sh10453

sh10453

Lives in United States Michigan, United States
Works as a Electrical & Computer Engineer
Joined on May 2, 2010
About me:

Been shooting since the days of Adam and Eve!

Comments

Total: 544, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

PetaPi: I think Canon paid a lot of money to get a positive article about the 80D.
Or did some favours to Amazon.
Grasping at straws.
Canon now has better blacks ? Is that it ?

@PetaPi,
Essentially, you are accusing DPR staff of having been bribed by Canon to publish this positive review.
You don't have any data, information, or a proof to show the world that the DPR staff is essentially, according to your statement, a bunch on unethical folks.
You have the right to dislike Canon, but your are making false statement, and the facts (presented by the article) are far louder than your shoot-from-the-hip false statements

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2016 at 17:40 UTC
On article DPReview is hiring! Software development manager (109 comments in total)
In reply to:

SDPharm: Number 1 task: make the site retina display compatible. A photography gear site not able to take advantage of modern high resolution display is shameful.

@PhotoKhan
"People like to buy Apple products to be "trendy" in spite of their consumer-abusing "walled garden" approach and their continued failure to deliver top-tech products.".

Good description.
Need to add that they like to brag about the outrageous price they paid as well!!
Kind'a reminds me of my wealthy neighbor who knew nothing about photography.
Back in the late 1990s, he bought a top of the line Nikon 35mm camera and a couple of expensive lenses.
Every time he wanted to mount or remove a film from the camera, or anything to do with batteries, he came knocking on my door so I'd do that for him.
I had set the camera for him to fully automatic, and that setting never changed!!
He loved to look "trendy", and to show off expensive gadgets that he hardly knew how to use!
After all, to each their own but I certainly do not have the image quality complaint that Apple hardware users seem to complain about.
Of course I never was, and never will be an Apple product customer.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2016 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Why is the Canon version (S) $200 more expensive than the Nikon version?

That's what I said.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 01:54 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Why is the Canon version (S) $200 more expensive than the Nikon version?

No it is not false, they are not the same price, as of now.
Scroll up.
At the moment, Amazon has reversed the price.
The Nikon mount is now $1,999, and the Canon is $1,799.
I'm assuming it's just an error. Eventually they'll get it right.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2016 at 19:15 UTC
In reply to:

pshummer: AF speed of my Sigma 150-600 C has substantially improved after I installed the new firmware update by a Sigma dock. Nikon/Canon should follow the Sigma's idea. The Sigma dock is such a huge time saver.

What is the maximum length of the lens (at max extension)?

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2016 at 02:13 UTC

Why is the Canon version (S) $200 more expensive than the Nikon version?

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2016 at 01:51 UTC as 4th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: "Up to" haha, I hate that qualifier. It's like a sale at the store, "up to 50% off". 99% of the stuff is 10% off, but there is a lone pair of socks somewhere in the back of the store that's 50% off.

Hopefully the Sigma update means real noticeable improvements for the majority of users.

Actually Sigma's statement says "Depending on shooting conditions, it is expected to increase autofocus speed by approximately 20%, to a maximum of 50%, during normal shooting as well as when using “Speed Priority” set through SIGMA Optimization Pro."

That sound to me like the user has to specify a focal length for the maximum improvement (optimization), and it means to me the "maximum" improvement cannot be achieved consistently across the entire zoom range.
In any case, 20% improvement is better than nothing.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2016 at 01:40 UTC
In reply to:

greypixelz: lame sony lame

do better next time: _listen_ to yr customers!

Actually it is nice to see Sony supporting customers with a firmware update, even for the 3 years old A6000.
That is much better than Panasonic, which has ignored customers issues with the messed up RAW files, in burst mode, on the LF1 and FZ200, which I have verified multiple times (and I would assume on other Panasonic cameras in high-speed burst mode; perhaps due to a common piece of the firmware).
That is the main reason I no longer buy Panasonic cameras.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 13:49 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: Is there any reason then that (fw2.0) A7mk2 owners whom will not be using G Master lenses need apply the new firmware?
Some folks seem to think that only the more 'important' features of firmware updates are stated by the manufacturers while other less important features are not stated.

The download page has a complete list / detail about the update, what it fixes, and what it adds.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 13:30 UTC
In reply to:

Konstantin Mineev: Wow! Update for my old Sony a7!
But I'm using only manual lenses: helios, takumar, fisheye & lensbaby,
some my examples: http://zoomvrn.ru/blog/lensbaby
It turns out that I do not get anything new? :(

On the download page of the firmware, there is a complete list of what the update will fix and / or the features it will add.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 13:14 UTC

Thanks for this update, Sony.
I wish Panasonic would take note and issue a firmware update to the LF1 and the FZ200 to fix the messed up RAW files in burst mode.
The update went fine. I see slight improvement on the A6000 when initially turned on.
This is just an initial observation after I updated last night.

The turn-on delay time was a bit annoying, but the most annoying thing on the A6000, for me, is the odd and very tight location of the SD card.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 13:10 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Juck: As someone pointed out on thedigitalpicture site,,, the exif on provided samples pics prove the samples have been extensively, almost comically, photoshopped.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17853

I did (from a Chinese web site), after a kind person here gave me a link.
RAW images look quite impressive.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 04:52 UTC

See this thread in the forum (someone here, "J_K", was kind enough to refer me to it).
The last link (with the password "cfae" has a zip file you can download. The file contains Canon RAW images.
The zip file is about 230MB in size.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57094466

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2016 at 17:07 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

sh10453: Looks good on paper (f/2, T/3.2).
Real world, out-of-the-camera images, reliability, build quality, etc., remain to be seen.
If the lens proves to be a serious competitor to the Minolta/Sony version (in all the above aspects), then they've got themselves a hell of a winner.

For now, I'll wait for the RAW images and the reviews by "Verified Purchasers" on various sites, such as Amazon.

Thanks. Downloaded 2 sets of images (one set is RAW files).
Very sharp images. Smooth bokeh.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2016 at 16:58 UTC

Thanks for this review, Dan.
I have been seriously considering buying this lens, mainly for the 600mm reach, although I've never had a Tamron lens (or any EF lens other than Canon lenses).
Now that has been put on hold due to the focus hunting / missed shots issues.
Not very good when trying to capture birds in flight.
I hope a firmware or a hardware update can address these issues.
It's a lot of lens for its reasonable price.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2016 at 15:50 UTC as 5th comment

Looks good on paper (f/2, T/3.2).
Real world, out-of-the-camera images, reliability, build quality, etc., remain to be seen.
If the lens proves to be a serious competitor to the Minolta/Sony version (in all the above aspects), then they've got themselves a hell of a winner.

For now, I'll wait for the RAW images and the reviews by "Verified Purchasers" on various sites, such as Amazon.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 13:56 UTC as 20th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Juck: As someone pointed out on thedigitalpicture site,,, the exif on provided samples pics prove the samples have been extensively, almost comically, photoshopped.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17853

Post-processing is OK for an individual / photographer.
However, what matters to me in pictures of a new product (or a reviewed product) is the out of camera pictures.

So post processing in such cases is misleading, and it gives the impression that the product is much better than it actually is.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 13:43 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?

" ... Cigarettes in advertising should have vanished in history a long time ago."
Maybe not in China.
I guess they figure that the daily city smog and other pollution is 100 times (at least) more harmful to people than smoking. So what's the point of banning smoking advertisement, or even smoking!!!
But of course a company catering to the International crowd should be careful and more sensitive when projecting its image to the outside world.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 13:33 UTC
In reply to:

PKDanny: My A* 135 1.8 is perfect!!!!

Of course it is. I can see its results in your DPR Gallery.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 13:16 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I'm a huge fan of the Minolta/Sony 135mm STF, so this sounds great (and did when I first heard of it quite a while ago), but I'm still a tad confused. Isn't the particular method of making this apodization element patented by Minolta? My guess is that either the patent on the apodization element built by pairing smoked and plain opposing glass elements just expired or they slip by the Minolta patent because their pair doesn't form an optical flat. Still, isn't the STF name a Minolta/Sony trademark?

Anyway, assuming they have the rights to build and name it as they did, this is an awesome option to have at close to half the price of the 135mm f/2.8 STF....

Maybe they bought a license to use the STF designation, assuming that it is a registered trade-mark (to Minolta/Sony).

Patents are good for about 20 years, but there are variations from one country to the other.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 13:13 UTC
Total: 544, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »