bbbinohio

bbbinohio

Lives in United States Elyria, United States
Works as a Investment Advisor
Joined on Nov 18, 2009

Comments

Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15
In reply to:

mugupo: Overprice... Should have been ASPC sensor or price point under $1000.

SONY, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE....

follow this great little camera up with a sister camera with a superb 200mm-800mm f/4 lens.

You do that and I will sell everything I own and only carry those to cameras for everything.

I would gladly pay $3,000.00 for such a combo, that would not only be compact, easy to carry and simple to use, but would also allow me to never have to fumble around changing a lenses again.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE....

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2013 at 14:07 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rubenski: DPR Wrote: 'We've spent an inordinate amount of time in the preparation of this review getting things just so in order to reap what we feel the D800 is capable of producing'.

Somewhere else I read you're talking about using tripod, cable release, mirror lock up. Is that what you mean (and of course the best glass)? But that's pretty standard rule if you want to get the best results. Please explain further because now it sounds a bit like the D800 is great but only if you do 'special' things with it.

Hi Mike.

I respect your knowledge and bow to it. However I disagree with your assessment of the D800 being a special camera for only limited specific uses. To me, with the exception of photography that requires high fame rates, the D800 is the most well rounded camera ever made. Not only is it a great landscape camera, because it's lighter than the average FF camera, and because it is terrific in low light, it becomes a great "walk-around" camera. And while a tripod might be necessary to get the absolute most out of the 36MP, it certainly isn't typically necessary to get results that are consistently far more detailed than anything else on the market.

Please realize that this is just my very humble opinion however. :)

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 21:00 UTC
In reply to:

Tape5: This is not a camera with a care free point and press ten frames a second D4 or 5DIII type of attitude. At this pixel count ( medium format aside ) it needs good light, good glass, good technique, good subject, good processing and a good printer to shine.

If any one of these elements are missing, you will get average results and will be punished by your three grand investment.

That depends on what you call "average results". If you mean results that are less than optimal, but results that are still SIGNIFICANTLY better than ANYTHING that you could have gotten from a D700, D3 or D3s, EVEN if you had perfect lighting, perfect technique, the best glass, a great subject, good processing and a good printer. Then yes, I agree with you, the D800 will only give you "average results".

I can live with that.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2012 at 15:28 UTC
In reply to:

drissised: it's a good camera for pro's ...

Yeah, I agree. It's really only good for pro's... and of course advanced amateurs... OH... and enthusiasts.... and then it's probably good for people who like to shoot in low light as it's got better low light focusing and lower noise than the D700... Oh yeah... landscape photographers... and architectural photographers... and of course portrait photographers.... and it's perfectly suited for macro photographers... Oh, and because of it's great low light capability, cropping capability, not to mention it's color depth it would be a wedding photographers... Oh.. and because Nikon cut down on the weight, it would probably be pretty good for travel photographers... and street photographs... and don't forget it would most certainly be good for anyone who was concerned about image quality, as it currently has the best IQ on the planet....

Outside of those few... I think everyone else should buy Canon.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 12:24 UTC
In reply to:

bradleyg5: Wow that's some nasty noise and detail loss over ISO 3200, great nature cam but better options available for events/people.

LOL

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 11:56 UTC

I wonder if these shots were all hand-held, or did DPR use a tripod with any of them???

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 10:36 UTC as 64th comment
On Nikon D800 preview (1110 comments in total)
In reply to:

thejohnnerparty: This might possibly be a dream camera, but I do have some concerns about the file size. Being an amateur, I'm hoping for a D400 at around 24 MP.

A D400, DX, 24 MP, that has excellent low light focusing and that shoots at approx 8 FPS (or more)...??? I'm pretty sure that's coming REALLY SOON. (next 90 days).

Throw a 70-200mm with a Nikon TC-20E III on it, and I think it will be the perfect complement to the D800E.

One for telephoto work and one for standard and wide photography.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2012 at 04:00 UTC
On Nikon D800 preview (1110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lensflair: people seem to get caught up in the megapixel side of things and think bigger is better. My worry is 36MP squeezed onto a chip that in medium format terms would be described as very small. Everything comes at a price and I wouldn't be pre-ordering something like this until I had seen a real life result of how well it actually shoots. Is it a technical or marketing innovation breakthrough, especially considering Canon seem to be consolidating their MP counts. I suspect the image quality will not live up to expectations but people wont care as its more important to brag about the size of the MP's one has. I could be wrong but I don't expect it to get anywhere near medium format standards and in fact struggle against the 17-22MP cameras. Should be interesting though...

Without question, the D3S is a GREAT camera! But the D800 is going to absolutely blow it away in every aspect related to image quality. On top of that the D800 will match the D3S stop for stop in low light, high ISO shooting when the images are compared at identical sizes.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2012 at 03:47 UTC
In reply to:

bbbinohio: I personally love HDR, and I don't really understand why so many other photographers go out of their way to hate it so much. When done right it can be absolutely jaw dropping!

And I agree, it is often a MUCH more accurate representation of what a person would have actually seen if he had the ability to be standing next to the photographer witnessing the scene.

There is nothing wrong with using the shadows that a camera forces on your photo, if that is the artistic direction that you are trying to achieve with your photography. However, if you have the ability to lift those shadows and present to your audience a photographic representation that much more closely resembles what the human eye would have seen, then I think that by all means, lift the veil and let your audience see what they truly could have seen if they had been there standing next to you.

Then let's do it accurately! Let's take advantage of HDR's superior image reproduction techniques that allow the viewer to see the whole scene and if we drop anything, let's STOP USING OUT DATED PHOTOGRAPHY TECHNIQUES THAT ARE QUITE OFTEN COMPLETELY INACCURATE BECAUSE OF THE AWFUL SHADOWS THEY FORCE ON THE PHOTOGRAPHER!!!

Of course this is just my meek and very humble opinion...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2012 at 17:13 UTC
In reply to:

peter42y: HDR does reproduce with much more accuracy what human eye can see in a certain moment. It does not make sense to condemn it.
Sean Elliot claims " photographers should respect the integrity of the digital moment ".
What is the definition of digital moment ?
Sean Elliot stance is like condemning color pictures because it does violate the integrity of the analogical moment lol .
(And after all colors id digital photography do not exactly reproduce real life colors anyway )

Those are GORGEOUS!!!

And even though these examples are ones that certainly have an "artistic" touch to them, even these reveal a whole lot more of the actual visual scene that was available to the photographer's eye than the typical photograph does.

Don't be so afraid... they won't bite.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2012 at 17:06 UTC

I personally love HDR, and I don't really understand why so many other photographers go out of their way to hate it so much. When done right it can be absolutely jaw dropping!

And I agree, it is often a MUCH more accurate representation of what a person would have actually seen if he had the ability to be standing next to the photographer witnessing the scene.

There is nothing wrong with using the shadows that a camera forces on your photo, if that is the artistic direction that you are trying to achieve with your photography. However, if you have the ability to lift those shadows and present to your audience a photographic representation that much more closely resembles what the human eye would have seen, then I think that by all means, lift the veil and let your audience see what they truly could have seen if they had been there standing next to you.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2012 at 14:54 UTC as 84th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Claudio Pinchi: I really don't understand all these complaints about DOF of M43. I recently bought a GH2 and (among others) the Leica Summilux 25 f1,4 and I can honestly say that DOF and bokeh are absolutely first quality, also compared to the same lens on my 5D (Canon ef 50 f1,4). Seems that many people ignore that DOF is influenced not only from aperture but also distance from subject. I will not buy these new lenses probably... but honestly who can say a 24-70 f2,8 is not an interesting lens? Kit lens in m43 is really poor in quality. People that look for more image quality (at the expense of portability) will surely buy this zoom. What make IMHO m43 still a little lower step to DSLR is the small choice of high level lens. If I look to the shots of my GH2 compared with ones took with DSLR with APS sensor and standard lens... i can say... NO GAME! The small m43 lens make more simple to reach high optical quality.

P.S: i beg your pardon for my poor english ;-)

Everyone on the Nikon Lens forum is saying that most everyone here is incorrect.

They are saying that a F/2.8 is still a F/2.8 on a cropped sensor camera.

That a F/2.8 does NOT become a F/4 on a 4/3rds body. It stays a F/2.8.

Now, which is it????

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 02:44 UTC
In reply to:

pedromeyer: Depending on what your intention was, of asking the worst possible photographer to test drive the camera and lens, I would think it was a gross mistake to be so careless and uninterested in what you offer your readers. Absolute lack of professionalism, I might think. Unless you of course wanted to make SONY and Zeiss appear in the worst possible light intentionally. I think an apology to your readers is merited.

How far away do you think you are from a full review of the NEX-7 camera (and possibly the lens also)?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2011 at 03:46 UTC

PHENOMENAL !!!

I don't know what's wrong with the rest of your eyesight, but that lens is amazing on the NEX-7!! It produces better photos than ANY of the Nikon DSLR's (with the possible exception of the D3x)!!! And just so that you know, I owned a D700 and a 24-70mm and a 14-24mm.

In my opinion, there is nothing close to this combo.

I am buying it FOR SURE. (and getting rid of the rest of my equipment).

This is the way to go.

I am already planning my trips!!!

Bob from Ohio

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2011 at 02:10 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies
On Sony unveils four lenses for A and E mounts article (37 comments in total)

I just sold my Nikon D700 and now I am selling my 14-24mm and my 24-70mm. For me, this is clearly the way to go. I don't believe ANYONE will be making a DSLR in 3 years. Mirrors are mechanical dinosaurs and all but GONE!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2011 at 13:02 UTC as 4th comment
Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15