Neodp

Neodp

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Apr 30, 2009

Comments

Total: 516, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

l_d_allan: Well, they've been saying "in three years" for about three years now.

It may be like Linux fanboys predicting that the year of Linux will be "real soon now" ... like they've been hoping for 15+ years (before the dot-com implosion).

But I do think that mirror-less is pushing CaNikon to stay ahead (but Nikon seems more intent on keeping the DSLR relevant).

I haven't seen Windows or OS-X on my computers for YEARS. You poor B.

linuxmint.com (use Mate) is where you start; because it's all done. After 6 months or a year of heavy use and before you get a new release of Mint then install Debian STABLE (Plus:Stablet has already installable backports of the newest apps for "that". The core system stays solid and RELEASE upgrades (about every two years) to new *STABLE* Debian (having stable auto security) also just WORKS perfectly. Debian sucks to install and make it like you want it THE FIRST TIME. Then you see why. It becomes easy to install. Are you technical? If not then get someone who can install it and you're done. Its all about what you choose.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 18, 2015 at 05:20 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1319 comments in total)
In reply to:

gusmahler: Disagree with the analysis of the 50 mm lens. It's a great purchase for crop cameras. On Nikon it's the equivalent of 75 mm. On Canon, it's equivalent to 80 mm. Both are decent portrait focal lengths. IOW, 50 mm is a great portrait lens for crop cameras that is still usable as a walkaround lens for a FF camera.

The "will I upgrade to FF" question really comes into play at 35mm, though. Especially with Nikon. Because Nikon makes two 35 mm lenses, an inexpensive ($200), but crop-only lens. And a $500 lens that can be used on both crop and FF bodies.

Yeah, but that's muddied with alternative Prime 50mm and 135mm being much faster (f/2.0 or f/1.8 or better), lighter, potentially cheaper, promoting better techniques and so his point still has merit. Even if not in all cases.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 18:50 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1319 comments in total)
In reply to:

AM4L: Really in at least terms of the Nikon side of things the biggest true upgrades you get with FX are the AF System and access to a vast collection of glass made for that format. That and advances in noise suppression are what makes it an upgrade. That said if they made DX versions of the FX cameras and accompanying glass you would have a chance at superior IQ.

But before anyone gets an upgrade, a lot of people will benefit more from upgrading their skills rather than their camera. Most of these cameras are not really limiting what people can accomplish now days.

Yes skills. No cameras aren't all that now.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 18:39 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1319 comments in total)
In reply to:

gusmahler: Disagree with the analysis of the 50 mm lens. It's a great purchase for crop cameras. On Nikon it's the equivalent of 75 mm. On Canon, it's equivalent to 80 mm. Both are decent portrait focal lengths. IOW, 50 mm is a great portrait lens for crop cameras that is still usable as a walkaround lens for a FF camera.

The "will I upgrade to FF" question really comes into play at 35mm, though. Especially with Nikon. Because Nikon makes two 35 mm lenses, an inexpensive ($200), but crop-only lens. And a $500 lens that can be used on both crop and FF bodies.

Yours is a refreshing perspective. Thank you. You are right. Do not upgrade by surprise. Decide each component BEFORE we buy.

Don't buy to learn. Learn then buy.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 18:34 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1319 comments in total)
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: The major issue right now in photography is not lenses or sensor sizes or any of that. It's how do we get the amazing photos we take with our cameras intelligently processed and uploaded onto the internet with the same speed that we can do it with our photographically inferior cell phones.
The other big question: where is still photography going? Will it continue on a parallel but separate track with moving video images or will the two converge in some way?

Not it's not (respectfully). As the crime of social media becomes increasingly apparent ; that is not what photography is all about. Especially quality. Simply use a fast card reader with nothing else to do.

For those so quick to say, those like me want to much: The issue is color sensitivity and highlight details DR. not just DR. Along with better looking color capability. Not just low noise. Even the high ISO sensors really aren't that wonderful at 3200+. Keeping ISO toward base is much better. This is best done with really fast lenses. The lens is the first quality consideration (like no CA and excellent contrast).

Your video question is a great one. Mirrorless (tomorrows improved) APS-C must go.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 18:19 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1319 comments in total)
In reply to:

Neodp: Great points. Do or do not do full frame.

Contrary is 50mm AF-S prime. Good on APS-C (DX for example) and while it might not be the best portrait lens it's great and can still be a value purchase. The "disadvantage" of prime lens moving/"zooming" with your feet has many advantages that outweigh it... in the context of total value and photographic benefits. It wins in Stops of light comparatively.

As much as I would like a much smaller version of full frame (and it CAN be done) the value is currently found in APS-C, in the great balance.

Also, film cameras tend to be "full-frame" and film does better in the specific *HIGHLIGHT* DR details than digital. Also with pleasing colors, per the film selected. Therefore, there's often a full-frame and APS-C mixture, due to film cams. Even with no full frame digital.

If only smaller Nikon bodies had the motor drive (also very possible today) then AF lenses would be optimal in all ways, even manually pulling focus for less video sounds.

The 50mm (portrait angle on DX) being for those like me who take mostly people pictures. The 35mm AF-s otherwise and that's when looking for one prime (nearly) do all lens, for max value and less to carry.

All that said, a fixed camera to fit the bill would be fine and better optimized potentially; but "they" will not make that. Not with the total benefits balance; that I'd like.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 18:08 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1319 comments in total)

Great points. Do or do not do full frame.

Contrary is 50mm AF-S prime. Good on APS-C (DX for example) and while it might not be the best portrait lens it's great and can still be a value purchase. The "disadvantage" of prime lens moving/"zooming" with your feet has many advantages that outweigh it... in the context of total value and photographic benefits. It wins in Stops of light comparatively.

As much as I would like a much smaller version of full frame (and it CAN be done) the value is currently found in APS-C, in the great balance.

Also, film cameras tend to be "full-frame" and film does better in the specific *HIGHLIGHT* DR details than digital. Also with pleasing colors, per the film selected. Therefore, there's often a full-frame and APS-C mixture, due to film cams. Even with no full frame digital.

If only smaller Nikon bodies had the motor drive (also very possible today) then AF lenses would be optimal in all ways, even manually pulling focus for less video sounds.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 17:55 UTC as 128th comment | 1 reply
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (801 comments in total)
In reply to:

Neodp: So it's a like Stop less in background blur isolation than a kit lens on a crop DSLR. Including worse Bokeh quality. Not with light; but in terms of DOF eqiv, and it's huge. That's not good. Not at the price.

They should NOT have listened to novices as to lusting for ZOOM X-FACTOR and just made a better camera. They should have capped the focal at 100mm (eqiv angle) and went the other way! Heck, they should have done 27-100mm on MFT. Made that a f/2.8 CONSTANT lens (built-in, so very IQ optimized optimized) and then you'd have something. Think about it. There's your do all camera. Mid small size, affordable price. Leica F2.8 27-100mm HELLO! They could even sell "X-FACTOR" extenders to the silly crowd.

But they wouldn't make that.

Your color sensitivity then your highlight range (not just total) and finally noise in real world lighting make small sensors (1" being still on the small performace side) craptasitc. Going small by smaller sensors is NOT the way to IQ. "X-factor ultra zooms", like that stink. If it were under $80 and you don't need image quality but in the bright sun, then fine. Because VALUE (price) does matter. It's way over priced and now you know why. Gold platting the darn thing doesn't count. It's a camera and cameras gather light more or less craptasically.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 16:16 UTC
On Canon announces five PowerShot compacts article (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

Neodp: You are fouling up when rating "ultra-zoom" or extreme telephoto as a priority if you are getting there with a tiny sensor.

It's cheap to make, keeping the entire camera more carrable. Very poor sensor results at these minisucle sizes.

1. Yes low light will suffer; but not only that. The telephoto you buy these cameras for tend to be extremely small aputrures AT TELEPHOTO. That's bad plus bad. So you see to late; that only wide angle and the brightest light (or ugly forward flash only), and that's the opposite of ("X-factor!") tele and real world light situations. Bad IQ (image qaulity) resutls. It's a low ISO sunlight camera only.

2. But! It's not just NOISE! Note the highlight range and not just the total dynamic range. It stinks. This is a problem with digital and much worse in these cameras. AKA to much all whited-out sections of your pictures and with no hightlight details. Just compare samples for highlight details.

3. Mostly: It's very poor color acuracy/range & poor JPEGs.

But that's NOT a cry for more over priced cameras. It's a a reason to pass on over-pri ced cameras, so the prices will get out of insane teritory. Buyer determined.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 16:04 UTC
On Canon announces five PowerShot compacts article (150 comments in total)

You are fouling up when rating "ultra-zoom" or extreme telephoto as a priority if you are getting there with a tiny sensor.

It's cheap to make, keeping the entire camera more carrable. Very poor sensor results at these minisucle sizes.

1. Yes low light will suffer; but not only that. The telephoto you buy these cameras for tend to be extremely small aputrures AT TELEPHOTO. That's bad plus bad. So you see to late; that only wide angle and the brightest light (or ugly forward flash only), and that's the opposite of ("X-factor!") tele and real world light situations. Bad IQ (image qaulity) resutls. It's a low ISO sunlight camera only.

2. But! It's not just NOISE! Note the highlight range and not just the total dynamic range. It stinks. This is a problem with digital and much worse in these cameras. AKA to much all whited-out sections of your pictures and with no hightlight details. Just compare samples for highlight details.

3. Mostly: It's very poor color acuracy/range & poor JPEGs.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 15:58 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply

What? Nikon quality control issues?

Control issues indeed. keep you money UNTIL manufactues put it ALL together. Else missing benefits will not stop.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 02:09 UTC as 19th comment
On Hands-on with Nikon's new D5500 article (268 comments in total)

I'm getting tired of you Nikon. I conceed, this may be a decent camera; but I'm just sick to death of the BS.

1. Why NOT a focus motor for (old) AFl lenses in this size? You know you can. You just don't want to hear noises in videos. You known, one could choose to focus vidoe manually to prebent this, if we were ALLOWED. The 7100 (w/motor) is WAY to big.

You readers really think a motor couln't be fitted? Really?

2. Is amperture contro still borked in video? Duh....

3. Nikon mirorless (system) APS-C?????? You know an F-mount adapter would solve it!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 02:03 UTC as 28th comment
In reply to:

RolliPoli: About 12 years ago I used their colour negative film ('Made in Italy') marketed under a couple of different brands. The dyes were very unstable and started to shift and fade with in a couple of years of dark and dry storage.

Yes, I'm sure they will demonstrate how new materials will not shift or fade and make a point of it. Plus feedback from users.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 07:30 UTC
In reply to:

AksCT: Cost of Digital: Myth
(Due to character restriction, I have split it in 3 parts)

What not to do: OF COURSE, you can dev with chems at home (even color C41 is NOT hard), and even get a good lens enlarger, and make your own prints even; but that's not more convenient. People who do real B&W do that, for the higher res and greater tones; because you lose digital color control that way (on the analog prints). There's C41 B&W without those advantages, so you can get the $2 CVS develop only; but that's silly; because once a color negative is scanned, you can also make it B&W+filter effects and all edits(see Gimp, it's free).

It's Figital.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 01:59 UTC
In reply to:

AksCT: Cost of Digital: Myth
(Due to character restriction, I have split it in 3 parts)

Here's a tip. Would I prefer Portra 400's res? Yes. Am I going to pay for it. No, not usually.

Would I prefer Medium Formats res? Yes? Am I going to pay extra for it? No. Carry extra? No.

Why? 35mm resolution NOT THAT BAD people. Horses for course. First of all, that are many ways and things you can do to maximize the resolution (acuity before and after scanning to Mangle-Pixies). If the goal in printing no bigger than 8x10, game over. It's going to be OK. You win. People are giving away pro 35mm full frame film SLR's and lenses. It's $4 for a roll and dev. What's not to try? Welcome to the frustrations of scanning at home. LOL. Remember, that's for when you do bunches. Then you get a plan, and with a DSLR or good digicam (or mirror-less) it's typical, you have you preferred jig, or whatever.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 01:59 UTC
In reply to:

AksCT: Cost of Digital: Myth
(Due to character restriction, I have split it in 3 parts)

I have explored out, many, many photographic disciplines and answered a whole lot of questions about how I want to do it. So learn on digital, with all your test shots and who said burn off roll after roll of film? I did 4 or 5 film projects last year (not including scanning older negatives myself) and spent less than $36! That included comparing digital the beach, the XA, full frame prime in your pocket, Canon Elan 7e EYE TRACKING focus (film) world class auto SLR, my REAL Diana F (Original F, LOL. No freaking +), old pocket 170mm power zoom lens comparison, and things like the free Portra 400 look applies from Gimp+GIMC plug-in. So the point: It's hard to beat the fun of $2 roll and $2 develop only. Because you Can use you DSLR to scan the (without waiting), if you know photography. Macro is better; but 18-55mm a few inches works! It's not easy the first time, and you gotta follow all the ways; but then it can be. You can just get CD too, for light use. Do bulk on digital. Do film.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 01:44 UTC
In reply to:

AksCT: Cost of Digital: Myth
(Due to character restriction, I have split it in 3 parts)

The camera almost does matter, accept I want the damn thing to stay out of my way. Will they ever make a photography centric camera? One with true benefits balance? So even with DIGITAL, I'm wasting fewer and fewer needless shots. I learned a lot, I admit. Play and learn with digital; but don't test yourself to death. That's not the point of it all. Take real world shots. SOMETHING NOT BORING. Something with real emotion, Hook the heart. That's the upper level. ...and so try to have at least three great "elements" in your picture or don't even bother. This is all your choice. What do you what you pictures to be? Typical or undeniable? Sure, some folks would not recognize a good picture if it bit them; but does that matter? Some of us do. What matters is do you? So now, I can think more what I want and go do it. That takes less time, and less shots. You going to have to just believe me (or not) when I say, mine have greatly improved. OK that's a wrap....

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 01:16 UTC
In reply to:

AksCT: Cost of Digital: Myth
(Due to character restriction, I have split it in 3 parts)

... and people think all the auto AF and AE makes camera smart, and it doesn't. If it did, then why does this months need an improvement? If you don't know what to do, when you auto systems fail, you don't get the shot. Anyway, here's how the cost really go...

In 2012, I had about 10,000 photo files. But 2013 it was about 5200. But now toward the end of 2024 I only have about 2660. What's going on? I must be slack, right? Gotta get out more. No, I got better. You see, my thing is to always improve. Photography will surprise you, in that it's is a never ending discipline and study of light in contrasts, and the making of a "picture". So yes I weed them out; but not so much as I did. At first it's like a child with a squirt gun in the house. Real fun; but doomed from the start. That's a far cry from a marksman. Meaning purposeful art. I know, you can just take a snap shot *and* everybody wants it simple. Have fun. I going a different direction. Luck has nothing to do with it....

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 00:59 UTC
In reply to:

AksCT: Cost of Digital: Myth
(Due to character restriction, I have split it in 3 parts)

That's the stupid-ist thing I've ever heard. Sorry I had a fight at your black trilogy party. I can see you worked at making a point there. We know film and developing can add up. We all got giddy, with our first digital cameras, thinking how free it was to snap-away, taking a gazillion pictures of squirrels and the cat. Our desk, our feet, our toes, the carpet, the moon, the ceiling fan and oh the best part. THE DELETE BUTTON! LOL. There's good to maybe 3. People blink, right? A limb was in the way, during the FIRST drive shot of Sasquatch kissing his wife, right? 3 shot's of your beautiful baby in about the same pose is OK; BUT NOT 20! Don't forget too, your friends will not tell you you suck. Don't bug your friends; because they will lie. No, digital is great; but it excels at learning by doing. Heck, you can use any old digicam as a meter! As the same ISO, just set that Aperture and Shutter in your manual camera. But couldn't you also read a book, or the Internet? Cameras R stupid

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 00:45 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (801 comments in total)

So it's a like Stop less in background blur isolation than a kit lens on a crop DSLR. Including worse Bokeh quality. Not with light; but in terms of DOF eqiv, and it's huge. That's not good. Not at the price.

They should NOT have listened to novices as to lusting for ZOOM X-FACTOR and just made a better camera. They should have capped the focal at 100mm (eqiv angle) and went the other way! Heck, they should have done 27-100mm on MFT. Made that a f/2.8 CONSTANT lens (built-in, so very IQ optimized optimized) and then you'd have something. Think about it. There's your do all camera. Mid small size, affordable price. Leica F2.8 27-100mm HELLO! They could even sell "X-FACTOR" extenders to the silly crowd.

But they wouldn't make that.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2014 at 21:21 UTC as 37th comment | 8 replies
Total: 516, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »