PhotoKhan

PhotoKhan

Lives in Portugal Cascais, Portugal
Works as a Airline pilot
Joined on Mar 22, 2003
About me:

A good photograph shows what you saw.
A superior ones conveys what you felt.

Comments

Total: 314, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

All these "Lustignian" cameras...

Is there some kind of in-depth global sociological mega-study being made at the expenses of photography?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 25, 2014 at 20:54 UTC as 158th comment
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I don't get it...
Why is this called "Readers' Showcase"?
Readers of what...?
Some of the name links lead to photographer's homepages, which might very well be a choice of the photo submitter.
...but, in the many name links that lead to the user name here, on DPR, they don't seem to have significant DPR activity, apart from the entries.

Well, there are not only forum discussions.

There are comments to be made, photos to be posted, helping user reviews to be added, polls, questions...

There are many concentric circles to interact with DPR.
It just seems strange that the editorial staff seems keen on the output from the more external ones.

As for them, it seems almost that they are just checking in to use DPR as their own personal promotional vehicle without adding anything more to the community.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2014 at 22:32 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I don't get it...
Why is this called "Readers' Showcase"?
Readers of what...?
Some of the name links lead to photographer's homepages, which might very well be a choice of the photo submitter.
...but, in the many name links that lead to the user name here, on DPR, they don't seem to have significant DPR activity, apart from the entries.

Yes, I get that, as I mentioned.
I was referring to the many that seem to be DPR handles without significant activity.
(Great shots, Roberto! )

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2014 at 23:46 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)

I don't get it...
Why is this called "Readers' Showcase"?
Readers of what...?
Some of the name links lead to photographer's homepages, which might very well be a choice of the photo submitter.
...but, in the many name links that lead to the user name here, on DPR, they don't seem to have significant DPR activity, apart from the entries.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2014 at 23:20 UTC as 30th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

RichRMA: Responses and translations.
"I hate it!" (I can't afford it.)
"It's gaudy!" (I can't afford it)
"It's no good, the Sony X100 is so much better!" (derangement)
"They should release a new camera instead!" (even though I have no intention of buying either).

Can't afford it ...!?!?...It's cheaper than a 5DMKIII !
It's actually quite affordable.
...which only adds cheap to the cheapness.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 15:10 UTC
On DJI launches Inspire 1 drone with 4K video recording article (97 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I thought this was THE one but, hélas, it is not:

"Maximum Flight Time: Up to 18 minutes."

(...up to...)

Until this can be solved (...and it can't, with current weight-to-performance batteries technology...) this will only have limited appeal.

APS-C was brilliant for the price, or so said blindfolded Nikon users.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 16, 2014 at 15:26 UTC
On DJI launches Inspire 1 drone with 4K video recording article (97 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I thought this was THE one but, hélas, it is not:

"Maximum Flight Time: Up to 18 minutes."

(...up to...)

Until this can be solved (...and it can't, with current weight-to-performance batteries technology...) this will only have limited appeal.

Jesus...People REALLY cant's see the advantages of anything until it is handed-out to them.

This reminds me of Nikon users who used to say APS-C was perfectly ok...

Once it has gone 4K, this is no longer a toy or a Realtors gadget but rather a video-cinematic production entry tool.

Clearly, you have no idea what "filmic" productions entices be it a music video, a sports coverage, or a short film, anything that relies either on scene set-up or critical one-time-opportunity timing.

It is just not practical having the drone coming in each 10-12 minutes (there are safety battery level limits) for battery replacement in-between shots.

Until they can reach the 30-45 (useful) minutes mark, these will be of limited appeal and, since there's little more that can be done with the motors or electronics this is wholly dependent on battery technology (...or propeller design, maybe?)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 15, 2014 at 10:16 UTC

Vetteran, where are you?

...See, I hardly "have it in for Leica users".

I have it in for Leica, though. It's the (non) performance, you see?

It's just that many (...not all...) of their products are pure crap expensively sold to gullible users who think photography can ONLY be done if there's a red dot on the camera.

As for the users, I love all photographers, except the ones that let the "douchbaginess" that presided to their camera choice leak over to the exchanges with other photographers.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 06:21 UTC as 12th comment
On DJI launches Inspire 1 drone with 4K video recording article (97 comments in total)

I thought this was THE one but, hélas, it is not:

"Maximum Flight Time: Up to 18 minutes."

(...up to...)

Until this can be solved (...and it can't, with current weight-to-performance batteries technology...) this will only have limited appeal.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 22:31 UTC as 19th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.

(continued)

...But there's more to it: The true, cold-hard fact is that, in what relates to pure photographic image quality, the current crop of long "L" tele zooms/primes from Canon are sublime.

For a perspective on how they truly perform in real-world, real -photography scenarios, just check the output (coupled with ANY Canon camera) from day-light scenes illuminated be low, side-cast sunlight using ANY lens from that mentioned class against, say, a Nikon or a Sigma counterpart.

If people can't see the difference in contrast rendition and the "warmth" ambiance portrayed, I can't do nothing to help them out, except invite them to further educate themselves on photography.

As the samples already circulating from China and Canon Europe seem to indicate, the new 100-400 will be no exception.

That is why I already have one on order.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 13:46 UTC
In reply to:

webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.

I am a photographer (...I've allowed myself to use this designator just very recently, mind you).

This means that, although I do pay attention to measurements charts and technical data (...hence my lurking around this site...) my main focus is about how gear performs, photographically wise.

From a measurements point of view, we can already have an idea that this won't be a "slightly better" optics case. Check out the MTF thread here, on DPR and, specially this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

Many here don't have the sensibility to appreciate the fact that how a lens (or a camera, for that matter) performs is not a simple case of measurements.

The MTF charts are already very impressive, surely.

(continues)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 13:45 UTC
In reply to:

webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.

Don't you know what "long" and "tele" means...!?...Mind-boggling...

Again:

Show me a photo, any photo, at 200mm plus and f/4 or below, taken on a "golden" afternoon with the sun casting a side light on the scene and I will be able to tell you every single time, which were taken with a Canon "L" tele zoom or prime.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 17:55 UTC
In reply to:

webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.

"the only prime lens Canon makes that fit's that claim is not a L lens to begin with."...!?

You must be kidding...or confused...or both.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.

I assume you're replying to me, since I was the only one remotely close to that assertion.

What I wrote was: "new long tele zooms and primes "L" lenses", not ALL "L" lenses.

...and the fact is they are. In fact, they always were, even previous corresponding interactions. Anyone with an photography-educated eye can clearly see that Canon's long tele "L" primes and zooms run circles around the competition.

Show me a photo, any photo, at 200mm plus and f/4 or below, taken on a "golden" afternoon with the sun casting a side light on the scene and I will be able to tell you every single time, which were taken with a Canon "L" tele zoom or prime.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 17:21 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I don't know if it is a miscalculation or intended commercial move.

If there's a lens that could have the price boosted to unreasonable levels, this is the one.

Still, Canon decide to price this at an extremely reasonable level, given the market and their own line-up (it is significantly cheaper than the Nikon counterpart, for instance).

If it was intentional, well played Canon.

It's little brick-blocks like these that make the "Customer Loyalty" building.

Yes.
The Nikon is right now at $2,696.95 at B&H.
Ouch!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 14:22 UTC
In reply to:

Bananasplit: I have no doubt that the lens is nice, well build and awsome optics. But the price is not worth for me..

I think the strategy of Canon is to earn more monry by making their product as expensive as possible, just a bit above what one would expect to pay. I believe it is a bad marketing strategy.

You're barking at the wrong tree.

This is PRECISELY an instance where Canon has NOT jacked up a price (...and they could very well have done it).

The launching price of the original 100-400 was, in 1998 $2,187.

This one is now being launched at $2199.

If you check the link below you will find how amazingly cheaper this new interaction is, when inflation is taken into account.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 13:56 UTC
In reply to:

webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.

"Just walk a little closer".

One of the most repeated misconceptions and one that only reveals the "photographic ignorance" of those who propagate it.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 12:36 UTC
In reply to:

webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.

"Slightly better optics"...!?

Either you're not a Canon user or you've not been paying attention to the last replacements or new designs in Canon "L" line.

You have to go as far as 2008 to find a newly released L lens, the EF 800 f/5.6L IS, that has received less than gleaming reviews anywhere. Even in that particular Canon offer, the complaints are more about the price than about anything related to optical performance.

The true, hard-core fact (...and probably hard to swallow also, for some...) about Canon new long tele zooms and primes "L" lenses is that, at the moment, they are the absolute best on the market.

The previous interactions were already better than the competition. The new ones put them "light-years" behind.

I have no reason to think it will be any different with this new 100-400.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 12:33 UTC

I don't know if it is a miscalculation or intended commercial move.

If there's a lens that could have the price boosted to unreasonable levels, this is the one.

Still, Canon decide to price this at an extremely reasonable level, given the market and their own line-up (it is significantly cheaper than the Nikon counterpart, for instance).

If it was intentional, well played Canon.

It's little brick-blocks like these that make the "Customer Loyalty" building.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 10:00 UTC as 48th comment | 4 replies
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vetteran: In the many years of reading reviews of Leica products on this website, I have never seen a positive review of any Leica products even though many, many serious photographers use their products and these users are not "bling" photographers. One might be led to think that there's a bias here.

Maybe that's because "serious" actually has a specific meaning, one that suits DPR better than most Leica users?

After all, Leica users DID buy Leica M-monochrme in spite of not being able to anything that can't be done is PS.

...I would so LOVE to do a blind test (pun intended) over that one...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 20:25 UTC
Total: 314, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »