Cane

Cane

Joined on Jun 25, 2012

Comments

Total: 447, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On X-Transformed? Fujifilm X30 Review article (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: This camera looks great when you compare it to almost 3 year old cameras like the LX7 that were half the price of the X30. However, when you compare it to modern cameras(Rx100 MK III and LX100) you will see that its undersized sensor is its Achilles’ heel.

Yes the RX100 MK III and LX100 are more expensive than the X30. However, the extra money is well worth it. The X30 is a nice effort but they simply choose the wrong sensor size. It needs at least a 1 inch sensor and closer to 4/3” would have been much better.

@cgaard- If a camera flops around when you put it in your pocket, how big are your pockets? You may need a fashion makeover for pants.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2015 at 14:20 UTC
On B-grip launches Uno holster for compact system cameras article (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bangers and Mash: Dumbest thing I've seen in awhile. The idea is to take the weight off from around one's neck. Is that necessary with a small system camera like what's shown. Besides that, it looks stupid. I guess you could practice your quick draw. Who knows, someone might come out with a competition. The fastest draw and exposure contest. Good grief!

It can't look any more stupid than a neck strap. That's still a whole other level of nerdsville.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2015 at 19:21 UTC
On B-grip launches Uno holster for compact system cameras article (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

En Trance: Only thing I hate more than Stupid Crap are the People that Love it.

....and attending anger management classes?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2015 at 19:19 UTC
On B-grip launches Uno holster for compact system cameras article (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

ChowMonkey: This looks rather silly.

What looks silly is wearing a neck strap. Unless your goal is to repel women.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2015 at 19:19 UTC
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: Hmmm... The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S sells for $1800. That's $1600 less than the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM.

What should I do?

Pins and needles, needles and pins.

@wedding photog. I wasn't talking to you.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2015 at 14:24 UTC
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: Hmmm... The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S sells for $1800. That's $1600 less than the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM.

What should I do?

Pins and needles, needles and pins.

lol. You are definitely not its intended customer.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2015 at 12:18 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: I've always wondered why people are so obsessive about having a lens that's rectilinear "in-the-glass" in this focal range. The perspective distortion is already so radical and surreal in the 11-15mm range that you might as well just digitally de-fish (using an open-source program like Hugin) and get an even wider image.

I guess the rectilinear lens has somewhat higher resolution in the corners, and makes framing easier. But for a 10x higher pricetag, I can deal with those compromises, thanks...

The right tool for the job. If you need to half azz it with a fish eye and then de-fish it to save a nickel, you aren't even in the ballpark of the crowd that this lens is made for. It's just a terrible, and cheap, way to shoot wide angle.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 17:48 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: I've always wondered why people are so obsessive about having a lens that's rectilinear "in-the-glass" in this focal range. The perspective distortion is already so radical and surreal in the 11-15mm range that you might as well just digitally de-fish (using an open-source program like Hugin) and get an even wider image.

I guess the rectilinear lens has somewhat higher resolution in the corners, and makes framing easier. But for a 10x higher pricetag, I can deal with those compromises, thanks...

Do you ask wildlife shooters why they pay so much for long glass when they could just shoot with a nifty fifty and crop?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 14:37 UTC

It's official, you people can find anything to complain about. Geesh.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2015 at 15:52 UTC as 9th comment

And it looks like every other camera backpack. Very cutting edge.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 17, 2015 at 00:23 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

moji: Can someone tell me how a camera bag looks like? I wonder what is the idea with a bag which "doesn't scream camera bag" when you open it and bring out an expensive looking camera out of it!

It shouldn't look like the worst work satchel you'd ever buy, with some shinny bits, a big name plate, and a complete lack of any style. Seriously, if that first bag was something you had to bring to your non-photography day job, it would look like you got it for free somewhere. I get it that old people gave up on style decades ago, but there are still humans left that don't want to repel women. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2015 at 16:30 UTC

Why do camera bags need to look like camera bags? Hard to tell the difference from one company to the next. And no, I don't want your logo on it.

And why does dpr only post info about new bags that carry an entire system at once come out? Not everyone only needs bags to care a few camera bodies and a bunch of lenses at once...oh, and their lunch, car keys, make-up...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2015 at 15:03 UTC as 19th comment

Is there a version for men, because I'm not seeing one?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 21:20 UTC as 38th comment

Why does Sony let Zeis make almost all their FE lenses. It's like Ford having Ferrari make all their engines. Just because a camera is FF doesn't mean only $1000 + lenses are the only thing you should attach to it.

Maybe this is such a great plan that Canon should follow and only sell L lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 15:31 UTC as 43rd comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

Beckler8: I'm disappointed the 24-240 isn't a power zoom lens. This reduces its versatility as a video lens.

But it will keep you from wanting to punch something when you are zooming for stills.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 15:26 UTC
On A closer look at the Nikon Coolpix P900 megazoom article (179 comments in total)

Is placing a big X-times zoom number to put on the advertisement the only thing these cameras focus on? And why do they always give the zoom length in X-times vs. mm?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2015 at 15:43 UTC as 55th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

paul simon king: nice of them to give the competition a heads up
:p

Really, what the competition gonna do about it? The whole secrecy of the camera industry is kind of pointless.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 20:14 UTC

Are these lenses in Panasonic purple color?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 16:29 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1393 comments in total)
In reply to:

Markol: I just saw this costs 500$ more than the current E-M5.
That's crazy.
As crazy as the 10 months it took Olympus to "fix" the shutter shock of the E-P5. Without the fix, around 30% of my pictures were unsharp.
Olympus has so much going for it (OIS, jpegs) but they also make some huge mistakes.

Do you want the new one to be like $10 more than the old one, even after the old one has dropped $500 from it's launch price?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2015 at 19:09 UTC
On More things we found cut in half (CP+ 2015 edition) article (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: bad humor, guys...you can do it quite better...can you?

There always this one guy who found out someone peed in his cheerios. That was a pretty funny segment. Don't let the one guy at the party always spoil everything.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 13:48 UTC
Total: 447, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »