Clint Dunn

Clint Dunn

Lives in Canada Vancouver, Canada
Joined on Dec 2, 2008

Comments

Total: 304, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On High-end full frame roundup (2014) article (527 comments in total)
In reply to:

WayneHuangPhoto: I'm seriously considering selling all my Canon lenses and my old 5D mkI to finance the purchase of a D750 and one really good super wide angle lens. What do you all think?

@Wayne - I don't blame you...but for me I'm moving from a 5D2 to the A7II. I have shot Canon for years but I don't need a 'one camera does all' solution anymore. I always felt that's what Canikon's strength was...you could get away doing sports/landscape/weddings etc in one body. I now shoot strictly for pleasure, so what makes me happy is shedding weight and pure image quality, which the A7II has in spades.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 03:00 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (240 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorg14: Granted for a working pro in a studio situation (rare for most of us) the Pentax would be a good tool. But do you really need the IQ the Pentax has over a good FF camera? Do your customers actually see the difference?
For years I've lusted over full frame to replace my Leica M3 of old. But now I've come to the conclusion that APS-C is more than enough. In fact my latest toy is the Sony RX1002 and I've gotten some amazing pictures.

You know it's funny...I remember when the Canon 1DSII came out and at fullframe 16MP it was revolutionary at the time. A TONNE of landscape photographers produced work with that camera but honestly my X-Pro1 produces better image quality today than my 1DSII ever did.

It's pretty amazing the options we have now...for my money the D810 is the best bang for the buck.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 21:40 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (240 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Davinator: I've been enjoying my 645Z for a few months now. It is a fantastic tool that gives 4x5 film a serious run for its money. Once you get used to its files for landscape, 35mm FF seems puny in comparison.

EssexAsh - Personally I would take a 645Z over film 4x5 any day of the week...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 21:37 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

alexzn: Roby- don't pay attention to people deriding your picture. It's really good and some portion of the people on DOR are jealous, prudish, or both to the point that the only thing that satisfies them are picture of cats or garden flowers. You can find them also discussing rendering of green tones in the latest obscure Raw converter. In truth they should never come near a decent camera because it will be a waste of good equipment.

#1 image is soft core? Really??? Get a life, people, you have no idea what soft core is... Now go back to cat pictures...

Oh, yeah, and to people saying that these photos are all bad- show me what you've got...it's easy to dump on other people s work behind a screen name.

You had to edit that 3 times..really?? Maybe go for a 4th because you're still wrong.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2014 at 03:44 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

alexzn: Roby- don't pay attention to people deriding your picture. It's really good and some portion of the people on DOR are jealous, prudish, or both to the point that the only thing that satisfies them are picture of cats or garden flowers. You can find them also discussing rendering of green tones in the latest obscure Raw converter. In truth they should never come near a decent camera because it will be a waste of good equipment.

#1 image is soft core? Really??? Get a life, people, you have no idea what soft core is... Now go back to cat pictures...

Oh, yeah, and to people saying that these photos are all bad- show me what you've got...it's easy to dump on other people s work behind a screen name.

HowaboutRAW: Apparently reading and comprehension are not your strong suit....you introduced mangled bodies and exploding tumors (bizarre as that is) to the conversation, not I.

Your comment, 'those yelling that this can’t be softcore porn that have the most to lose' is even more bizarre. Why, in the world would ANYONE turn to DPReview for so called 'soft-core porn'?? Really, if that is your thing there are literally thousands of better sites.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2014 at 21:04 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

alexzn: Roby- don't pay attention to people deriding your picture. It's really good and some portion of the people on DOR are jealous, prudish, or both to the point that the only thing that satisfies them are picture of cats or garden flowers. You can find them also discussing rendering of green tones in the latest obscure Raw converter. In truth they should never come near a decent camera because it will be a waste of good equipment.

#1 image is soft core? Really??? Get a life, people, you have no idea what soft core is... Now go back to cat pictures...

Oh, yeah, and to people saying that these photos are all bad- show me what you've got...it's easy to dump on other people s work behind a screen name.

HowaboutRAW: So, now you are comparing a picture of a girl in a hat to mangled bodies in a car crash? Once again, I find nothing offensive about the photo so no, I still don't get your point. Also, I never said that every photo is suitable for DPReview....I said that there was nothing wrong with THIS photo.

I'm sensing you have some deep seated issues you should deal with as it now appears that you associate women with erupting tumors and mangled car wreck victims. Were you a fan of David Cronenberg's movie Crash???

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2014 at 00:37 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

alexzn: Roby- don't pay attention to people deriding your picture. It's really good and some portion of the people on DOR are jealous, prudish, or both to the point that the only thing that satisfies them are picture of cats or garden flowers. You can find them also discussing rendering of green tones in the latest obscure Raw converter. In truth they should never come near a decent camera because it will be a waste of good equipment.

#1 image is soft core? Really??? Get a life, people, you have no idea what soft core is... Now go back to cat pictures...

Oh, yeah, and to people saying that these photos are all bad- show me what you've got...it's easy to dump on other people s work behind a screen name.

HowaboutRAW : You see the difference is YOU implied that there is something WRONG with the photo by suggesting it isn't fit for DPReview. Clearly YOU were making the connection between sex and inappropriateness...not me! It is NOT a sexual image, and even if it was I would have no issue with it. Gawd, you suckered me in to your time waste vortex again....

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2014 at 04:24 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

alexzn: Roby- don't pay attention to people deriding your picture. It's really good and some portion of the people on DOR are jealous, prudish, or both to the point that the only thing that satisfies them are picture of cats or garden flowers. You can find them also discussing rendering of green tones in the latest obscure Raw converter. In truth they should never come near a decent camera because it will be a waste of good equipment.

#1 image is soft core? Really??? Get a life, people, you have no idea what soft core is... Now go back to cat pictures...

Oh, yeah, and to people saying that these photos are all bad- show me what you've got...it's easy to dump on other people s work behind a screen name.

HowAboutRAW

Man, you are unbelievable....so, let me get this straight. You call this innocent image 'soft porn' yet somehow I (who take no issue with it) am the one who supposedly thinks that sex is dirty and 'can't be in public'??? Really??

Dude, if you get off on this pic that's fine..really...fly at er' but there's much better stuff on the internet if that is what you are in to.

Also....what is with you and her hands?? 'The hands aren't sexual, it's the placement'....what is THAT all about?? Her hands are on her neck....in what world is that a sexual innuendo?? Like I stated earlier it looks more to me like she is relaxing as opposed to 'gettin' jiggy with it'.

You have taken a completely benign subject and attempted to sexualize it. I'm done arguing with you, this is just stupid now. Correction, it was stupid 5 or 6 responses ago.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2014 at 00:13 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

alexzn: Roby- don't pay attention to people deriding your picture. It's really good and some portion of the people on DOR are jealous, prudish, or both to the point that the only thing that satisfies them are picture of cats or garden flowers. You can find them also discussing rendering of green tones in the latest obscure Raw converter. In truth they should never come near a decent camera because it will be a waste of good equipment.

#1 image is soft core? Really??? Get a life, people, you have no idea what soft core is... Now go back to cat pictures...

Oh, yeah, and to people saying that these photos are all bad- show me what you've got...it's easy to dump on other people s work behind a screen name.

Dude...you're the one sexualizing the image....not me! You stated it in your own words...'the facial expression and the hands'. Why does her facial expression and hands need to be sexual??? She is wearing a sun hat...perhaps she is imagining she is on a beach somewhere enjoying the heat of the afternoon sun on her...

See what I mean:) It's ok, you're sexually frustrated, we get it.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 21:37 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

alexzn: Roby- don't pay attention to people deriding your picture. It's really good and some portion of the people on DOR are jealous, prudish, or both to the point that the only thing that satisfies them are picture of cats or garden flowers. You can find them also discussing rendering of green tones in the latest obscure Raw converter. In truth they should never come near a decent camera because it will be a waste of good equipment.

#1 image is soft core? Really??? Get a life, people, you have no idea what soft core is... Now go back to cat pictures...

Oh, yeah, and to people saying that these photos are all bad- show me what you've got...it's easy to dump on other people s work behind a screen name.

HowaboutRAW - Wow....fully clothed model showing the slightest amount of cleavage is softcore porn??? I guess in your world if she bared an ankle it would turn into hardcore porn?? This isn't the Victorian era my friend...and you are definitely alone on your opinion here.

It's kind of funny that you are trying to project your own sexual deviance/desires on the rest of us lol.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 16:27 UTC
On Behind the Shot: Clouds over Skagsanden article (116 comments in total)

Cool pic, but a little too 'blue' for my personal taste. The thing that I find most interesting is what a hack I must be in the PS department...even after 10+ yrs of using it. Quite a while ago I resorted to Nik Effex and programs like Viviza. Literally 10 mins of some local selections and Bang! I'm done...a heck of a lot easier and the quality is very good.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2014 at 18:09 UTC as 12th comment
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

alexzn: Roby- don't pay attention to people deriding your picture. It's really good and some portion of the people on DOR are jealous, prudish, or both to the point that the only thing that satisfies them are picture of cats or garden flowers. You can find them also discussing rendering of green tones in the latest obscure Raw converter. In truth they should never come near a decent camera because it will be a waste of good equipment.

#1 image is soft core? Really??? Get a life, people, you have no idea what soft core is... Now go back to cat pictures...

Oh, yeah, and to people saying that these photos are all bad- show me what you've got...it's easy to dump on other people s work behind a screen name.

HowaboutRAW - Are you serious??? Softcore porn?? Really??? Do you live in Utah?? Would you prefer a Burkah??

Give me a break...never thought I would see the day where a slight bit of cleavage was classified as 'softcore porn'.

Nice pic by the way..

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2014 at 17:51 UTC

'We will not be accepting any entries taken on film.'

Interesting....

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2014 at 20:39 UTC as 3rd comment | 2 replies
On Fujifilm X100T Overview preview (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

atone2: Totally uninteresting before Fujifilm get rid of the ridiculous x-trans filter array. One must be blind not to see the awful rendering of x-trans rawfiles, especially in Lightroom. My original X100 still has much better IQ than the newer models. Money saved, wooha! :-)

I've got a tonne of razor sharp X-Pro1 files....the whole XTrans thing is overblown for 90% of the photos taken.
Take a look for yourself: https://www.flickr.com/photos/60455482@N00/

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 22:45 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Overview preview (637 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: Its a bit too large for what it is. Might as well get something like an RX1 at that size.

@BarnET - Smaller is not always better....I find the RX1 is too small in my hands.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 22:43 UTC
On Fujifilm announces weather-resistant XF 50-140mm F2.8 article (223 comments in total)

I love all the Fuji haters out in force. I tell ya one thing...I have been far more impressed with the quality of the 23/35/18-55 Fuji lenses I have compared to most of the Canon lenses I've owned....

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 06:12 UTC as 28th comment | 3 replies
On Fujifilm announces weather-resistant XF 50-140mm F2.8 article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo nuts: Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS weighs 760 g. Price is US$1299.

Sony FE 70-200 f/4 OSS weighs 840 g. Price is US$1498.

Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 OIS (equiv. to 70-200 f/5.6) weighs 360 g!!! Price is US$1498.

Fujifilm XF 50-140 f/2.8 (equiv. to 76-213 mm f/4.2) weighs 995 g. No stabilisation. Price is US$1599.

Wow. Just wow.

Fujifilm and Sony lenses provide ZERO weight advantage for their mirrorless mounts.

Did you even read the press release?? The Fuji has OIS (Optical Image Stabilization)....it is also only a 72mm filter thread compared to the Canon's 77mm. Also...it's a f2.8 lens from a speed perspective...not everything is about DOF.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 06:10 UTC
On Niko announces service advisory for D810 'bright spots' article (379 comments in total)

Well look at the bright side....err....never mind.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 06:07 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

StevenMajor: Swards and guns, and more guns. Lets teach our children about violence at the earliest age possible, Teach them that weapons will solve problems, at home, at school, and the work place.
The short sightedness of DPR (and so many others) is why America can't build prisons fast enough. Wake Up.

StevenMajor get over yourself already...seriously...I can't believe how many of you fools have to try and stoop to the 'gun debate'. Personally I don't like the photos...the processing is sub-par IMO, but the guns I could care less about.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 12, 2014 at 22:55 UTC
In reply to:

Top Dog Imaging: And so Olympus and other mft cameras and lenses do not exist?

Nope...they don't exist. At least not in my world:)
Tongue in cheek of course...I understand your frustration.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 17:35 UTC
Total: 304, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »