PIX 2015
Marty4650

Marty4650

Lives in United States NC, United States
Works as a Retired Industrial Engineer
Joined on May 20, 2005

Comments

Total: 1047, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Field Test: Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm F2.8 DN lenses article (161 comments in total)

I really wonder why Sigma doesn't market these lenses with Fuji X and Samsung NX mounts?

It may be just a question of volume, because anything that works for Sony E should work equally well for Fuji X and Samsung NX.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2015 at 21:21 UTC as 59th comment | 7 replies
On Field Test: Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm F2.8 DN lenses article (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

SeeRoy: These are daft focal lengths for MFT application since they more or less duplicate existing, reasonably priced equivalents (in many cases faster) from other brands - notably Olympus and Panasonic themselves.
Why "deceptively pleasing"? Are they in reality repulsive? Do explain.

I hope everyone understands that these lenses were designed for APS-C, and then adapted for MFT. This was because it is very easy to do, and still provides useful focal lengths for MFT users.

Consider the crop factor... for APS-C these are 28mm, 45mm, and 90mm equivalents. Three of the most popular prime lens types ever made.

For MFT, these lenses become 38mm 60mm and 120mm equivalents, still very useful but nothing anyone would call a classic focal length.

Sigma has never designed a lens for the 4/3 sensor. Even during the hey day of 4/3 when Sigma was offering 14 different lenses with 4/3 mounts... all 14 were really APS-C lenses.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2015 at 21:19 UTC
On Field Test: Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm F2.8 DN lenses article (161 comments in total)

Damien... very nice and very informative review. However I do have one minor quibble.

It is a mistake to call a 30mm lens designed for MFT or APS-C a "wide angle lens." Similarly, you really can't call a 60mm lens a "normal prime lens" either.

Since none of these lenses were designed for full frame, and no one would even think of using them on a full frame camera, why are we categorizing them AS IF they were full frame lenses?

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2015 at 21:11 UTC as 60th comment

It might be a bit cheaper to hire a professional photographer to follow you around and take snapshots of you.

Of course, it might not be as funny.

Just sayin'....

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 16:43 UTC as 159th comment

If these were branded by Hassleblad, they could sell for $62,000!

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 14:49 UTC as 182nd comment | 3 replies

Diminishing returns means a lot when you start talking about camera gear. You really have to spend a lot of money to get that extra marginal increase in results. And no amount of money can replace knowing how to make a good composition, or selecting the right subject to shoot. So I pretty much doubt that I could take advantage of the better B&W performance this camera would give me.

I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't want to own one of these.

But the problem for me is that the camera and lens costs around $10,000 together, which is the price of a good used car, or some other high end camera with 8 or 9 lenses.

So, I will continue to use my Olympus EM5 with my 25mm f/1.8 lens and just make B&W conversions in Photoshop, or using a good B&W conversion program. My results won't be as good, but I will have $10,000 more in my pocket....

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 20:12 UTC as 28th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

garyknrd: I am fairly new to photography ( since retirement ). I enjoy looking at the pics, but hard for me to justify the cost.
What is the difference in buying a Leica lens and putting it on your existing camera and snapping some pics?
Is there that much difference?

I tend to hold my cameras for years. I can afford it if I really wanted it. I just cannot seem to turn the corner.

I am beginning to think these are for long time pro's that gradually move into this type of shooting. Not sure.

To be clear about this... Leica just isn't a "good value."

But it never tries to be one. Their business plan is based on high margins with smaller volumes. They target those people who demand the very best and/or simply have money to burn. You can scoff at it, but it works for Leica, it works for Rolex, it works for Hermes, and it works for many other high end brands.

Leica, with it's tiny market share makes very healthy profits, while companies like Panasonic, Sony and Olympus are losing money making cameras. You just can't fault a company for making profits, even if they make products that wouldn't appeal to you or me.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 01:13 UTC

Leica virtually owns this market. Expensive, but where else can you get an extremely high quality monochrome camera?

This isn't a camera for me, but Leica knows what they are doing. They understand their customers.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 20:17 UTC as 76th comment | 8 replies

Those are the best quality photos I have ever seen coming from a smartphone.

Of course, the real question is.... how many smartphone users want, need, or are willing to pay for better quality photos? Over one billion smartphones were sold last year, and very few of them were purchased to take high quality photos.

You really don't need image quality this good for facebook posts or email attachments. So will these users pay a very high premium price to get better photos?

My guess is.... no.

Nice exercise in proving it can be done, but I think Apple and Samsung are safe.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 23:52 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zoron: Time to come up with a new body and new organs.

Precisely what is wrong with the current sensor, that could be fixed with a new one? Will a new sensor fix the problem of lack of Adobe support? Or will it fix the alleged problems with false details and false colors?

Do you really need a new sensor? Or is this just "more MP is better" talk? If you prefer a Bayer sensor, then there is always the X-A1 and X-A2 models. If you just want more resolution, then the Sony A7R might be the camera for you.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 15:06 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

@ ozgoldman

Yes, that was a horrible crime. And you will find others. You will find them everywhere in the world. If you look at this thread there were instances in Slovakia and Spain as well.

But the fact that there are a few abusive police officers doesn't justify this mass hysteria and media created "crisis." In every profession there are some bad apples, and police are not exempt from this.

Sensible people put things into context. And the facts are clear. There are 320 million Americans, and exactly 22 unarmed civilians were killed by police officers. Of those 11 were people of color.

And a portion of that 22 was very likely unjustified. Perhaps even all of them. Those were murders and they were wrong. The killers should be punished. But don't fool yourself into thinking that this misconduct is typical or common for the 1,100,000 police officers in the USA.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 01:38 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

Edgar.....

Give it up. You are wasting reason and logic on a man who has a history with the police and is already convinced that they are "all bad" and nothing you can say will change the way he feels.

Whether the police actually "harassed him" or not is irrelevant at this point. Because that one encounter with one police officer left a bad taste in his mouth.

So he know claims to be an expert on "all police, everywhere on earth." You cannot change this. No one can. He will go to his grave believing all police officers are inherently corrupt and brutal, because of his own anecdotal experience.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 15:44 UTC
On Samsung NX1 Review preview (1252 comments in total)

Let's see...... outstanding camera, two new outstanding lenses, every feature you might ever want, price isn't unreasonable for what it delivers.... looks like Samsung has raised the bar.

A well deserved gold rating.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 00:17 UTC as 234th comment
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

@ Edgar

What you and I experienced doesn't count. What really counts is what ill informed foreigners think counts. They know what really happens here. We don't know, because we "have blinders on."

They know, because someone told them.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 02:11 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

RStyga...

I was having some fun with you since you identified yourself as Australian in your profile, then denied you were one.

And, I doubt you actually read my post. If you did, you certainly didn't comprehend it. Is English your native language?

I clearly stated that these instances are rare, while you seem to be implying they aren't rare at all. You play the stereotype game by saying the police in the USA are out of control. And implying they have no regard for doing their job properly.

Did you fail to see the post above about a police shooting in Slovakia? Last I heard, that was in Europe and not in the USA. These things can happen ANYWHERE, but people like you seem to believe they are a "real problem in the USA" and nowhere else.

Exactly 21 unarmed civilians were shot by police last year in the USA. A nation of 320 million people. You are outraged by this. But are you also outraged by over 6,000 black people shot and killed by "other black people" in the same year?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 02:08 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

You folks need to be sensible, I know this is asking for a lot, but try it.

There are literally MILLIONS of police officers. If a very tiny percentage of them are abusive then you have thousands of anecdotal cases you can "read about."

I am NOT denying that this sometimes happens. What I am saying is this isn't the norm, as stated by all these hysterical Australians. If you read the comments here you might think the USA was a third world nation in central Africa run by warlords and corrupt police.

Why can't you apply perspective and context? Why must you always assume that isolated and rare instances are "very common?"

Every group of "millions" has bad apples. It is just plain foolish to assume that most police officers are abusive.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 12:54 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

I wasn't taking a wild guess, I was going by what you put in your profile. Perhaps you might want to revise your profile.

It says "Lives in Australia" with an Australian flag next to it.

What do you suppose people will suppose when you claim to be Australian then deny it later?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 04:00 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

Well, I suppose you folks in Australia know what really happens here in America.

I just have lived here for 66 years and have never actually wittnessed any police misconduct. I'm not saying it never happens, just that the actual incidence might be a lot lower than you "well informed" Aussies imagine it to be.

It just shows you what the "typical Australian citizen-style mentality" is. You just read something you want to believe, and then believe it, while ignoring the experiences of people who are actually there.

But the proof will be in the pudding. I predict these body cameras will do a lot more to vindicate police officers of false charges, than to convict them of wrong doing. We will see who is right.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 01:52 UTC

I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 21:57 UTC as 18th comment | 146 replies
On Sony sells half of its Olympus stake article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: Smart investment. They sold half of the stake they owned and made a $390 million capital gain on it. Which means they made the same gain on the other half they still have.

Sony made a potential $780 million profit on this brief investment. Which is probably the best investment they have made in a long time.

OK, lets review the math.

They bought 10% for Y50B, then sold half of it to JP Morgan for Y46B, meaning they got back almost everything they spent and still own 5% of Olympus!

This sounds like a pretty good investment to me. And this happened in LESS than three years! I wish I could manage my own portfolio so well.

The point you are missing is that Sony still owns 5% of Olympus, and has only spent Y4B to get that 5% after selling off the other 5%,

Direct link | Posted on Apr 1, 2015 at 21:52 UTC
Total: 1047, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »