Absolutic

Absolutic

Lives in United States Los Angeles, CA, United States
Works as a attorney
Joined on Jan 6, 2004

Comments

Total: 217, showing: 181 – 200
« First‹ Previous891011Next ›Last »

Gold Ring Lens for under $700!!!! That's a First. Great Job, Nikon. Nikon has been on a tear with 1.8 Primes lately. realizing that not all of us can afford $2000 1.4 primes.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 05:29 UTC as 37th comment
In reply to:

Kevinator: Wow this is entry model? Sounds like a D90 that weighs 200g less to me!

Seriously, same LCD, same AF, almost same frame rate (4 vs 4.5), better ISO range, better processor, better movie mode, much better weight and size.

Only difference from D90 is lack of AF-D drive, less control buttons and small viewfinder.

Wow and guys I am calling it, in 3 years the D3500 will have better spec than D7000.

No, the ergonomics of lower models are what separates them from D90, not only the lack of prism viewfinder and lack of motor for non AF-S lenses. On these entry bodies, to get to a simple and often used function like ISO you need to go inside menus. I guess you can assign ISO to function button. There is also only one wheel etc.... D90 series - most everything is on the top of the camera at your fingers.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 05:21 UTC
In reply to:

jonikon: I own the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF non-VC lens in a Nikon mount and bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC version to replace it. However, after comparing the sharpness of these two lenses, I decided the non-VC lens was noticeably sharper at f2.8-f4.0. I could not justify the loss in sharpness for the occasional usefulness of VC in a lens of such short focal length, so I returned the VC version and kept the sharper non-VC version. There is little doubt in my mind that this new 24-70 VC Tamron would have been sharper without the VC. I'll bet the reviews of this lens will find the center sharp and the edges soft at f2.8-f4.0. The only good reason to have VC on a lens of this type is for shooting video where it matters, and softness does not.

So it appears, at least until now, that when Tamron puts VC in something, they screw up the optics. However, their VC is the best in industry, you can hand-hold pretty much anything. But I give them a benefit of the doubt; hopefully they finally figured it out and can stick the VC mechanism and not screw up the sharpness on the lens, in the new 24-70VC. I am also hopeful that they finally figured out how to do fast AF like Canon's USM (or even Sigmas HSM)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2012 at 16:20 UTC
In reply to:

jonikon: I own the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF non-VC lens in a Nikon mount and bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC version to replace it. However, after comparing the sharpness of these two lenses, I decided the non-VC lens was noticeably sharper at f2.8-f4.0. I could not justify the loss in sharpness for the occasional usefulness of VC in a lens of such short focal length, so I returned the VC version and kept the sharper non-VC version. There is little doubt in my mind that this new 24-70 VC Tamron would have been sharper without the VC. I'll bet the reviews of this lens will find the center sharp and the edges soft at f2.8-f4.0. The only good reason to have VC on a lens of this type is for shooting video where it matters, and softness does not.

Yes it is a universally known fact of course, that Tamron's 17-50 F/2.8 non-VC lens is sharper than its VC newer version. I've owned and used all of the versions of the Tamron 17-50 in both Nikon and Canon mount. By the way there are 3 versions in Nikon mount but that is besides the point.

Interestingly, the newer Tamron 18-270VC Piezo, which replaced the older Tamron 18-270VC, the users report that it is also softer than the old version (in the tele region of zoom). I personally owned the old version of that 18-270, and not the new version, so I cannot tell from experience, but the reviews I have seen seem to support that point.

The only other lens that Tamron made with VC was 70-300VC. I owned that lens and used it on Nikon D700 and D7000. I found the sharpness ok, but replaced it with Nikon's 70-300VR. What I did not like on Tamron 70-300, was, that despite the Ring Focusing that Tamron finally started to put inside lenses), the focusing was just slow.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2012 at 16:17 UTC
On Facebook buys photo sharing service Instagram for $1bn article (144 comments in total)

Shoot.... I need to come up with some idea that someone else has already done, so I can sell it to facebook. I'll take 100 mil, don't even need a billion.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2012 at 18:47 UTC as 47th comment | 1 reply

Tamron. I've gone through my share of Tamron lenses and I believe it will have typical Tamron's attributes:

1) Sharpness - almost as good as OEM (Canon or Nikon)
2) VC - superior to both Nikon/Canon (although they don't have in that range)
3) Contrast - always inferior to Nikon/Canon. Often yellow cast to photos. But can be dealt with in PP
4) AF - this is a biggie. Tamron has placed Ring AF in their latest 2 lenses (finally) but it just does not work nearly as good as Nikon and Canon AF (and Sigma is faster too). For some - it does not mater, it is silent but it is noticeably slower than OEM.

That is why I think, Tamron needs to price this thing much less, like $700 to make it work.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2012 at 22:08 UTC as 45th comment | 6 replies
On First Impressions: Using the Fujifilm X-Pro1 article (228 comments in total)

Guys love your reviews but subject of your samples after you moved from London to Seattle....so depressing. Seattle just cannot be compared to London when it comes to picture taking. You are running of ideas there. Can't you guys ask remaining people in London to take sample photos for you. Seattle is boring.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2012 at 22:11 UTC as 87th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

walliswizard: D800 is a great camera, but unlike the D700 it seems like it will always need great glass, a super-powerful computer, and a good technique to get the best from it.

The D700 on the other hand was/is an awesome camera that could be used by a lot more people.

So it seems to me the D800 is great but is very much in the pro-user league. I do hope Nikon fills the gap somewhat with a 16-20MP D700s (D750?) for the rest of us...

Absolutely. I've owned several D7000 and D700. D7000 requires a good technique. The great thing about D700 is that it is so good, that one can cheat and be lazy and still get amazing shots, because it is simply impossible to get bad shots with D700. Well, I love D700. I did have to sell mine to afford D800. I fully realize that with D800 I would have to be very very careful, and keep my shutter speed up, etc, etc, etc, to use good techniques otherwise I would be disappointed

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2012 at 22:58 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 low light high ISO sample series article (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: As I've been saying, this is not a valid test for low light. 2 years ago, when the guys from DPR were taking low-light shots in museums and pubs the low-light photos were much more eloquent in judging low-light capability.

And if the argument is that there has to be reproductibility, well, just use the same locations when testing other cameras.

Well they can't go to the same pub, because they used to be in London and now they are in Seattle. You want them to fly to London to visit that favorite pub for every camera?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 9, 2012 at 23:31 UTC
On dpreview.com gets mobile article (110 comments in total)

Is Apple App finally coming?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2012 at 04:04 UTC as 80th comment
On Just Posted: First Impressions - Using the Nikon D4 article (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Morris: That wouldn't be Phil with the Red Dot camera would it. In town for a little visit?

PS. Nice article thanks.

By the way, Whatever happened to Phil? You guys should do a feature on the founder of this site, what he is doing.... we have not heard from him in years!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2012 at 01:47 UTC
On Just Posted: First Impressions - Using the Nikon D4 article (84 comments in total)

Barnaby, finally someone echoes what I've been saying since I got my first D7000. The new AF switch makes things much slower, the old lever systems in D3/D300/D700 was super fast. Yet many have been trying to convince me that the D7000' system is faster and easier. I disagree completely, I will always take a lever/knob over a "press and scroll through mirriad of af modes" I was afraid Nikon was going to adapt that system on all their future cameras and it looks like they did.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2012 at 01:38 UTC as 24th comment
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III low-light ISO series samples article (319 comments in total)

I think these images are fantastic. These are probably the least noisy high iso images I've seen to date at extreme ISOs of 12800 and 25600. Resize these to 12MP size and they will easily beat Nikon D3s, the current low light king. If it cost $2500 and not $3500, I might have even considered this camera. At $3500 though.....nope. I am comfortable with my pre-order of D800

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 14:34 UTC as 105th comment
On Hands-on with the Olympus OM-D E-M5 article (215 comments in total)

Agree with everyone RE: Dramatic Tone II Art filter. I wonder if there is a Lightroom filter that is similar so I can attempt to create similar results from my Nikon and/or Canon DSLRs

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2012 at 22:13 UTC as 62nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

(unknown member): Well, the fun's all over, and everybody can go back to taking pictures. Oh wait....D400 is still out there somewhere.

Buy D800 and shoot in DX mode (15.3MP) with your existing DX lenses at 6FPS with optional grip.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 02:06 UTC
On Nikon D800 preview (1110 comments in total)

Can you guys add a comparison between D700 and D800 size-wise (a side-by-side picture)? It seems to me that D800 is slightly smaller.

I did get excited by the $2999 price point on this, very agressive pricing. I think D700 was over $3000 when it came out. At $2999 this thing will be as hard to get as it was for D7000 for the first 6 months.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 05:34 UTC as 383rd comment | 1 reply
On Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom article (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vamp898: The SP Lenses of Tamron (according to DxO (for sure both tested on the same body)) are the same quality than the L-Lenses of canon (1-3% tolerance, but cost only a 1/3 or even a 1/4.

This is a SP Lense too so i hope to see Canons ass kicked (they create awesome cameras for an awesome price but the L-Lenses are just exorbitant expensive)

Too sad that Tamron only have a handfull of lenses and only some of them are SP, but in the end, im lucky about one more =)

@ hesbehindyou. I have experienced the latest Tamron lens with their version of USM (70-300 SP) Their version of ring USM unfortunately is much slower than Nikon, Canon, and even Sigma. Their IS is the best in industry, yes, although the picture jumps for a second when it is settling. But their USM is the poorest.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 22:28 UTC
On Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom article (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vamp898: The SP Lenses of Tamron (according to DxO (for sure both tested on the same body)) are the same quality than the L-Lenses of canon (1-3% tolerance, but cost only a 1/3 or even a 1/4.

This is a SP Lense too so i hope to see Canons ass kicked (they create awesome cameras for an awesome price but the L-Lenses are just exorbitant expensive)

Too sad that Tamron only have a handfull of lenses and only some of them are SP, but in the end, im lucky about one more =)

Not true as to SP, yes, that is what Tamron wants you to believe, but I have owned several SP Tamron lenses over the years and noticed nothing special about SP. I mean even their 28-105 F/2.8 which is the softest lens ever at F/2.8 was designated as SP, all the 17-50s and 28-75s are SP, 70-300 is SP. SP is not like "L"

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 19:23 UTC
On Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom article (190 comments in total)

I got really excited about it at first when I noticed the ad, thinking, wow, Nikon 24-70 is $1700 and it is a monster in terms of weight. I used one during a wedding and my arm was ready to give up at one point. So I see this, and thinking to myself, a light little Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 for $600 probably, where do I sign up. Yes the ring AF will be slower of course, but who cares for half the price? Then I look at the picture and see 82mm filter, and all my excitement is starting to vanish. Then I look at the specs for weight and see close to 900 grams.... Not so excited now

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 19:20 UTC as 56th comment | 4 replies

The low light ISO seems remarkable and better than 18MP sensor of 7d/550d/60d/600d. However, as many noted, this is a well-lit scene and not what you'd get in low light in real life. I am sure Dpreview will do real-life low light situations late at night or inside bars/restaurant which are not well lit.
I am not as much concerned with 3.5-5.6 F on the lens as with its range and af speed/ability in low light conditions. If the lens was 24-120 I'd be closely looking at it for my wife (I am getting T2i with 18-135 for her instead)

David

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 18:46 UTC as 57th comment | 1 reply
Total: 217, showing: 181 – 200
« First‹ Previous891011Next ›Last »