Jump to content

Larry Bolch

Members
  • Posts

    195
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from Curiojo in focus help needed for X-E1 with manual vintage glass   
    Focus peaking is turned off by the half-press. Just shoot. Legacy glass designed for film cameras can be a disaster depending upon the design of the lens. I have two Canon Serenars of considerable age, both with flat rear elements. Film is matte, but sensors are shiny, so the light bounces back and forth between them, destroying contrast.
     
    Many very fast vintage lenses are notoriously soft wide open. They were designed to help focus SLR film cameras in low-light and could be used wide-open in an emergency but at considerable cost in sharpness. Working for a morning paper, much of my work was in available darkness. The classic f/1.2 58mm Nikkor helped a lot, but I tried to keep it at a minimum of f/2.0-2.8 for the actual exposure. At the time, Nikon made the f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor, which was optimized for widest aperture shooting, but at the price I could not convince my boss that it would provide enough return on investment.
  2. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from Hermelin in Fir   
    A tip or two. If a dSLR is having a problem focusing, one can pick an edge and it will often solve the problem. With the Fuji sensor, that may well make it focus on the background. When shooting a face for example, size and place the rectangle where only the face is included and preferably containing a feature such as an eye. It is looking primarily for contrast.
     
    A half-press will force the camera to focus, so you can judge. Hold the half-press and the focus is locked so you can recompose if necessary. The half-press does require a moment more anticipation but is pretty much fool-proof. Anticipation is good.
     
    When tracking action, set to continuous focus and don't use a half press. Mash the shutter button down and the camera will trip the shutter the moment it is in focus.
  3. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from greatwhite in What are your favorite settings?   
    Sorry. My favorite settings are whatever the subject matter and shooting environment dictate to give me the best possible results. The whole reason for buying a fully adjustable camera. Using someone else's settings can produce highly unpredictable results unless you know the circumstances and goal of the shooting situation.
     
    At the most basic, I usually shoot aperture priority and auto-ISO in order to have the highest practical shutter speed under the circumstances. On a bright, sunny day, I will probably use f/5.6-f/8.0 for maximum resolution vs depth of field. In a living room at night, I will be shooting f/1.4-f/2.0 at ISO6400 in order to just get usable exposures. Even when shooting RAW, I generally do a manual white balance which makes for just fine tuning in Photoshop, not large corrections.
     
    For more advanced settings, realize that for JPEGs all settings can be applied AFTER the exposure with the built-in RAW converter. You will get exactly the same results as if you applied them during the exposure. This means you can explore things like Highlight Tone or Shadow Tone and learn what each setting does under various circumstances. The original RAW exposure is not altered, and can be converted and compared as much as it pleases you. These settings in no way alter the RAW file. Once you fully understand the function of each setting, you can assess your shooting environment, make an educated guess, do a test shot or two to nail the image you are seeking. Test shots are always your friend, and feedback is immediate—the glory of digital photography. There never has been a more immediate and direct way to understand the whole photographic process.
     
    As an alternative to custom settings, you can shoot RAW and apply fine-tuning with far greater sensitivity in processing. Even if JPEGs are the goal initially, it would be wise to shoot RAW+JPEG, so you will always have the richer originals to go back to as your skills progress. Either way, you have the advantage of being able to tune the exposure to the circumstances with the result of the image matching your vision of it.
  4. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from kimballistic in Fir   
    A tip or two. If a dSLR is having a problem focusing, one can pick an edge and it will often solve the problem. With the Fuji sensor, that may well make it focus on the background. When shooting a face for example, size and place the rectangle where only the face is included and preferably containing a feature such as an eye. It is looking primarily for contrast.
     
    A half-press will force the camera to focus, so you can judge. Hold the half-press and the focus is locked so you can recompose if necessary. The half-press does require a moment more anticipation but is pretty much fool-proof. Anticipation is good.
     
    When tracking action, set to continuous focus and don't use a half press. Mash the shutter button down and the camera will trip the shutter the moment it is in focus.
  5. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from Iansky in Hey Hey Hey...isn't Fuji supposed to be made in Japan??   
    Japanese camera makers are oriental trading companies first and camera manufacturers second. The important thing is the warranty, not the location of final assembly. It states that the company is putting its reputation for quality behind the product. Fuji, for example, uses Sunpak to make their flash units, but the Fuji warranty is on them. Thailand is a major manufacturing centre for Nikon as well. In 2011, floods had a disastrous impact upon Nikon inventory for many months.
     
    Camera makers also make equipment for each other. Cosina makes the bulk of Zeiss "German" lenses. They also make the Nikon FM10 film camera that was at various times also  Canon T60, Carena CX-300, Olympus OM-2000, Nikon FE10, Petri GX-1, Petri GX-2, Revue AC2, Revue SC3, Ricoh KR-5 SUPER II. The Leica CLE was made by Minolta. My "German" Plaubel Makina 67 was made either by Copal or Mamiya and has a Nikon lens. All early Canon lenses were Nikons. 
     
    Now, Hasselblad lenses are Fujinons, and the original design of the current H series of cameras is based upon a Fuji/Hasselblad collaboration. It is not clear how deeply Fujifilm is still involved in Hasselblad manufacture. Fuji also made the Hasselblad X-Pan which it sold in Japan as the Fujifilm X-T1 (not X-T1). Sony Semiconductor make sensors for many brands, including Sony Camera, of course. However, some Nikon sensors are made by Aptina, reputedly in China. 
     
    As long as it has Fujifilm guarantying its quality, that is what matters. 
  6. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from Dude in focus help needed for X-E1 with manual vintage glass   
    Focus peaking is turned off by the half-press. Just shoot. Legacy glass designed for film cameras can be a disaster depending upon the design of the lens. I have two Canon Serenars of considerable age, both with flat rear elements. Film is matte, but sensors are shiny, so the light bounces back and forth between them, destroying contrast.
     
    Many very fast vintage lenses are notoriously soft wide open. They were designed to help focus SLR film cameras in low-light and could be used wide-open in an emergency but at considerable cost in sharpness. Working for a morning paper, much of my work was in available darkness. The classic f/1.2 58mm Nikkor helped a lot, but I tried to keep it at a minimum of f/2.0-2.8 for the actual exposure. At the time, Nikon made the f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor, which was optimized for widest aperture shooting, but at the price I could not convince my boss that it would provide enough return on investment.
  7. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from jp_stone in focus help needed for X-E1 with manual vintage glass   
    Focus peaking is turned off by the half-press. Just shoot. Legacy glass designed for film cameras can be a disaster depending upon the design of the lens. I have two Canon Serenars of considerable age, both with flat rear elements. Film is matte, but sensors are shiny, so the light bounces back and forth between them, destroying contrast.
     
    Many very fast vintage lenses are notoriously soft wide open. They were designed to help focus SLR film cameras in low-light and could be used wide-open in an emergency but at considerable cost in sharpness. Working for a morning paper, much of my work was in available darkness. The classic f/1.2 58mm Nikkor helped a lot, but I tried to keep it at a minimum of f/2.0-2.8 for the actual exposure. At the time, Nikon made the f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor, which was optimized for widest aperture shooting, but at the price I could not convince my boss that it would provide enough return on investment.
  8. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from p360 in Fuji Fisheye   
    Not my first fisheye, so I think it will continue getting considerable use. The reason, is that I am not using it to shoot typical "fisheye" shots, but much more as a superwide or panoramic lens that has curvature which I don't emphasize. I have tested it using the X-Pro1's sweep panorama, and stitching worked! I have also tested stitching in the new version of Adobe Camera RAW with dramatic results.

    I find it does very nice interiors with all four walls, when shooting from a corner. Landscapes are quite dramatic as well. Photoshop CC has tools that can pretty much straighten everything, but for the most part, I don't bother.
  9. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from rrrrrichard in How do you deal with the parallax error when shooting with the OVF?   
    Shoot as if you were shooting a rangefinder camera—both eyes open, watching for "decisive moments". OVFs have never been precise—that is why SLRs gradually took over from RF cameras last century. Slide film left no possibility for cropping after the exposure. Colour film ended the era of the enthusiast darkroom since it was vastly more technically demanding than B&W.

    Capture the subject and environment and fine tune the composition in processing. With an SLR, you are watching the action on a little projection screen, much as with an EVF. With an OVF, you are actually looking through the camera at the scene itself. Float the frame lines over the subject and trip the shutter whenever it gets interesting. The hybrid finder gives you the best of both worlds.
  10. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from PoulWerner in What are your favorite settings?   
    Sorry. My favorite settings are whatever the subject matter and shooting environment dictate to give me the best possible results. The whole reason for buying a fully adjustable camera. Using someone else's settings can produce highly unpredictable results unless you know the circumstances and goal of the shooting situation.
     
    At the most basic, I usually shoot aperture priority and auto-ISO in order to have the highest practical shutter speed under the circumstances. On a bright, sunny day, I will probably use f/5.6-f/8.0 for maximum resolution vs depth of field. In a living room at night, I will be shooting f/1.4-f/2.0 at ISO6400 in order to just get usable exposures. Even when shooting RAW, I generally do a manual white balance which makes for just fine tuning in Photoshop, not large corrections.
     
    For more advanced settings, realize that for JPEGs all settings can be applied AFTER the exposure with the built-in RAW converter. You will get exactly the same results as if you applied them during the exposure. This means you can explore things like Highlight Tone or Shadow Tone and learn what each setting does under various circumstances. The original RAW exposure is not altered, and can be converted and compared as much as it pleases you. These settings in no way alter the RAW file. Once you fully understand the function of each setting, you can assess your shooting environment, make an educated guess, do a test shot or two to nail the image you are seeking. Test shots are always your friend, and feedback is immediate—the glory of digital photography. There never has been a more immediate and direct way to understand the whole photographic process.
     
    As an alternative to custom settings, you can shoot RAW and apply fine-tuning with far greater sensitivity in processing. Even if JPEGs are the goal initially, it would be wise to shoot RAW+JPEG, so you will always have the richer originals to go back to as your skills progress. Either way, you have the advantage of being able to tune the exposure to the circumstances with the result of the image matching your vision of it.
  11. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from nathan.mardin in What are your favorite settings?   
    Sorry. My favorite settings are whatever the subject matter and shooting environment dictate to give me the best possible results. The whole reason for buying a fully adjustable camera. Using someone else's settings can produce highly unpredictable results unless you know the circumstances and goal of the shooting situation.
     
    At the most basic, I usually shoot aperture priority and auto-ISO in order to have the highest practical shutter speed under the circumstances. On a bright, sunny day, I will probably use f/5.6-f/8.0 for maximum resolution vs depth of field. In a living room at night, I will be shooting f/1.4-f/2.0 at ISO6400 in order to just get usable exposures. Even when shooting RAW, I generally do a manual white balance which makes for just fine tuning in Photoshop, not large corrections.
     
    For more advanced settings, realize that for JPEGs all settings can be applied AFTER the exposure with the built-in RAW converter. You will get exactly the same results as if you applied them during the exposure. This means you can explore things like Highlight Tone or Shadow Tone and learn what each setting does under various circumstances. The original RAW exposure is not altered, and can be converted and compared as much as it pleases you. These settings in no way alter the RAW file. Once you fully understand the function of each setting, you can assess your shooting environment, make an educated guess, do a test shot or two to nail the image you are seeking. Test shots are always your friend, and feedback is immediate—the glory of digital photography. There never has been a more immediate and direct way to understand the whole photographic process.
     
    As an alternative to custom settings, you can shoot RAW and apply fine-tuning with far greater sensitivity in processing. Even if JPEGs are the goal initially, it would be wise to shoot RAW+JPEG, so you will always have the richer originals to go back to as your skills progress. Either way, you have the advantage of being able to tune the exposure to the circumstances with the result of the image matching your vision of it.
  12. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from PoulWerner in How do you deal with the parallax error when shooting with the OVF?   
    Shoot as if you were shooting a rangefinder camera—both eyes open, watching for "decisive moments". OVFs have never been precise—that is why SLRs gradually took over from RF cameras last century. Slide film left no possibility for cropping after the exposure. Colour film ended the era of the enthusiast darkroom since it was vastly more technically demanding than B&W.

    Capture the subject and environment and fine tune the composition in processing. With an SLR, you are watching the action on a little projection screen, much as with an EVF. With an OVF, you are actually looking through the camera at the scene itself. Float the frame lines over the subject and trip the shutter whenever it gets interesting. The hybrid finder gives you the best of both worlds.
  13. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from claude in Fuji Fisheye   
    Not my first fisheye, so I think it will continue getting considerable use. The reason, is that I am not using it to shoot typical "fisheye" shots, but much more as a superwide or panoramic lens that has curvature which I don't emphasize. I have tested it using the X-Pro1's sweep panorama, and stitching worked! I have also tested stitching in the new version of Adobe Camera RAW with dramatic results.

    I find it does very nice interiors with all four walls, when shooting from a corner. Landscapes are quite dramatic as well. Photoshop CC has tools that can pretty much straighten everything, but for the most part, I don't bother.
  14. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from CRAusmus in Best aperture and settings for "epic" landscape photography?   
    Lenses designed for APS-C sensors hit the peak of sharpness between f/4.0 and f/8.0. While corner detail may be sharper at f/8.0, centre sharpness is usually best at f/5.6. One tends to place the most significant content in the centre of the image so f/5.6 is usually a safe choice. Fall-off at f/4.0 or gain at f/8.0 is just not that significant.
     
    The X-Pro1 can take horrible images in the hands of the pretentious but inexperienced owner. As a true "pro" camera, it does what the photographer tells it to do—assuming the photographer has taken the time to completely understand the camera. The forums are full of "the camera is incapable of _____." Translated "I haven't a clue. Aren't camera supposed to think for me?"
     
    There is no reason in the world why the X-Pro1 would not be able to produce equivalent results to your reference. Read and absorb the page. Not only is the shoot very well covered but there is good general information there too. Gearheads need stuff to flame-war over, but in fact, the level of digital cameras are at an amazing level. Way more important than megapixels or the latest way of reading a sensor is the way a camera feels in your hands. In absolute terms, there is a spread, but what counts is in relative terms to the way you do photography. 
     
    To specifics—the 18mm and 35mm can produce superb landscapes. The 55-200mm can also do so, but not so obviously. It has the advantage of compressing distance. A distant derelict house with a tree far beyond. Everything else out of focus. Not easily seen by a beginner. The compression can also be very effective when shooting panoramas. If this is of interest, start practising now. The X-Pro1 has a panoramic mode that can be useful. However, it does take a combination of skill and luck to use with success. I appreciate it for a nominal panorama, but one I really want for a print, I will do with individual exposures to be later stitched.
     
    Fuji has an interesting way of reading its sensor that makes ISO800 not a whole lot different from ISO200. In bright daylight, with the aperture set to f/5.6 and the 35mm lens mounted, you should do fine with a shutter speed of 1/60th-1/125th. As the light drops, Fuji gave us back the threaded shutter release. Every cable release over the past half-century works perfectly! As an alternate, using a shutter delay also works fine. On very long exposures such as 30 seconds during a lightning storm, the time it takes for the camera to settle down is too short to register in the exposure. A tripod is always your friend.
     
    Everything else taken care of, dynamic range can still be an issue. My main landscape body is a Nikon D700 that allows a ±4.0EV bracketing range. I choose the exposure with full detail in the clouds, full detail in the forest and whatever is in between and merge in Adobe Camera RAW. The result is a .dng file that looks perfectly natural, but with no blown highlights or large areas of black. The X-Pro1 only offers a ±1.0 bracket, but it can make a significant improvement. 
  15. Like
    Larry Bolch reacted to gdanmitchell in x-pro 2: What image quality settings do you use?   
    I shoot raw, where most of these settings have no effect. That way I have more control over the image quality in post, and I start out with a higher quality file.
  16. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from Mevl in 10-24mm F4 OR 16mm F1.4?   
    10mm is enormously wide, with a field of view equal to a 15mm on a full frame. It allows the shooter to greatly emphasized perspective. I have a lens just slightly wider and results can be dramatic. At 24mm you are approaching the FOV of a "normal" lens—110° - 61.2°. The cost is an f/4.0 aperture. While the lens is extremely useful for architectural interiors, you will find that either flash, very high ISO settings or a tripod are required even with the excellence of its stabilization. Outdoors, hand-holding is no problem.
     
    The 16mm has an 83.2° FOV, comparable to a traditional 24mm lens—substantially wide, thus a very popular focal length. At f/1.4 it is at home in low-light, allowing one to work at a party with reasonably high shutter speeds, getting in a good bit of environment as well as well as the subjects. Great for capturing the whole scene at wedding receptions as well as in church where flash may not be permitted. Nice for night-time street photography when including the environment is an important element. 
     
    Two choices for wide or super-wide photography. I could well see both in a photographer's bag. Shoot with them in your imagination considering the great difference in aperture. If you will be mostly shooting from support where you can use relatively long shutter speeds, the 10-24mm certainly is the more versatile. If shooting hand-held, with a need for mobility and decisive moment fast reactions are key, then the 16mm will serve you very well. Same price for each, just match your choice to your needs.
  17. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from Lord_Vader in 10-24mm F4 OR 16mm F1.4?   
    10mm is enormously wide, with a field of view equal to a 15mm on a full frame. It allows the shooter to greatly emphasized perspective. I have a lens just slightly wider and results can be dramatic. At 24mm you are approaching the FOV of a "normal" lens—110° - 61.2°. The cost is an f/4.0 aperture. While the lens is extremely useful for architectural interiors, you will find that either flash, very high ISO settings or a tripod are required even with the excellence of its stabilization. Outdoors, hand-holding is no problem.
     
    The 16mm has an 83.2° FOV, comparable to a traditional 24mm lens—substantially wide, thus a very popular focal length. At f/1.4 it is at home in low-light, allowing one to work at a party with reasonably high shutter speeds, getting in a good bit of environment as well as well as the subjects. Great for capturing the whole scene at wedding receptions as well as in church where flash may not be permitted. Nice for night-time street photography when including the environment is an important element. 
     
    Two choices for wide or super-wide photography. I could well see both in a photographer's bag. Shoot with them in your imagination considering the great difference in aperture. If you will be mostly shooting from support where you can use relatively long shutter speeds, the 10-24mm certainly is the more versatile. If shooting hand-held, with a need for mobility and decisive moment fast reactions are key, then the 16mm will serve you very well. Same price for each, just match your choice to your needs.
  18. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from Mike K in X-Pro2 delayed   
    I would far rather buy a functional camera than one with unfinished firmware loaded with bugs. I love the idea of Kaizen, however, and am happy to be an early adopter. Use firmware updates to add and refine features as they are developed, not to just swat bugs like CaNikon.
  19. Like
    Larry Bolch reacted to milandro in Fujifilm X-PRO2 rumors   
    so, most probably, the “ delayed because of too many orders to meet the production” was a little sugar on the fact that they were purely and simply late. 
     
    The sound of the phrase: “  I met my dealer” is normally associated to a completely different situation 
  20. Like
    Larry Bolch reacted to flysurfer in XF200mmF2 Lens Rumors   
    Nah, it will of course be "full-frame" (the holy grail) with an E-Mount for the Sony fans. 
  21. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from Curiojo in A Rather Verbose X-Pro1 Review (by me)   
    I discovered I could see just fine if I used my reading glasses. They must be very high-quality optics, since they cost nearly $20 at the grocery store.   Problem solved. Next I set the adjustable viewfinders on the other cameras to match. Now I shoot everything when wearing the glasses.
  22. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from Curiojo in Medium Format Fuji: Tell me the First Question FujiRumors should be able to answer for you!   
    Actually, a wider range of three lenses would be more useful. 20-21mm or even wider, classic 50-55mm and 100-105 at the least. Just like with a medium-format film camera, the extra size lets one crop with minimal loss of quality. While this might not be possible with conversion lenses, it certainly would be possible with interchangeable lenses, and Fuji mastered those back in the 1940s. At the present time, Hasselblad shoots with Fujinon glass.
  23. Like
    Larry Bolch reacted to milandro in Fujifilm X-PRO2 rumors   
    Fuji is not at all confused with their ideas about which camera they want to produce, they are precisely sticking to the product which has found the initial resonance among its clients.
     
    If nothing else they are pursuing a design and a strategy that is the exact same which gave them the success they have received until now. Why change any of that?
     
    A camera with a retro look and feel, with sufficient modern technology and great, lens range, while in a market segment that makes it affordable for many users around the world, mostly people who started using cameras when they were still analog and looking like the fuji are looking now, and different from all the other products in the competition.
     
    If we would look at the demographics of the average Fuji user we would find that more than 50% are people between 40 and 70 years of age, with many years of photographic experience, higher education and medium-high income.
     
    These, I am, sure is the kind of customer to which the majority of the X range, for sure in their upper segment, are targeted to.
     
    Leica has a marketing department too and they have chosen to cover a different market segment.
     
    Fuji has a considerable marketing competence which coupled to the feedback from their sellers and distributors is telling them exactly what the majority of Fuji customers want from Fuji. This marketing vision put them on the market with cameras that featured their own particular vision on what a camera should look like and how it should operate.
     
    They are doing exactly that.
     
    Can they please everyone? Can anyone please everyone?
     
    No!
     
    So there will always be people that want Fuji to give them what Leica or Sony or Nikon does, but for less money, obviously otherwise they would have bought one of those.
     
     
    It is not going to happen, because although they might get those clients on board, they will lose others who want Fuji to be Fuji and not a cheaper Leica or a Sony or Nikon.
     
     
    If Fuji would do that I would be the first to not have any interest in that kind of camera. You bought the Leica? More power to you.
     
    I wouldn’t be interested in such camera to the point that if I would have won one at a contest ( not that I generally partake to such things but I occasionally do) I would have sold it to buy a Fuji.
     
    I guess that some folks have to be interested in that kind of thing. So stick with it and be happy. 
     
    Play the lottery so maybe you’ll have the money to buy the camera of your dreams.
     
    Me? I have it already. 
  24. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from brunomigas in Fuji Fisheye   
    Not my first fisheye, so I think it will continue getting considerable use. The reason, is that I am not using it to shoot typical "fisheye" shots, but much more as a superwide or panoramic lens that has curvature which I don't emphasize. I have tested it using the X-Pro1's sweep panorama, and stitching worked! I have also tested stitching in the new version of Adobe Camera RAW with dramatic results.

    I find it does very nice interiors with all four walls, when shooting from a corner. Landscapes are quite dramatic as well. Photoshop CC has tools that can pretty much straighten everything, but for the most part, I don't bother.
  25. Like
    Larry Bolch got a reaction from CRAusmus in FStops on the Cropped Sensors Not Accurate?   
    In fact I have. In 35mm days there were half-frame cameras and some very good ones. I have an Art Deco Olympus PenFT that was also had interchangeable lenses of high quality. Users most definitely distinguished half-frame from full frame. It went in the other way as well. My WideLuxe140 used a panoramic 24×59mm format, and theHasselblad XPan made by Fujifilm(TX1) and rebranded by Hasselblad used 24×65mm. The Robot Royal 24S had 24×24 mm frame size. So yes, when discussing them the term full frame or standard frame was certainly used.
×
×
  • Create New...