rjjr

Joined on Feb 6, 2005

Comments

Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

rjjr: Has Sigma improved the high ISO performance of their sensors over the last iteration?

"By gokhankuzo

Because this camera not for beginners and easy shooters. .. For pros high iso is 200. ..200 is very very high iso for real photographers."
----That's nonsense.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2016 at 15:05 UTC
In reply to:

rjjr: Has Sigma improved the high ISO performance of their sensors over the last iteration?

That's disappointing.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 12:08 UTC
In reply to:

Everlast66: Looks like for the design of the back panel they hired a washing machine designer ;p

Why is the finder in such an awkward position, and why make the grip shorter, when the main advantage of large bodies is a large grip.
They also made this gigantic body and didn't even put a flippable screen?

I was thinking it looked more like a microwave oven. The finder does look to be in an unfortunate location.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 11:46 UTC

Has Sigma improved the high ISO performance of their sensors over the last iteration?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 11:45 UTC as 58th comment | 7 replies

I see the camera phone as the modern day Kodak Brownie, but a lot easier to carry around.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2015 at 21:29 UTC as 54th comment

Polarizing filter...

Link | Posted on May 14, 2015 at 22:38 UTC as 14th comment
On article Hands-on with Samsung's new NX500 (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Free Jazz: no EVF...

No EVF - No Sale...maybe next time.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 12:28 UTC
In reply to:

rjjr: I'm very interested in seeing how the 90mm macro compares to my Canon 100L IS macro (with adapter) on my A6000.

Regardingthe pricing: Both of these lenses are priced about the same (90mm is $50 more) but add the cost of the adapter to use the Canon on the A6000 and the 90mm winds up costing less.

Oops, my mistake the price of the 90 is 999 Euros, not dollars, which puts a different spin on it. Sorry for any confusion.

At current conversion rates that puts the price of the 90mm about $130 more than the 100L IS and the adapter I selected. Still, not so bad especially if the 90 performs better than the the adapted 100 in regards to AF speed, focus accuracy and stabilization.

If a more expensive adapter is selected for the 100, the 90 is a couple of hundred less.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 13:14 UTC
In reply to:

Walt Schwab: So Sony's into making coffee mugs now... what a laugh.
How about spending your time on production of REAL lenses instead of empty promises.

Getting close to dumping Sony

I have a Canon 24-105 coffee cup.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 12:57 UTC

I'm very interested in seeing how the 90mm macro compares to my Canon 100L IS macro (with adapter) on my A6000.

Regardingthe pricing: Both of these lenses are priced about the same (90mm is $50 more) but add the cost of the adapter to use the Canon on the A6000 and the 90mm winds up costing less.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 12:49 UTC as 63rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: The astronomy community would be very interested in this sensor.

Not to mention law enforcement, the military and other government agencies.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 04:21 UTC
In reply to:

rjjr: Who holds the copyright on the photos when a camera is set up in a forest and the shutter is triggered by a motion detector?

Would the EXIF notation be valid in the monkey issue?

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 11:35 UTC

Who holds the copyright on the photos when a camera is set up in a forest and the shutter is triggered by a motion detector?

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:20 UTC as 366th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Hugo808: Bet I could mimic this in Lightroom. Just gimme five minutes....

No photograph is "real"

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2014 at 18:48 UTC
On article Nikon D3300 real-world samples gallery (26 comments in total)
In reply to:

Don Karner: On shots of the little girl, seems like the hair is always out of focus and even the eyes mostly. Did the camera just miss the focus or was that intentional?
Most of the shots seem a touch soft.

I was wondering about the same thing.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2014 at 15:10 UTC
In reply to:

andy816896: As far as I can tell you you can buy a better spec'd 100d for about the same money these days so what's the point...?

A little over a month ago I did just that. No regrets.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 11:03 UTC
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: It's a design-fail. No matter which way you pull it out of a bag, something is going to be snagging. It looks awkward.
While I appreciate the innovation, this still leaves them behind.

It looks like you can't put it in a small bag.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2014 at 02:32 UTC
On article Have Your Say: Best DSLR / SLT of 2013 (335 comments in total)
In reply to:

rjjr: I voted with my wallet and picked up the only DSLR body introduced this year having the IQ I prefer that would work well for my job with the lenses I already own (without an adapter) and is the size and weight I can easily cart around at a price I can afford to pay.

No.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2014 at 20:55 UTC
On article Have Your Say: Best DSLR / SLT of 2013 (335 comments in total)

I voted with my wallet and picked up the only DSLR body introduced this year having the IQ I prefer that would work well for my job with the lenses I already own (without an adapter) and is the size and weight I can easily cart around at a price I can afford to pay.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2014 at 14:49 UTC as 8th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

(unknown member): Very disappointing. No performance improvements and no additional features or improvements to existing tools that I that I can see.

Aren't feature updates restricted to CC now?

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2013 at 14:44 UTC
Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »