Caerolle

Caerolle

Lives in United States IN, United States
Has a website at http://500px.com/carolteater
Joined on Jul 23, 2013

Comments

Total: 114, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Adobe details OS support for next version of Lightroom article (192 comments in total)
In reply to:

j900: I guess Adobe knows what the photographic community as a whole thinks of their subscription business model...

Me, I love it. Lr and Ps for $120 a year. Constant updates.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 03:19 UTC
On Adobe details OS support for next version of Lightroom article (192 comments in total)
In reply to:

dgeugene1: Is this really necessary? I seem able to make good pictures with stone age software.

If you are able to make great pics with stone age software, keep using it.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 03:17 UTC
On Adobe details OS support for next version of Lightroom article (192 comments in total)
In reply to:

karlwunsch: Why not making it available on Linux as well?

Wow, linux is such utter crap. I have used like ten different distros, some for months, and the way to tell you are using linux is nothing works, not even the crap open-source stuff that is available. About like Windows and Mac stuff from 15 years ago, and not really moving ahead. In ten years, it will be still stuck in 2000.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 03:17 UTC
On Adobe details OS support for next version of Lightroom article (192 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: Are we discussing 64 bit in 2015 for PCs? Phones in 2015 will turn 64 bit....

electrophoto: Yeah, the Df and Fuji users want their 1960s back.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 03:14 UTC
On 2014 Readers' Polls: The results are in! article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

joe6pack: The list look fine to me. But A7 II rated best? How many readers actually touched the camera? Let alone trying or owning?

Well, it is a unique concept. Maybe someday you can even buy good native lenses for it, instead of good native lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 03:08 UTC
On 2014 Readers' Polls: The results are in! article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Looks like Canon has taken 2014 off..

They are continuing their hibernation from 2013. But they sell more cameras, and are making money, so they don't care. Let someone else make the cool and exciting stuff, I guess. But hey, see that Think Impossible ad campaign? lol

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 03:07 UTC
On 2014 Readers' Polls: The results are in! article (249 comments in total)

Wow, X-T1, Best Camera. I will never understand that. Pretty camera, though.

edit: Ooops, Runner-up. I guess there were two runners-up. How it beat the D750 is beyond me, though, and I hate Nikon cameras. Size and weight, I guess, and old-dude controls.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 03:01 UTC as 55th comment | 2 replies
On Budget X: Hands-on with Fujifilm's new X-A2 article (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

munchaussen: oh yeah! selfies are more important than EVFs
...

-was that sarcasm?

-nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
-was that sarcasm?

-YES!

Like, DOOOOOD! Can you even SEE yourself in an EVF-thingy??? I didn't THINK so!!!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2015 at 23:32 UTC
In reply to:

Nukunukoo: Now if Sigma starts making lenses for them Sammys... s**** gonna get real.

It isn't just in viewfinder sizing, it is in the photo, too (really, how could it only be in the viewfinder?). And it is not due to different distances to subject when switching between the Canon lenses and the Sigma, because 1) the Sigma always has wider angle of view, it isn't random, and 2) as part of any comparison I do, I shoot from a tripod, and switch lenses without moving the camera. Also, the tendency to shorter-than-indicated focal lengths has been noted in a DPR review, on the page where they show the angle-of-view on 35mm and APS-C. The 50 Art is not bad, but if you shoot side-by-side, the 85 striking when compared with a Canon 85. I never hear anyone else mention this, so likely people generally aren't doing direct comparisons at the same time (or just get closer).

And yes, other than focal length, my issues are mostly subjective. The images are great, I just don't much like using the lenses. Crude and unrefined. Just like with Fuji.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2015 at 13:21 UTC
On Gary Fong launches virtual camera tutorial service article (147 comments in total)

I'm guessing there will be no tutorial on setting up focus options on the 7D MkII, lol.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2015 at 01:35 UTC as 29th comment
In reply to:

Suave: I admit, it's a really interesting camera, but $1300 for a matching standard zoom is a boatload of money.

Androole, it is too slow, has bad corners, and the bokeh is awful. Yes, it is sharp in the center! I thought the distortion was much higher than that without software correction, but that is usually not much of an issue in a normal lens. Really, it is part of Samsung's 'Carry' group, made to be cheap and light, not to be a high-end lens. Hopefully they will fill out there range with primes matched to the NX1, but mostly what they have now were made for the little cheap LCD cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 19:12 UTC
In reply to:

Nukunukoo: Now if Sigma starts making lenses for them Sammys... s**** gonna get real.

Lassoni, all I know is what I say in the lenses, and in my photos. If you are talking about the magnification factor, that is at minimum focal distance, and is not what I was talking about. Maybe I didnt phrase it well, by 'magnifying' I just meant how big the image looked in the viewfinder, and how much of the frame it filled.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 17:35 UTC
In reply to:

Greg VdB: I have large hands and from an ergonomical point of view I´d never want my main camera to be smaller than the Eos 70D I currently use (a bit bigger like the 40D I used before is even better). So I'll happily buy a mirrorless in three years time, on the premise that it has to be LARGE ENOUGH. The larger-than-necessarry body can then be filled with an XL battery so that it equals or even improves on battery life over dslr's.

Yes, not the battery grip, the aftermarket screw-on things, and things that actually slide in the flash shoe to hook your thumb on. Pretty hilarious, to me.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

Caerolle: "Mirrorless to outsell DSLRs 'in three years'"

lolol

The worst thing is how most of the effort seems to be put into video for most mirrorless these days, rather than stills.

And finally, Samsung, like Sony, is well short of a compelling lens system. Plus, I heard their lens opening or flange distance or something really intrinsic to the mount is all wrong. Well, and being Samsung, I would guess they have a bunch of useless 'whiz-bang' features that are far more trouble than they are worth, and get in the way.

Other than that, way to go Samsung!

Oh, I imagine their menus suck, too.

And BTW, wasnt it Samsung that made those adds about cameras not needing to look like dSLRs? By putting their little cameras in a dSLR body or something?

I hope they are successful, and that mirrorless in general moves ahead. My comment about their menus was based on their phones, which I consider a mess. I like pure, simple Android.

Really, if LensRentals.com offered Samsung stuff, I would have already tried it. I cannot afford to to evaluate another system by buying stuff, though, I have already been through that twice with Sony NEX and Fuji X-mount.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 17:20 UTC
In reply to:

Nukunukoo: Now if Sigma starts making lenses for them Sammys... s**** gonna get real.

Lassoni, Sigma seems to have a reputation for their lenses being slightly shorter than the stated focal length, DPR has mentioned this in reviews. It has nothing to do with sensor, is just how the lens is made. Compared to the Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 (I don't know about the 50/1.8), the 50 Art has less angle of view and 'magnification'; things at the same camera-to-subject distance look smaller, and fill less of the frame.

The 50 Art is not as bad as the 85/1.4. The first time I used that one, in a comparison with my Canon 85/1.8, I kinda went, "Whoa! What the Hell???". I don't know what the actual focal length is, but it looks more like a 75 than it does like an 85. Very dramatic. I was not too impressed with the lens in general, but even if I liked it otherwise, the short focal length kills it for me.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 16:08 UTC
In reply to:

Nukunukoo: Now if Sigma starts making lenses for them Sammys... s**** gonna get real.

Yes, to each their own. The 'quality' I refer to has nothing to do with weight, though, that is just a factor in owning the lens or not. And image is beyond fine, it is excellent, especially for the price. I didn't even have any problems with focus shift, though focus precision was not that great (focusing on the same thing multiple times was variable).

I forgot about the focus ring, that was another thing that reminded me of Fuji primes, the heavy, rough focus ring. Overall, I just found the operation of the lens to be at a lower level than Canon lenses. And the one I used came from LensRentals.com, so I don't think it was just a bad copy.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

Nukunukoo: Now if Sigma starts making lenses for them Sammys... s**** gonna get real.

Optically, the 50 Art is amazing. There even is almost no astigmatism in the corners. However, like the 85, it is not a full 50, though nowhere near as bad short as the 85. Operationally, I really disliked it. It reminded me more of a Fuji lens than any other lens I have ever used: slow focus, loud, and clunky. Plus, it is huge and heavy. I realize that is a result of the amazing optical corrections, but for me it would really be a specialty lens, not one to carry around (a 50 is on my camera constantly for carry around).

The 50 Art certainly kills the Canon 50/1.2 in most ways, other than balance and focus smoothness. I rented both for several days and shot a lot with them, trying to find something to replace my 50/1.4, or at least add to it. The Canon was horrible for what I do, because of the extreme focus shift at wide apertures. And for the extra weight and size (and price), and the crude focus operation, the 50 Art didn't seem worth it either. So I am still using my 50/1.4.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 13:59 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: Outsell? I actually believe it. Mirrorless will be more appealing to the masses. Ma's and pa's looking for simple family photos will prefer the smaller, lighter and more portable options. And honestly, mirrorless is closing the performance gap to make it good enough for most consumers. Pros will never outnumber amateurs so I don't see why people don't think mirrorless will outsell DSLRs. I also don't understand why ppl are upset at this eventuality.

Dash, with Canon, you are going to pay for each level of features, They dont throw in anything that would threaten the next level up. Canon is so profitable because they shamelessly extract every last penny out of everything they develop. If they dont make sausage and hotdogs and bologna, they should, because they would be killer at anything that requires scraping every last eyeball and piece of hide off the processing floor and selling it.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 03:47 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: Outsell? I actually believe it. Mirrorless will be more appealing to the masses. Ma's and pa's looking for simple family photos will prefer the smaller, lighter and more portable options. And honestly, mirrorless is closing the performance gap to make it good enough for most consumers. Pros will never outnumber amateurs so I don't see why people don't think mirrorless will outsell DSLRs. I also don't understand why ppl are upset at this eventuality.

Lee, the thing I like most about mirrorless is on-sensor focus. For my needs, it is fast enough, and the #1 thing I hate about my dSLR is focus inaccuracy. I wind up using Live View for critical focus shots at lot, and I like that mirrorless lets you use Live View in a viewfinder, instead of having to use the back of the camera. In another couple or three generations, they might even have EVFs that are as good as an OVF for really seeing things, at least I hope so.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 03:43 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: Outsell? I actually believe it. Mirrorless will be more appealing to the masses. Ma's and pa's looking for simple family photos will prefer the smaller, lighter and more portable options. And honestly, mirrorless is closing the performance gap to make it good enough for most consumers. Pros will never outnumber amateurs so I don't see why people don't think mirrorless will outsell DSLRs. I also don't understand why ppl are upset at this eventuality.

dash, when Canon needs to make a video, they use a 5DIII with Magic Lantern installed, lol. Even they admit they cripple their cameras, at least to themselves.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 03:38 UTC
Total: 114, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »