fmian

fmian

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Photographer/Re-toucher/Consultant
Has a website at www.primephotography.com.au
Joined on Mar 28, 2010

Comments

Total: 233, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »

Does anyone know what kind of deposit is required? I would imagine it's at the full price of the camera in case the 'borrower' does not come back.
Why cannot one just find a retailer with a good return policy instead?
Paxtons in Sydney offers a 45 day return policy. No questions asked.
Surely 45 days is better than 48 hours?
Also, not sure about the UK, but in Australia it's within a consumers rights to return a product they are not satisfied with. I believe the allowed time is 1-2 weeks.
At least, that is the rules we abided by when I was working for HN.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 08:27 UTC as 24th comment | 5 replies
On First Impressions: Metabones Speed Booster article (357 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Except that at widest aperture the resulting image becomes darker. Read the preview. What is the point of taking a f/1.4 lens to f/1.0 if its darker? Plus chromabs are increased and contrast is lost. Not to mention it makes the lens softer on the corners, and introduces vignetting.
For the price of this adapter, you can get a second hand original 5d body and not have to worry about compromising image quality. Since that's what we all care about.
Right?

A) Are you implying that the DPReview test is innacuate?
B) Find me another review/preview with test charts and not ambient light testing.
I am willing to admit that the wide aperture test above with the red pipes is open to inconsistency as it seems to be shot outdoors.
Otherwise it's easy to see that there are major optical drawbacks to using this. You would have to be delusional to think otherwise.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 08:21 UTC
On First Impressions: Metabones Speed Booster article (357 comments in total)
In reply to:

Trollshavethebestcandy: I find it interesting naysaying 400% pixel peepers demanding perfection from a revolutionary introduction 1st generation new technology (to consumer cameras) adapter that does so much at only $600. dont buy it if you are so righteously offended that smaller sensors can use FF lenses and get similar results and then some. What a bunch of wet blanket elitists. Go have fun with your gear and applaud new technology and the people who have the courage and brains to create something worth while. Geez! if there was no innovation you would all still be using peep hole cameras! you lot must be quite the life of the party. What have you created? My hats off to the men behind this. I cant wait to use one. Some valid points about some issues but you dont have to use one. Manual focus primes on this and vor video will be a boon. This will only get better. Where was digital photography 10 years ago? look at it today!

First of all Trollshavethebestcandy, this is not a revolutionary product and is certainly not based on new technology (your consumer camera addition means nothing).
Secondly people used to get blasted for being 100% pixel peepers, and now when dpreview post 100% samples you call them 400% peepers. It's plain to see, even in the 100% crops that this adaptor has several image quality shortcomings.
Thirdly, the original press release stated there would not be a drop in image quality, but there is, so if you want to sweep their inaccurate claims under the rug and purchase this $600 product that makes good lenses bad, then its your money to throw away.
Calling out full fame users like they are angry children while ignoring the plain visual facts in front of you is just immature on your part.
If one wants to be a purist and use a lens of a camera that it was designed for, let them. Just as if you want to fork out good money for this adaptor and get some sort of imaginary benefit, go for it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 07:58 UTC
On First Impressions: Metabones Speed Booster article (357 comments in total)

Except that at widest aperture the resulting image becomes darker. Read the preview. What is the point of taking a f/1.4 lens to f/1.0 if its darker? Plus chromabs are increased and contrast is lost. Not to mention it makes the lens softer on the corners, and introduces vignetting.
For the price of this adapter, you can get a second hand original 5d body and not have to worry about compromising image quality. Since that's what we all care about.
Right?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 07:43 UTC as 81st comment | 8 replies

Can DPreview please state what is actually different about the products compared to ones from several years ago? What has changed in the mean time? Apart from the sleeker space saving design, which has actually been a feature in older models anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2012 at 23:00 UTC as 5th comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Hands-on Preview preview (626 comments in total)

Regarding price point:
People pointed out the high price of the Fuji X100 when that came out as well, and it led to a success for them.
I think there are plenty of people who are more than willing to pay this much for the camera, although at the same time I feel the accessories are a rip off.
For that kind of money (on the viewfinder) i would expect at least simple hybrid viewfinder with etchings and led lights to show basic exposure and parameters.
As it stands it costs as much as a decent SLR lens.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2012 at 12:13 UTC as 55th comment | 1 reply
On DPReview Recommends: Top 5 Compact Cameras article (568 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Personally I think these should have been:
in no order

Sony rx100
Canon G1x
Fuji X10
Olympus Xz2
Ricoh GRd4

Flipmac, its cheaper than the rx100, smaller than the fz200, the sensor size and ISO performance makes up for the dimmer lens, and who cares if its slow? Not everyone is a sports photographer or needs to machine gun their shots.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2012 at 21:21 UTC
On DPReview Recommends: Top 5 Compact Cameras article (568 comments in total)

Personally I think these should have been:
in no order

Sony rx100
Canon G1x
Fuji X10
Olympus Xz2
Ricoh GRd4

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2012 at 09:32 UTC as 77th comment | 3 replies

Man, this D600 sounds like some old cars I've had.
Radiator leaked on one and I had to check and top it up between trips.
Difference is these cameras are new and from a manufacturer that has been making working mirror boxes for 40 years, yet they still deny fault.
Feel sorry for owners who have to keep cleaning their sensors.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2012 at 23:37 UTC as 137th comment
In reply to:

Tom Goodman: We can always count on users of rival manufacturers to weigh in on something they know absolutely nothing about nor can contribute to understanding. Then, there are the speculators, who would rather spend time postulating about the sources of dust than on the images they make. Finally, there is the contingent that condemns review conclusions and ratings that noted the problem, promised more investigation and is making good on that promise.

Oh, and then there are the people who say to themselves: Nikon is a fairly well-established company that would probably be interested in getting to the bottom of a problem accompanying the launch of a new, touted system as quickly and professionally as possible without prompting from the peanut gallery.

Tom Goodman wrote - 'users of rival manufacturers...something they know absolutely nothing about'
Are you implying that an SLR user of another brand would not be somewhat experienced with the notion mirror slaps and sensor dust?

'who would rather spend time postulating about the sources of dust than on the images they make'
Please tell me you would happily pay $2000+ for this camera considering what you know now. Imagine shooting a whole bunch of time lapse stuff and then realizing you have to clean every frame in post.

'Nikon is a fairly well-established company that would probably be interested in getting to the bottom of a problem'
They have denied it being a fault so far, right?

'quickly and professionally as possible without prompting from the peanut gallery'
The 'peanut gallery' has chimed in purely because Nikon has done nothing quickly and professionally about this.

In summary:
Do you even know what you are talking about?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2012 at 23:30 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon D600 In-depth Review article (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThomasSwitzerland: You will never find a "perfect" product.

The same way as no perfect software can be developed.

This Nikon D600 is more than “fit for use”. To get FF at this price in this ergonomic body is a masterpiece of digital photography in the present technology life cycle.

Excellent FF quality becomes available now for many more aspiring users as ever before. And this is a major contribution from Nikon to the benefit of the markets.

ThomasSwitzerland wrote "no perfect software can be developed"

Incorrect. This is what people tell themselves to stop feeling bad after buying a dud product.
Software for simple and unified systems pretty much never fail. Take a calculator for example.
One could easily write code to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit, have it never fail, and it would be perfect software.
I have a 35+ year old camera that still works perfectly as the day it was purchased. Is that enough time to be able to call a camera design perfect?

"To get FF at this price in this ergonomic body is a masterpiece of digital photography in the present technology life cycle."

The 5DMKII is available right now at a cheaper price than the D600.
A second hand 5D comes in at a third of the price of a D600 and has just as much warranty as a D600 that the user has to keep cleaning the sensor on.

"major contribution from Nikon"

Tell that to the guys who have to clean their sensors so often.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 16, 2012 at 09:47 UTC

"1-in. (2.5 cm) sensor"
"CX-format 1in sensor"

Wrong.
It continually irks me how marketing companies can spin numbers and specs to make something seem what it is not. And then the number of people who fall for it.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2012 at 01:37 UTC as 46th comment | 2 replies

Glad to see Nikon has done something good with the one system, after only one generation at that. Now they just need good lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 05:02 UTC as 253rd comment | 1 reply

They made my dream cameras in the 70's.
40 years on and they still work like a charm, produce impeccable results, are smaller and lighter than current FF cameras, and are still available at a fraction of the price of something new.
The build quality and optics tend to outshine modern offerings as well.
Why look forward, when we can look back?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2012 at 06:39 UTC as 165th comment
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 sample images article (294 comments in total)

All I'm hearing in this thread is blah blah blah.
You are nit picking about images that have been softened through an AA filter, colour arranged via the Bayer filter pattern and then aligned in a pixel grid, the same way as the other 99% of digital cameras out there.
Then on top of that the whole lot is reassembled by the jpg algorithm, and then flyscreened through a 70-150dpi screen.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2012 at 13:21 UTC as 7th comment

I hope Ive knows knows enough about photograhy and camera control to make an effective design.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2012 at 13:39 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

acidic: "Images can be wirelessly transferred to external storage devices, uploaded to Facebook and YouTube,..."

OMG OMG OMG!!! I can finally upload quality photos to my social networking sites on the fly! Bye bye, stupid iphone!

Please, don't be silly.
L RAW + S JPEG quality mode solves your imaginary problem.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 10:57 UTC
In reply to:

SETI: 1/8000 is better than D600's 1/4000

You could improve the way you handle the camera and take photos instead. Learn to anticipate the action so you don't need so many AF points blocking your view, and become a better photographer in the process.
Just saying.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 10:52 UTC

Let's hope it doesnt have the spaghetti distortion of the similar 14mm f/2.8 FX lens.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2012 at 02:31 UTC as 13th comment
On Exhibition Review: 8x10 By Impossible article (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: What is the point when this impossible emulsion is junk compared to the genuine Polaroid stuff? Even expired polaroid looks better than what Impossible is doing.
And using their paying customers as a test bed is just sad considering the asking price.
No consistency. Fades very fast. and colours/tones are random.

Not a commentary on the artists involved, but why do it when you don't know what the results will look like?

Ahh, I just asked him and was told they likely don't want to pay the royalty fees for use of the emulsion. Which is insane considering the price one pays for Impossible film.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 4, 2012 at 11:05 UTC
Total: 233, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »