nicolaiecostel

nicolaiecostel

Lives in Romania Timisoara, Romania
Works as a photographer
Joined on Aug 16, 2011

Comments

Total: 234, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

DamenS: I love Nikon - but they are still one of the most stupid companies in existence ... how could they screw the pooch this badly ?

You are either trolling or missing the point altogether. They did this "pooch" very much rightly, and this cannot cost as much as the D610 for obvious reasons .. sensor, body build, optical viewfinder ...

Jeez ..

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2013 at 07:54 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

beavertown: When Sony and Olympus get more than 1000 msgs, it is only because they release innovative products.

Nikon only gets more than 1000 msgs because they screw up everytime.

What Nikon need to do is to listen.

Bye

What you need to do is post a fair post, not troll Nikon, who offers what both Sony and Olympus do not. Bye

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2013 at 07:54 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

I don't think I've ever seen so many trolls and nay-sayers gathered in one place.
Even when Nikon fulfills the age-old wishes of the majority, it's still not good enough.

For 10 years I hear people wanting a digital FM, a retro dSLR with a retro 35 mm sensor. Now you got it and the design stinks. Cause it's old and retro ..

For years I hear people wanting a low MP high sensitivity sensor in an affordable model, just like the D700 was. Not that 16 Mp is low, but now you got it, and it's too low on resolution (Looool !). I print 35x70 cm high quality photo albums from my puny D700.

And it's really affordable (1/2 price compared to a D4, but same sensor so same IQ, and that's just to start), and it's plenty fast (5.5 FPS, decisive moments are shot and were shot with manual Leica's .. how many FPS ?), and it's damn sexy, and I could go on all day.

For me, this is a dream come true and the only thing I hate is the sh*t AF taken from the D7000. The rest of you don't deserve this camera.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2013 at 07:25 UTC as 366th comment | 7 replies

I don't get it, why are all the sites reporting on this, this is just a commercial ..

The guy could have said anything, he is being paid !

This only proves that you can do hollyday pictures that look good, with your camera phone.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2013 at 08:50 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

CarlPH: New Lens Release articles should have this warning:

Brace yourselves, the DOF equivalency posts are coming!

In terms of light gathering capability, this will behave like a f/1.2 ..
In terms of angle of view, this will behave like an 85
In terms of equivalent depth of field, this will behave like a 85 2.x

DOF is one thing and it varies with sensor size here, aperture is another.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2013 at 02:44 UTC

Hipster p*rn.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2013 at 03:52 UTC as 26th comment
On Just posted: Our Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens review article (81 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: Better late than never. This lens has been out a long time, guys.

I think DP Review is losing focus. Perhaps.

They review by the sales chart. The 1Dx and D4, or this 40 mm, do not generate as much traffic as, say, the review of the HTC One, or the new rebel thingie from canon.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2013 at 17:51 UTC
On Just posted: Our Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens review article (81 comments in total)
In reply to:

white shadow: Once in a while, Canon would produce some exceptional and affordable lenses, the 40mm f/2.8 being one of the latest.

The others are:
1) 70-200mm f/4.0L IS
2) 135mm f/4.0L IS
3) 50mm f/1.8

and the not so cheap but excellent 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkII.

A very convenient lens to have on a full frame camera, not so bad even on an APS-C DSLR.

However, for me, I still prefer my Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 on my 5DMkII as it balance better, have better micro-contrast, more neutral colours and have an infinity stop. Obviously, the Zeiss is in a different league and price range but if quality is your main priority this is it. Good to have choices.

For those on a budget, the Canon 40mm f/2.8 is hard to beat.

How is the 50 1.8 exceptional ? I bought one for a friend and below f/2.8 it was soft and missed focus. And I have seen plenty other shots from it on the internet, showing the same pattern.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2013 at 17:49 UTC

CGI much ?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2013 at 23:57 UTC as 20th comment

Capture One Pro rocks !!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2013 at 04:42 UTC as 3rd comment
On Nikon D5200, 24MP DSLR with 39-point AF gets US launch article (37 comments in total)

So, a D40 style body, at 900 dollars with a kit lens. You must be smoking some really strong stuff to fall for this one.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2013 at 22:04 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
On Just Posted: Nikon 1 V2 Preview Samples article (226 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ak pinxit: why processed photos are so grainy ?

Cause it's a 1 inch sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2013 at 22:39 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon 1 V2 Preview Samples article (226 comments in total)
In reply to:

rusticus: again a camera that no one really needs

nikon - please build a digital F3 with a FF sensor, no frills for 1000 Euro

The FF sensor alone would cost 1000. The limited production run and the special requests for it would probably take it closer to 10.000 than 1000.

Go buy an Olympus OMD EMD EM DM5, or a Fuji XPro 1.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2013 at 22:38 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon 1 V2 Preview Samples article (226 comments in total)
In reply to:

wootpile: I've said it before and I'll say it 1000 times.

The Nikon 1 series make me sad.

In all Nikon history, I have never seen such a let-down. These are cameras that are solely meant for the fashion fans. It may be selling quite well, but it is a shameful blot on the Nikon brand.

Nikon: please reconsider. Give us a commpetitive mirrorless system, not a bling accessory.

Yeah, like the coolpix series is a gem. Or that P7000 I tried out. It's just marketing, and if this kind of product needs to be put on the market, so it can sell millions and fund the next generation of full-frame cameras, then bring it on !

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2013 at 22:36 UTC
On Just posted: Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM lens review article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

jivers: Looks great and reasonable value given its construction. What's next Sigma? A 24 and an 85 would be nice.

The 85 has been available for some time now. In fact, I have it for a year or so. Judgingby how good it is, if I could afford the 35 right now, it would be on preorder. Also, sigma has a 24 1.8, you could get it until the 1.4 appears.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2012 at 10:19 UTC
On Just Posted: Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Preview Samples article (81 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: Looks like a very good lens. I just bought a Nikon 28 1.8G which is fantastic, so I'm not sure I need a 35mm lens between it, and my 50 1.8G. But, this lens, along with the Samyang 35 1.4 are definitely two top choices at the low to mid price range. I cannot think of a better choice than the Nikon 35 1.4, but I'm sure my wife can.

Seriously, you don't need a 35 between a 28 and a 50. Actually, if you have a 35, you don't really need a 28 or a 50, depending on your style. If focal lenghth is so important to you, just buy a zoom, the 24-70 is all you will ever need.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2012 at 22:27 UTC
On Just Posted: Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Preview Samples article (81 comments in total)

Well, it doesn't look like it's going to be on par with the canon L or the nikon G, but at roughly half the price, in my country, it would be naive to expect that. The image quality is decent, vignetting is acceptable, not much chromatic abberation, pretty good sharpness. I don't relally like the colors, they are pretty bland, sigma style, or maybe it's that canon sensor. Also, the bokeh isn't something to rave about, the highlights are pretty dissapoiting, showing a texture in the highlight blobs. This being said, this lens does cost about 800E brand new in the store, so the only real choices for this money or less are the f/2 lenses from canon/nikon, if you want AF, that is.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2012 at 21:33 UTC as 28th comment | 3 replies

Well, it''s not really going to be as good as the nikkor, nor as good as the canon. i tested them both and they are really good. I also tested the 85 1.4 AFs nikon and it's stunning, a bit better than my sigma 85 1.4. The canons are also very good, with some CA wide open though. This sigma will be nicely sharp at 1.4, with minimal CA and spherical aberration, decent color rendition. The nikkor will render color better, will have better contrast wide open, will have less CA and you will probably never have to worry about calibration on it. At twice the price. The choice is really up to the user, and since I cannot afford or justify the nikkor, and my 35 f/2 is limiting me somewhat, this 35 sigma seems like a logical choice.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2012 at 23:49 UTC as 17th comment | 5 replies

I am a prime lens guy, so I am naturally not that swayed by these pictures. The vignetting seems quite bad, in picture nr.2 it's so pronounced it seems added in PP. I don't realy like the colors (there are many variables here though) or the bokeh but the sharpness looks ok, and with the added VR at 1000 euros, I think it's a good compromise.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2012 at 16:06 UTC as 43rd comment
On PT3C9573 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (4 comments in total)

Is this vignetting intentional ? I sure hope it is..

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2012 at 10:53 UTC as 4th comment
Total: 234, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »