8 Reasons For Buying & Selling Photography Gear With MPB

Activity

theorderingone

...Read More
Profile

A quick view of theorderingone's recent activity.

  • Saltwick Sunset ... by sut68

    Haha. Snap!

    The light's nicer in your's though, as when I went I had difficulty finding a way down into the bay.
    • 22 Aug 2012 2:28PM
  • TV Smith A Punk Advert by Southend

    For me the singer's hand is distracting. If the shot were taken at a point where it doesn't obstruct the singer's face, it would help the composition greatly. The crop could also have benefited from a little more space on the RHS, as the current crop is a little claustrophobic as mentioned by Focus_Man above.

    The singer's face is also quite underexposed, probably due to the white shirt throwing off your metering. Although this would result in clipped highlights on the shirt, I find this less of an issue, so long as the singer's face is clear and well exposed. I understand flash may not have been an option, as it often isn't with music photography. A pop of flash, carefully balanced with the ambient lighting would lift this image, if allowed.

    Red lights can be a real issue with digital cameras. Boosting the green and blue channels slightly during editing can help to bring out detail and even up the colour slightly but the exposure needs to be bang-on in camera to be able to do this effectively.

    I hope this helps.
    • 31 Jan 2012 10:06AM
  • Experiments in Fire Graffiti by TheFotoGraffer

    Love the thinking behind this. Did you have to wet his clothes to stop him bursting into flames?
    • 23 Jan 2011 8:25PM
  • The past by Pete

    You should've popped round for a brew.
    • 20 Jan 2011 11:30PM
  • BriSca F1 Stock Car by malvern_man

    I remember watching his father race under the same number (212) at Belle Vue as a kid. Good times Smile
    • 30 Jul 2009 1:24AM
  • Lower Than Atlantis by Bahamut

    If you'd turned a few inches to your left when you'd taken this, you'd have a winner here.

    As it stands, shame you cut off the top of the guitar and the guitarist's knee. Using a lens with a slow aperture and flash like you have done has meant the drummer is too dark to really be a feature in the image, so in my opinion, you'd have been better making sure he was properly in shot.
    • 12 Jan 2009 2:21PM
  • Dananananaykroyd by fitter_happier

    I've shot these before myself... they can be a bit of a handful! Wink

    A couple of things I think could be improved upon:
    - I'd have taken the picture a fraction earlier or later, with less of the singer's hand/microphone obscuring their face. Even better to wait until his hair's not in his eyes as well. I do understand this is easier said than done though.

    - I'm guessing you converted this to black and white as the colour version looked a bit ropey? When using a compact with the flash in dark venues such as this, I find the night portrait mode works quite well (or any other slow synch flash mode), then you can pick up a bit more colour and ambience from the background. Don't worry about blurriness with the long exposure. Your camera's flash will do a plenty good enough job of freezing your subject sharp.

    I hope this helps Smile

    PS - I hope you don't feel inspired to add PS lens flare to your photos in future, as per the previous suggestion, as it looks terrible! Wink
    • 12 Jan 2009 2:11PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R APD Lens Review

    "1) How is it optically and technically possible that the sharpness is higher than the non APD version???? They are the same lens, the only difference being the APD filter!!"

    If you test any to lenses, even if they are the same batch/model, there will be some variation in performance. Most of the time a little, occasionally a lot. As we only have one lens we can only show the performance of that lens. Take the sharpness levels as a guide to the general performance of the lens, rather than as definitive proof of it being better than your mate's lenses.

    Although Fuji don't make it clear whether this applies to their lens or not, Apodisation filters are often used to modify the light's path, reducing the effects a phenomenon called Airy Discs, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk) caused as the light passes through and aperture. this in turn would increase sharpness by reducing diffraction and may possibly be another explanation of the difference in results.

    "2) Phase contrast AF should not work with this lens because of the APD filter. Is that still the case? You do not seem to consider it in your review."

    As stated on the Fuji website, this lens can only focus using contrast detection. I didn't mention it in the review as I decided to concentrate on what the lens is targeted for. I did mention in the review that this lens is a creative choice and that many would be better served by the standard 56mm lens. I also mentioned that if low light photography is your primary concern, then the standard 56mm will be the one for you. This lens is all about the look that can be achieved with fast apertures, not the actual amount of light gathered. If you need a fast aperture for any practical reason (low light, better low light focus, etc etc) buy the standard lens, which I think answers your other question...

    "We are just thinking of going for the non APD version for that very reason, and would like to know Gary's opinion."

    I hope this helps.
    • 29 Jan 2015 12:25PM
  • Posted on: Sony 18-105mm f/4 PZ G OSS Lens Review

    Lens correction was ON, but it doesn't apply to the RAW files, which are used for testing. The image jumps around something chronic in the viewfinder as the correction is applied.

    As I said

    Quote:The NEX 7 used for testing automatically corrects JPEG images once they are taken, which results in the image jumping about wildly on the screen as the corrections are applied. As the correction applied is effectively stretching the centre of the frame, this will result in greatly reduced resolution in JPEG images.


    With the camera having to apply such a lot of correction, resolution will be reduced in the centre fo the image, as this will be stretched to compensate. It's also no use if you shoot RAW where you will either have to correct manually, or apply a pre-existing lens profile.
    • 24 Feb 2014 11:03AM
  • Posted on: Pentax SMC P-DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 Lens Review

    Features take into account things like image stabilisation (irrelevant in this case), internal focus/zoom, silent focusing, weather sealing, whether zooms sport a constant maximum aperture, close focusing for the type of lens it is, full time focus override, whether it comes with a case/hood, distance marking with hyperfocal scale, focus limiter for tele lenses or macros, special anti-reflective coatings etc etc.

    so, in this case, if it were a lens with internal focusing and zoom, with a silent focusing motor, that offered full time manual override, some degree of weather and dust resistance and a constant maximum aperture, it would've scored better for 'features'. As it lacks most of these features, it got a fair-to-middling score in this department. That's what I meant by this lens being fairly basic. I made no reference to optical quality in my reply. If these features aren't important to you, you can happily disregard the features score altogether.

    I hope this helps to clear things up for you. Smile
    • 19 Feb 2014 2:37AM
  • Posted on: Pentax SMC P-DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 Lens Review


    Quote:The thing that I wonder about the resolution charts is that the lens isn't really intended to shoot test charts and doing that might do it a bit of an injustice.


    The same could be said of any lens John.


    Quote:I notice that the Features rating is 3 out of 5 stars.
    I'm intrigued to know what other features a zoom fish-eye lens could have to enable it to have 5 stars. Is it just the "old fashioned" screw driven auto-focus or are there other features that could/should have been incorporated?



    All lenses are judged by the same standard, whether they be a zoom fisheye or not. It's fairly basic as far as lenses go even with the extreme angle of view.
    • 12 Feb 2014 8:37PM
  • Posted on: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens Review


    Quote:"Plastic lens mount may put some buyers off this lens":
    http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts



    Interesting, but the article you link to talks to what the mount is attached to, not the mount itself. If you change lenses often, the metal surface will last longer than a plastic one. If you don't then it will make little difference. That's why it may put some people off this lens.
    • 24 Jan 2014 8:52AM
  • Posted on: Tamron SP 150-600mm VC USD Lens Review


    Quote:I wonder if Gary had either of these problems with his copy?


    AF seemed good at 600mm, granted it was much better using the centre focus point, than off-centre ones, but this will be the case with any tele-lens, especially when dealing with low-contrast subjects.

    Light wasn't great when i went out with the lens, but focusing was still swift and accurate.

    I still have the lens here, and there's still no dust inside the lens as I've just checked it. All lenses are bound to get a bit of muck inside them eventually though, just maybe not after a day.
    • 22 Jan 2014 12:27PM
  • Posted on: Tamron SP 150-600mm VC USD Lens Review


    Quote:While the article compares the 950 Tamron to the 10,000 Canon prime these are chalk and cheese products.


    Indeed they are. But as a point of reference to compare the upper and lower priced 600mm offering available it is relevant. It's in the value for money section of the review, and optical performance isn't talked about... merely price. I could go on forever comparing the prices of every telephoto+TC combo that gives roughly 600mm, but as this is the internet, all the prices will probably be wrong in a month or two anyway. Tongue


    Quote:Is the Tamron any good for bird photography and "little brown jobs"?


    There is an example in the review. I'm by no means a bird/wildlife tog though. To do it properly takes lots of patience, time and technique (as I'm sure you know). Unfortunately I only had time to bob down to a local hide with a monopod on a day the light wasn't ideal for an hour or so. Focusing is very fast though, which certainly helps with small, twitchy subjects (I guess you're talking about birds and not some other, 'little brown jobs'?) However, I do use long lenses, only my use is normally pointing it at someone on a stage from the soundboard at an arena.


    Quote:For birds, most users at the moment seem to be thinking on the same lines and for the LBJ's?, I don't think that tree sparrow shot in the above review was bad at all.


    Thanks! Smile


    Quote:The Tamron spec does not seem to mention magnification at 600 mm MFD so I can only guess but maybe it goes no closer than 8 inches wide on a 24x36 body.


    Max magnification is 1:5. So converting that roughly to how you're expressing magnification, the frame should be filled by 180mm (7inches) across or 120mm (4.7inches) tall at MFD on full frame. I would say this will be adequate for most prospective purchasers of this lens, especially as most bird photography involves at least a little bit of cropping for composition. Those folks who like to take pictures of aircraft should enjoy using this lens also as well as those lucky enough for a safari jaunt of some description.
    • 22 Jan 2014 12:19PM
  • Posted on: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G Lens Review


    Quote:On another topic maybe the review team good at some time explain what their standard is for good and excellent. This information would be useful when comparing reviews from several sources.


    Hi Len. Thanks for you comment. When I first devised the scale, 'Good' was the level where the eyelashes of a person in a full length portrait were clearly resolved when viewed at 100% with no sharpening on a computer screen, with 'Poor', and 'Excellent' etc, being on a linear scale from this value.

    As time has gone on, this value has had to be adjusted for higher resolution cameras and novel sensor technology. The reason we did this is because raw numerical values derived from the test chart have little bearing on the quality you'd notice in the real world, so we wanted to devise an scale that was much easier to understand. Generally, most people will be satisfied by 'Good' levels of sharpness, but more demanding photographers may wish for 'Excellent' or greater sharpness if producing large, high quality prints etc. The problem with comparing raw numbers from different sources is that they will vary wildly depending on the testing methodology. Saying that, the general pattern of whether the lens is sharp in the centre/towards the edge and where peak sharpness is achieved should be pretty much the same.

    I'm sure there was an article explaining the test procedure and how to read the graphs. It may have gotten lost in the site somewhere as time has gone on. I hope this goes some way to answer your question?
    • 11 Dec 2013 10:19PM
  • Posted on: Nikon Df Digital SLR Announced

    I'd buy one tomorrow, it it were about a grand cheaper.
    • 8 Nov 2013 2:31PM
  • Posted on: Carl Zeiss Apo-Sonnar T* 135mm f/2 Review

    Senn, the overall score takes into account value for money, and features, which this lens scores poorly on. It is an expensive, luxury item, just like a Bentley car.

    For most people, the extra expense just isn't worth it. They can happily tootle to the shops and pick the kids up from school in comfort in a Ford Fiesta (or any other mass market car), otherwise, the roads would be chock full of Bentleys. Just as not many people own a Learjet... it's much better value for most people to book on a regular airline, even if they do have to put up with a screaming kid in the next aisle.

    Transferring this analogy to lenses... the quality delivered by Canon and Nikon equivalents will be more than adequate for most people, and hey, those lenses even have autofocus and cost quite a bit less.
    • 5 Jun 2013 3:36PM
  • Posted on: Samyang T-S 24mm f/3.5 ED AS UMC Lens Review


    Quote:I wonder if you could get rid of "wighted" column, makes no sense at all, it's just confusing...


    The weighted average value is an average of centre and edge readings, weighted towards centre sharpness. It's useful for those who may not be bothered about specifics, but want to see at a glance an overview of the lens' performance for each aperture.
    • 23 May 2013 4:01PM
  • Posted on: Carl Zeiss Apo-Sonnar T* 135mm f/2 Review


    Quote:The Canon and Nikon equvalents may be significantly cheaper but can they equal the performance? I suspect not, especially wide open. Value for money is always a matter a matter of opinion and purpose and I suggest that if you want a top quality, solidly built lens that performs superbly wide open then this lens is VFM.


    Yes, in the same way that Bentley or Caterham Seven is great value for money. They're niche products though, which are beyond the means of the average driver. Still, if you want a walnut dashboard, or to be able to hoon around a race track, they'll be great value for you.
    • 23 May 2013 2:03PM
  • Posted on: Carl Zeiss Apo-Sonnar T* 135mm f/2 Review


    Quote:I'd also have to disagree that the long focus travel is a downside, it's the stupidly short throw focus of AF lenses thats a pain if you are trying to manually focus. Anyone who wants/need to focus in a fraction of a second would buy an AF lens. The 'togs who would buy this lens aren't looking for speed, they're looking for accuracy.


    Again this is a matter of opinion. Somewhere in between a very long throw as found on this lens and a shorter distance would've been a better compromise in my opinion.
    • 23 May 2013 1:57PM
  • Posted on: Samyang T-S 24mm f/3.5 ED AS UMC Lens Review

    The dials are smaller on this lens and as it can be rotated 360degrees, adjustments can always be applied. I had no issues with it fouling the in built flash during testing, although it can be tight reaching the dials sometimes, depending on how you have it set.

    I hope this helps?
    • 14 May 2013 1:19PM
  • Posted on: Samsung 45mm f/1.8 NX i-Function Lens Review


    Quote:hi Gary, doesn't Samyang produce lenses suitable for the NX cameras? Although oligopoly both (Samsung and Samyang) seem to serve the -small?- NX market well.


    Yes, although the last time I checked they didn't produce a lens at this focal length.
    • 15 Apr 2013 2:39PM
  • Posted on: Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L USM Lens Review


    Quote:And the Panasonic that`s half the weight, weather sealed, 400 cheaper, and has a constant f2.8 aperture


    To be fair, you'd have a job on your hands fitting that M43 lens on a Canon now, wouldn't you? Wink
    • 6 Feb 2013 12:42PM
  • Posted on: Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens Review

    It's Canon's camera Tongue
    • 6 Feb 2013 12:40PM
  • Posted on: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G Lens Review

    I think you've hit the nail on the head there Lemmy. The thing is, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 gives better performance towards the edges of the frame, whilst still maintaining decent sharpness in the centre. I'd personally find this a better compromise, especially as the price is lower too.
    • 17 Jan 2013 11:20AM
  • Posted on: Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens Review

    Every lens with aspheric elements will display concentric rings in certain conditions (some worse than others). In other words, I wouldn't worry about onions, celeriac, carrots or broccoli ruining your images.
    • 15 Jan 2013 5:22PM
  • Posted on: Jessops Going Into Administration - Update

    If my maths are correct, 5 stores remain?
    • 11 Jan 2013 6:39PM
  • Posted on: Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens Review


    Quote:Hope I can trust the rest of the review


    Of course you can. I can only put the stray mentions USM creeping in down to working over Christmas. I hope you enjoyed your holiday? TongueWink
    • 3 Jan 2013 10:01AM
  • Posted on: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR Review

    I know. My sensor needs a clean (again). The images are posted unedited, except for conversion from Raw.
    • 2 Jan 2013 2:57PM
  • Posted on: Sigma 180mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Lens Review

    Of course Len. All lenses with stabilisation are tested in the same way, focusing on a target approx 2metres away.
    • 18 Dec 2012 2:31PM
  • Posted on: Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS Lens Review

    I don't think you'll be disappointed by the performance of this lens compared to the 50mm f/1.8.
    • 14 Nov 2012 1:49PM
  • Posted on: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens Review


    Quote:How did you go about measuring the % distortion ?


    Distortion is measured in Imatest along with falloff, sharpness and CAs
    • 3 Nov 2012 4:45PM
  • Posted on: Tokina Reflex 300mm MF Macro Lens Review

    It's really not a practical macro option. For starters it provides 600mm equiv FOV and has no aperture control, so their is no control over depth of field, which is pretty shallow at its minimum focus distance.

    Although it has Macro in the name, because it can be focused fairly close, I wouldn't consider it a lens suitable for macro photography.
    • 3 Nov 2012 4:41PM
  • Posted on: Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm f/2.8 Review

    Several places are showing it on pre-order at 999, but I bet this will drop a little once demand subsides.
    • 5 Oct 2012 1:03PM
  • Posted on: Pentax SMC DA 50mm f/1.8 Lens Review

    The plastic mount is not necessarily a problem, but it can be an issue if you treat your gear roughly.

    When I used to work in photographic retail, I would often see lenses with plastic mounts brought in for repair, as the lens has detached from the mount after being dropped/knocked.

    The main culprits were Canon 50mm f/1.8s and Nikon 18-135mm lenses, both with plastic mounts.

    Like I said. Not necessarily an problem, but it is something to be aware of.
    • 5 Oct 2012 1:01PM
  • Posted on: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens Review

    No need to shout sir. Wink

    Yes, we seem to have gotten a bit muddled in the very short time we had the lens for testing. We'll get that point amended.
    • 20 Jun 2012 11:47AM
  • Posted on: Panasonic Lumix G X 12-35mm f/2.8 Lens Review


    Quote:No doubt about it this lens a great performer but not at that price. It pushes me further in the direction of the Samsung NX20 and the superb but affordable NX lenses.

    If Panasonic and Olympus are trying to 'price' their products in the high end market then they are going to be the losers. People will just turn to other cheaper but just as good products.



    Remember, this lens has only just been announced. The street price may differ when it becomes available.
    • 23 May 2012 3:57PM

Limited to latest 30 results.

No profile comments.

Limited to latest 30 results.