Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: tdekany
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 520 next>>
Feb 28, 2019 11:13:34   #
Bipod wrote:
So far, no one has quoted anything the "Angry Photographer" said that was incorrect.


All sigma lenses are junk
Go to
Feb 27, 2019 21:47:43   #
wdross wrote:
What other camera do you know that does what the E-M1X's viewfinder does? Olympus is advertising this AI. The sports photographers using this have never seen this before and are calling it AI. I used it for more than an hour and it never failed. Yes, it will not be perfect. But it did just fine for me.


Wouldn’t bother with Bipod. He’ll find a problem for every solution.
Go to
Feb 27, 2019 10:54:23   #
Dan Ausec wrote:
Ken Wheeler has saved me thousands of $ over the last couple of years..on his recommendations of buying used quality lenses and flashes, he has always been spot on..I never heard of Used Photo Pro (Roberts Camera) before I saw his recommendation..what a first class company..yes..he can be abrasive, rude, and he always repeats himself, but the man is very intelligent on numerous subjects..he has no affiliate links, ( which he repeats quite often), so he could care less whether you buy what he recommends or not..yes..he mainly shoots Nikon and Fuji, but he doesn't hesitate to criticize either company when it is deserved..I would rather take the advice of someone like him with years and years of experience and who actually buys and uses what he comments on with zero financial gain than another who has their hands in your back pocket..ok...rant over :)
Ken Wheeler has saved me thousands of $ over the l... (show quote)


Dan, he makes money being on YouTube. Don’t for a second think that these guys are doing videos out of their good hearts.
Go to
Feb 27, 2019 00:14:53   #
Kmgw9v wrote:
The Angry Photographer is not stupid, far from it; and he knows camera gear and lenses. But, he enjoys being judgemental, often negative for effect (Sigma lenses). He is arrogant to a fault, but with some good reason. Like any camera guy, one should watch him for information and knowledge, but take him with a big grain of salt.
He loves to hear himself talk, and spends far too much time repeating himself, re-phrasing what he has previously said; and then saying it again. He will talk for 15 minutes to say what could be said in five.
I will continue to consider his opinions after suffering the through his presentations.
The Angry Photographer is not stupid, far from it;... (show quote)


Search for Mark Smith on YouTube. After watching one of Mark’s videos, who and why would anyone watch a loudmouth like him? Personally, I could care less about any of the youtubers who click bait. None of them are good photographers anyway.
Go to
Feb 27, 2019 00:00:30   #
TriX wrote:
you can have max performance or small size low weight, but not both


Neither example guarantees a great photo.

I can’t understand how so many of you old timers still believe this nonsense.

What needs to happen for you guys to realize that a cell phone in the hands of a skillful photographer is going to be superior to the best in the hands of a snapshot shooter?

https://petapixel.com/2019/02/26/here-are-the-winners-of-apples-shot-on-iphone-photo-contest/?mc_cid=7e21a18824&mc_eid=113f10f95a

Show me a photo of yours that was taken with a large sensor that is a better picture than any of these winning shots?

Gear heads are a weird group.
Go to
Feb 26, 2019 23:51:46   #
wingclui44 wrote:
How don't really care how much a cell phone can do, camera is a camera that is for photography, not for anything else, like doing phone call; banking ; remote controlling everything;monitoring home security system; getting news; spying on some one ....etc. Yes, it's a power device as a pocket computer. That's driving every body crazy, not me. Camera is strictly for photography period!


You sound very close minded. Too bad.
Go to
Feb 24, 2019 18:25:51   #
You can yawn all you want, the only thing that matters in photography is the END RESULT.

Obviously, most of us didn’t join the line to get genes for creativity, so the most we produce are snapshots. You are included, I am included, everyone else in this thread is included in the group, who, couldn’t take a photo like Bobby Tan, no matter how big of a sensor is in your camera.
Go to
Feb 24, 2019 13:18:56   #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Modern MFT sensors are superior to pro FF sensors from 10 years ago. Unless your doing huge prints you won’t see any difference quality based on sensor size.


Unfortunately, sensor size isn’t going to prevent anyone from taking a snapshot.

How many of you in this thread can even come close to the results Bobby produces?

https://www.pacartists.com/collections/bobby-tan
Go to
Feb 23, 2019 17:57:21   #
CO wrote:
The new AF system does sound incredible but the camera still has the Micro Four Thirds format sensor. I wonder if any pro photographers use Micro Four Thirds. It makes it much harder to achieve a shallow depth of field than with a full frame camera. The individual pixels are down to 3.36 microns on that camera. The same number of pixels on a full frame camera are around 6.45 microns. That would give the full frame camera lower digital noise and greater dynamic range.


There are too many pros to list who use m4/3

To use DOF as an example is like claiming that mf is not good for landscape because of the obvious
Go to
Feb 23, 2019 17:54:43   #
Bipod wrote:
That sure sounds like a commercial.

Any professional sports photographers using the Olympus OM-D E-M1 X?
Or for that matter, the OM-D E-M1 Mk II? Names?


https://www.kelleylcox.com/about
Go to
Feb 22, 2019 11:01:54   #
sbohne wrote:
When did combining layers become known as "focus stacking?" Just curious.


Never.
Go to
Feb 21, 2019 19:10:49   #
cowboydid2 wrote:
So, still learning the system. And, these are what they are, cell phone pics. I know they can be better, which I why I bought real cameras. And joined this forum.


https://www.ippawards.com/press/ See how good iPhones can be in capable hands
Go to
Feb 19, 2019 20:17:23   #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
So I guess you’re saying guys like Warhol, Indiana and Lichtenstein haven’t stood the test of time. I should tell MOMA and the Hirshorn.




Warhol used to be a customer of mine towards the end of his life. Just as an FYI.
Go to
Feb 19, 2019 20:15:06   #
gessman wrote:
I guess I was getting a little sleepy. It wasn't clear to me just what the OP was asking about. Sounded like it could be timelapse but not really. I probably just should've passed - probably will next time it makes me "fuzzy."


It is all good, your info was still beneficial.
Go to
Feb 19, 2019 13:39:03   #
RichardSM wrote:
I believe Gursky's photograph is Fine Art.

The Phantom is Pop Art.

Fine art stands the test of time pop art not so much.


Quote:
Ask yourself: what is the most I ever paid for a photographic print?


That was his question. My answer is correct.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 520 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.