Images say more than words, so I have posted some photos taken with this small and inconspicuous lens - which is also its strongest point - here: <br /><br /><a href="http://www.photo.net/photos/jim_rais" target="_blank">http://www.photo.net/photos/jim_rais</a><br /><br />My biggest issue is that the lens build quality is average and about the same level (or maybe worse) of - say - a midrange 28-135mm IS USM. There are wobblings all over its duo-cam plastic construction which gives a really cheap feeling to it. The zoom ring rotates heavily, especially when pointed straight right at an object and there's a resistance at the end of its longest end. I have to do this trick to make it easier: to zoom out, point the lens first downwards then rotate to the desired (longer) focal length. To zoom in (shorter focal length), point the camera/lens combination upwards followed by rotate action of the zoom ring. This "method" gives a smooth(er) zoom action result, but beware of doing it in a proper order, otherwise it might resulted in a heavier zoom action ! <br /><br />Having been spoiled by the best build quality of buttery smooth metal-barrel lenses of Carl Zeiss for decades, I don't buy this cheapish feeling of this 70-300 DO lens. Especially at this price point, makes the lens price way out of proportion. Shame on you, Canon !<br /><br />So, recommended? Yes, with a but ..., that is if you can live with its shortcomings and the exorbitant high price. Otherwise look elsewhere.</em></p>
-
<p align="justify">I've never been in Africa, but the combo 24-105 and 100-400 will be more than sufficient, especially if you can mount those lenses on two 5DIIs. This way you'll avoid changing lenses on dusty or humid environment. The 24-105 is for general shots, the 100-400 for more distant ones. I don't think the 17-40 will be much useful for that matter. Just my opinion. Have a nice trip.</p>
-
<p align="justify">Another vote for keeping your current 400D and invest in glass. Think also in the long run, so buying EF lenses should be a wiser decision to make in case of future affordable FF DSLR you might want to buy. Since there isn't any UWA prime EF lens under 900 USD/Euro, you might want to look for UWA zooms, eventually an EF-S which you can't use for your future FF DSLR anymore. Like Anders Carlsson has said, the 10-22 is - to me at least - a gem. There are several other affordable brands (Tokina, Sigma, Tamron) in this department as well which are cheaper than the EF-S 10-22.</p>
<p align="justify">Judging your photographic style and your portfolio - which I like very much, great BTW - I don't think you should invest in inferior cheap glass which suffers from barrel distortion etc. Photozone.de might be your next source of investigation to decide between quality and affordability. eBay, Marktplaats, CameraNU or Foto Konijnenberg come last. In any case you won't regret buying a quality lens. Good luck and good (photo) hunting in Africa. </p>
-
<p>The Sigma 3.5/8mm EX DG, isn't it a fish eye, Puppy? I don't mean a fish eye, but just UWA prime. But, yes, you're right. It would be an expensive one.</p>
-
<p align="justify">Not meant to "fuel" discussion prime vs. zoom, but I think it will be nice if there's also a EF-S prime - say between 9 to 12mm - for prime fanatics, despite the 10-22 good quality. Just a thought (and wishful thinking). </p>
-
<p align="justify">Sure the 400D does have a tungsten setting. Just like what Peter said, the preferred method is to shoot RAW and adjust it in Canon's software DPP afterwards. If your student prefers to shoot jpg: press the button WB on the back side of the 400D (the dial of ISO, AF, WB). A row of WB symbols will be seen on the screen: AWB (Auto), the sun (daylight, 5200 Kelvin), a house (shadow, 7000 Kelvin), a cloud (overcast, 6000 Kelvin), a lamp (incandescent, 3200 Kelvin), a flashing tube (tungsten, 4000 Kelvin), a lightning (flash) and custom setting. After chosing the desired WB push the SET button. Hope this helps.</p>
-
<p align="justify">Manuel Barrera:<br />No offense intended here. I just commented on Richard's images you uploaded on another site than this one which had no notification of the original maker or whatsoever. I'm not insinuating anything, but people outside this forum who don't know about the discussion raw-jpg which going on here, might find the uploaded photographs by chance on your site (googling "race cars" or so) and think they are yours, or worse, replace them on their individual sites. And so is the original maker of those images lost, while here - on this forum - the owner is clearly the OP.<br /><br />We are (almost all) experienced photographs here who have seen the photography transition from film to digital. I think we all should be very careful and conscious of copyright stuff as not to be part of those careless people who don't care or respect other's copyright. I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's not the case at all. </p>
-
<p align="justify">Manuel Barrera :<br />Regarding copyright of the owner of the photographs - which is Richard Martin - I think you should at least stated on the caption that those photographs you uploaded to your site at pbase are his. Now it seems as if you are the maker of those images.</p>
-
<p>Matthijs, you can't miss the typical Dutch homely scene :-) Well observed: it's Haarlemmerstraat in Leiden.</p>
-
<p align="justify">I don't know if this example is "different" enough for you, but UWA is a nice lens to experiment with, such as composition, shooting angle or trying to get a non-standard view in a photograph. And all without too much effort. The relatively huge DOF is there, all free to use. Just look around and see a bit "differently" toward an object, be it landscape, people, pets, architecture, events etc. To me, the strength of an UWA-lens is in its built-in potential to give a dynamic look to a photograph. </p><div>
</div>
-
<p align="justify">It's hard to say if a lens hood is effective or not. I think it depends on the quality of the light, the coating of the lens and the angle where the rays struck the lens. Example below shows a nasty harsh low angled winterlight condition. I don't think any hood can save the image from flare, glare or internal reflections in such case. Image taken with 400D + EF 24/2.8 + UV filter, with no hood. The chromatic reflection could be from the reflection of the filter, or else from the lens itself. This kind of reflection is annoying. To be honest I expected worse image than this, but turned out that the contrast is no less than in any other normal case, meaning that the coating of the lens (and or the filter) isn't that bad at all.</p><div></div>
-
<p><tt>Many people say Nikon is good, but why do I see most of the Pro photojournalist use Canon more than Nikon?</tt></p>
<p align="justify">Because a) time changes and b) people's taste change as well. Let's see:<br />1930s - 1950s : the pro tools were Rolleiflex TLR and the tiny Leica 35mm<br />1960s - 1970s : dominated by 35mm cameras especially Nikon F something and Pentax Spotmatic<br />1980s - 1990s : as far as the eyes can see there were only Nikon F3 and Canon F1<br />digital era : Canon and Nikon, with some distant Pentax, Olympus, Leica, Sony, Panasonic etc.<br /><br />It doesn't matter which brand you choose as photographic tool, as they are the same players in the league. Sometimes brand X catches up with brand Y, and some years later the situation reversed again. Different thing when the 35mm photography of yester-years were maturing - say roughly between the 50s and late in the 70s. Back then, you will probably see the real quality differences between brand X and brand Y. Just enjoy your modern digital photographic tool and be happy with its results. You can't go wrong.</p>
-
<p align="justify">Another vote for EF 24/2.8. It is a small discreet lens, even with its lenshood attached and goes as close as 0.25m. The results are also satisfying. For the 450D you will get ca. 38mm in term of FF which is - in my opinion - a nice a bit more than normal angle. Like the others said, adapted lenses are slow in metering and are more suitable for static objects. Good luck with your choice.</p>
-
<p align="justify">
Eric, thanks for your response. Yes, I'm aware now that the earlier Rollei UV was yellowish and is meant for B&W film. I work a lot in colour. As for the defective Rolleipol, it may produce some decent pictures <i>for now</i>, but since separation is a irreversible process, sooner or later it will disappoint me regarding the image quality. It is just a matter of time. That is why I decided to send both filters back to the seller. Now we will wait if I get my money back, but that's another chapter.</p>
W/NW - At The Start, All Is Beautiful
in Olympus
Posted