mobile photography technology, culture and community
www.dpreview.com
JDThomas

JDThomas

Lives in United States Austin, TX, United States
Works as a photographer / author
Has a website at NikonDFG.com
Joined on Jul 2, 2012
About me:

Entertainment photographer for Corbis Images / AP Images, Nikon Digital Field Guide & Concert and Live Music Photography author, Gretsch guitar strangler.

Comments

Total: 464, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm updates X-mount lens roadmap to end of 2015 article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

JDThomas: I like the fact that the lenses are starting to get bigger than the cameras. Everyone is always going on about how they want a light compact camera, but then they insist on having these enormous fast lenses. Where's you're weight savings gonna be when your lugging around a 90mm f/2?

Haha, how the mirrorless set does get upset when they think they're being attacked. Settle down guys.

@dorkington:

Comparing weight with AP-S cameras and lenses makes more sense.
a D3300 body is only 410g
35mm is 210g
50mm is 185g
85mm is 350g

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 19:38 UTC
On Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review preview (2278 comments in total)
In reply to:

ldog: I applaud Barnaby's honesty. As an owner of a Leica M240 I have experienced some of the frustrations that he addresses in the T review. Contrary to Ivan's assertion real shooters do buy and use Leica but it's usually a love-hate relationship. Unless the M240 is used with the machine age technology rangefinder it is too slow for dynamic professional use. The M240 EVF cycle time is nearly a full second making it nearly useless except for studio or landscape work. I shoot weddings and could never use this camera responsibly. I have just purchased a Sony A7s which is a joy to use with the Leica glass and is delivering what I'd hoped that the M240 would bring. The EVF is excellent, bright and it allows me to focus quickly and surely. The A7s's EVF cycle time is instant and the camera is fast, intuitive and a total joy to use. The A7s proves that a pro level mirrorless camera is possible and that Leica has no excuse for their sophomoric human interface. Way to go Barnaby!

If you can't operate " the machine age technology rangefinder" quickly and accurately that's on you the photographer, not the camera.

I just shot my sister's wedding solely with an M9 and a 50 Lux with no problems at all. I shoot concerts with it as well. And portraits. I've even shot Moto GP riders going by me at over 150mph with an M9. "Dynamic professional use" can be had with any Leica M as long as the photographer is competent with his knowledge of how manual focusing works.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 00:25 UTC
On Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review preview (2278 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: The interesting thing is the lack of comments about the griplessness of this camera. I'm sure it feels nice to touch, but doesn't it proceed to slide out of your hand when you try to pick it up?

There's a little handgrip right there on the front. What more do you need? It's not like it's a 2 pound camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 00:17 UTC
On Fujifilm updates X-mount lens roadmap to end of 2015 article (141 comments in total)

I like the fact that the lenses are starting to get bigger than the cameras. Everyone is always going on about how they want a light compact camera, but then they insist on having these enormous fast lenses. Where's you're weight savings gonna be when your lugging around a 90mm f/2?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 00:14 UTC as 5th comment | 13 replies
On Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review preview (2278 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: The interesting thing is the lack of comments about the griplessness of this camera. I'm sure it feels nice to touch, but doesn't it proceed to slide out of your hand when you try to pick it up?

@BeaverTerror:

I wasn't defending the ergonomics of a camera (that would be stupid, why would an inanimate object need defending). I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the statement, which portends that since a camera is made out of aluminum it will automatically slip from the hand.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 00:03 UTC
On Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review preview (2278 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: The interesting thing is the lack of comments about the griplessness of this camera. I'm sure it feels nice to touch, but doesn't it proceed to slide out of your hand when you try to pick it up?

Yes. It's as impossible to hold as a greased pig.

Seriously? You act like aluminum has no tactile properties that can actually allow the human hand o hold it. When was the last time you tried to pick up a MacBookPro and utterly failed because it was too slippery?

Truth be told chromed wrenches are much slicker than aluminum. Have you haver had trouble holding a wrench?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 16:40 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul P K: The discussion on this lens is a bit like those on the Nikon DF.

Instead of looking what it can do in it's own right, people are (without having used or handled it) judging and condemning it on what they think it should be, cost or perform like, and only can see what it looks like.Similar to eg a car it should besides its looks also be judged upon what's under the hood/ how it performs for what it's intended for.

And no, its characteristics can not be imitated with a 1.4/85 (I have one and tried to do so without success), nor can a similar effect be achieved by a cheaper lens with a different design (yes, it can be achieved with eg Helios lenses, but where I live there just as expensive as a Petzval), or a Lensbaby (only the Edge would qualify based on its focal length, had one as well and no it doesn't)

And like JDThomas says, no, once you bought it, you're not condemned to use it as your only lens for the rest of your life, it's part of a system with interchangeable lenses !

That's beside the point. Can you tell whether a camera is magnesium framed or polycabonate framed from the picture?

Probably not, but if you dropped it you'd know for sure.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2014 at 10:12 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1760 comments in total)
In reply to:

bartjeej: Good article, I'm sure the issue will become clearer for a lot of folks.

One request though; could you PLEASE not contribute to the already much too pervasive myth that the word 'bokeh' only refers to the quality of the blur and not the quantity? It simply means blur, and you can have lots or little blur/bokeh just like you can have pleasant or unpleasant blur/bokeh. 'The quality of the blur' would be 'boke(h)-aji'. Just a little pet pieve of mine :)

To most people's thinking "bokeh" = pro.

They should make special lenses for bokeh addicts. No aperture settings. Wide open all the time.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 00:28 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

JDThomas: Summary of the comments:

"This lens isn't ultra sharp and the bokeh is ugly. I hate it, therefore it should not exist. Damn people who want to try different things upset me. Everything should look the same. Lumpy black cameras and completely out of focus images with smooth bokeh is the ONLY way to shoot otherwise you're a poseur or a hipster."

Guess what? Spend YOUR money on what YOU like and stop worrying about what other people are spending their money on. At the end of the day I don't care what other photographers think anymore (especially the angry nerds on the forums). I shoot for me and my clients. They don't know the difference between "good" or "bad" bokeh (and that in and of itself is subjective). My clients know what they like. And some think the swirly bokeh is interesting.I think the swirly bokeh is great for some things. I have an early Leica Summar that's quite swirly and the results are different than every cookie-cutter "perfect portrait" that you see on flickr.

You're equating buying a camera lens with spending money on child prostitutes and other ILLEGAL activities?

That makes NO sense at all. What's wrong with supporting a lens manufacturer? NOTHING. Lens manufacturers aren't in the same class as pimps, drug dealers, and crooks.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 22:30 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul P K: The discussion on this lens is a bit like those on the Nikon DF.

Instead of looking what it can do in it's own right, people are (without having used or handled it) judging and condemning it on what they think it should be, cost or perform like, and only can see what it looks like.Similar to eg a car it should besides its looks also be judged upon what's under the hood/ how it performs for what it's intended for.

And no, its characteristics can not be imitated with a 1.4/85 (I have one and tried to do so without success), nor can a similar effect be achieved by a cheaper lens with a different design (yes, it can be achieved with eg Helios lenses, but where I live there just as expensive as a Petzval), or a Lensbaby (only the Edge would qualify based on its focal length, had one as well and no it doesn't)

And like JDThomas says, no, once you bought it, you're not condemned to use it as your only lens for the rest of your life, it's part of a system with interchangeable lenses !

@Paul P K: There's almost no point in trying to have a coherent discussion on camera websites anymore. No matter what the subject someone will go off on a tangent.

I kinda wish the comment sections would be hidden away with the forums so I could just read the reviews and move on, but like a car wreck, I can't look away and I always get drawn into it. It's my own fault, but damn, there are some truly ignorant people on here.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2014 at 01:25 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevens37y: In that time this lens was revolutionary. Petzval József used a kind of neurological computer (10 members of the Austrian army) to calculate the lens parameters.

http://antiquecameras.net/petzvallens.html

Of course I would never buy such a thing now it would be pretty boring if all my pictures had the same kind of distorsion.

Brilliant.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 20:39 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul P K: The discussion on this lens is a bit like those on the Nikon DF.

Instead of looking what it can do in it's own right, people are (without having used or handled it) judging and condemning it on what they think it should be, cost or perform like, and only can see what it looks like.Similar to eg a car it should besides its looks also be judged upon what's under the hood/ how it performs for what it's intended for.

And no, its characteristics can not be imitated with a 1.4/85 (I have one and tried to do so without success), nor can a similar effect be achieved by a cheaper lens with a different design (yes, it can be achieved with eg Helios lenses, but where I live there just as expensive as a Petzval), or a Lensbaby (only the Edge would qualify based on its focal length, had one as well and no it doesn't)

And like JDThomas says, no, once you bought it, you're not condemned to use it as your only lens for the rest of your life, it's part of a system with interchangeable lenses !

How many toy lenses made out of brass did you find?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 20:38 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

JDThomas: Summary of the comments:

"This lens isn't ultra sharp and the bokeh is ugly. I hate it, therefore it should not exist. Damn people who want to try different things upset me. Everything should look the same. Lumpy black cameras and completely out of focus images with smooth bokeh is the ONLY way to shoot otherwise you're a poseur or a hipster."

Guess what? Spend YOUR money on what YOU like and stop worrying about what other people are spending their money on. At the end of the day I don't care what other photographers think anymore (especially the angry nerds on the forums). I shoot for me and my clients. They don't know the difference between "good" or "bad" bokeh (and that in and of itself is subjective). My clients know what they like. And some think the swirly bokeh is interesting.I think the swirly bokeh is great for some things. I have an early Leica Summar that's quite swirly and the results are different than every cookie-cutter "perfect portrait" that you see on flickr.

SO WHAT? It's not the same lens. The images may look the same, but some people are quite content spending the extra money. The real point is, WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT PEOPLE SPEND THEIR MONEY ON?!?

Get it?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 20:33 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevens37y: In that time this lens was revolutionary. Petzval József used a kind of neurological computer (10 members of the Austrian army) to calculate the lens parameters.

http://antiquecameras.net/petzvallens.html

Of course I would never buy such a thing now it would be pretty boring if all my pictures had the same kind of distorsion.

"Of course I would never buy such a thing now it would be pretty boring if all my pictures had the same kind of distorsion (sic)"

You do know that if you bought this lens you wouldn't have to use it for every picture to took, right?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 18:14 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

JDThomas: Summary of the comments:

"This lens isn't ultra sharp and the bokeh is ugly. I hate it, therefore it should not exist. Damn people who want to try different things upset me. Everything should look the same. Lumpy black cameras and completely out of focus images with smooth bokeh is the ONLY way to shoot otherwise you're a poseur or a hipster."

Guess what? Spend YOUR money on what YOU like and stop worrying about what other people are spending their money on. At the end of the day I don't care what other photographers think anymore (especially the angry nerds on the forums). I shoot for me and my clients. They don't know the difference between "good" or "bad" bokeh (and that in and of itself is subjective). My clients know what they like. And some think the swirly bokeh is interesting.I think the swirly bokeh is great for some things. I have an early Leica Summar that's quite swirly and the results are different than every cookie-cutter "perfect portrait" that you see on flickr.

What exactly is your point? I made no mention of buying cheaper alternatives. I'm just talking about the stupid knee-jerk reactions that all of the cookie-cutter "photographers" have to this lens.

For what it's worth, I go out of my way NOT to purchase cheap Chinese garbage if I have any choice. Not to mention the fact the the lens you mention isn't the same focal length nor is it usable on full-frame. So really, it isn't an alternative. It's a completely different lens.

And I'll say it again, if someone wants to buy this Petzval because they like the images and the styling, what business is it of yours? It's not YOUR money.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 18:10 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)

Summary of the comments:

"This lens isn't ultra sharp and the bokeh is ugly. I hate it, therefore it should not exist. Damn people who want to try different things upset me. Everything should look the same. Lumpy black cameras and completely out of focus images with smooth bokeh is the ONLY way to shoot otherwise you're a poseur or a hipster."

Guess what? Spend YOUR money on what YOU like and stop worrying about what other people are spending their money on. At the end of the day I don't care what other photographers think anymore (especially the angry nerds on the forums). I shoot for me and my clients. They don't know the difference between "good" or "bad" bokeh (and that in and of itself is subjective). My clients know what they like. And some think the swirly bokeh is interesting.I think the swirly bokeh is great for some things. I have an early Leica Summar that's quite swirly and the results are different than every cookie-cutter "perfect portrait" that you see on flickr.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 03:22 UTC as 17th comment | 7 replies
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

wherearemyshorts: The problem of getting the lens in black, if it ever gets scratched the brass will show through.

It's called brassing. Some people like it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2014 at 03:05 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: Curious as to why a comparison wasn't run with a D3s. By all accounts the best low-light sensor out there with the added bonus that it has the same resolution. And probably the same sensor with nothing more than processing tweaks.

OK dude, whatever you say...

I'm really not interested in doing this stupid back and forth with you. It's boring.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2014 at 00:28 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: Curious as to why a comparison wasn't run with a D3s. By all accounts the best low-light sensor out there with the added bonus that it has the same resolution. And probably the same sensor with nothing more than processing tweaks.

@ET2 Why, are you name-calling like a 12 year old?

Whether it's a Sony sensor or not, really isn't the issue.

30fps is controlled by firmware and processor using a global shutter. The mechanical shutter couldn't do 30fps and the data readout to capture 30fps is a function of the imaging processor. None of this has to do with sensor development.

The low-light sensitivity at this point has a lot to do with the imaging processor as well as the sensor. Getting a clean high ISO file at 12MP is not a huge leap forward in technology.
But, I guess this is what you want to hear: The Sony A7s is the bestest most fastest and awesomest camera EVER made. Nothing will ever top it.

Satisfied?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2014 at 16:15 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1072 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrMojo: I wouldn't touch this new camera until the sacrificial early adopters discover whatever design problems Nikon gives us this time...

@HowaboutRAW: I never said it was a BIG failure. You asked if there were any failures known to the D800 and I just mentioned a problem that many people had.

For what it's worth, my D800 was from the first batch to hit the stores and my focusing worked fine.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 04:44 UTC
Total: 464, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
About us
Sitemap
Connect