Pasha001

Lives in Russian Federation Russian Federation
Joined on Oct 21, 2006

Comments

Total: 69, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

fayez89: Does nikon d3200 has built in focus motor?

Of course not.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2012 at 11:08 UTC
In reply to:

StORM48: I can't believe that they threw out Drive Mode lever, seen on D3100!

They have added a button for that. And infrared remote control can now be used - that was a sad omission on D3100.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 08:47 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: SIMPLY STUNNING: THE NEW NIKON D3200

No, what is stunning is what camera manufacturers now expect people to spend, probably quite rightly, to enter their profit merry go round. Why would I want 24.2 mp to eat up space on my memory cards when with my D300 12.3 mp is perfectly good enough to produce quality prints up to A2?

Consumerism is out of control and nobody needs this ludicrous pixel count for routine photos or to spend anything like this kind of money for the privilege.

> Consumerism is out of control
It is not consumerism, it is technical progress. And it is relatively out of control - relatively to you. You cannot even buy appropriate memory cards and whine about that calling buyers of new equipment "consumerists".

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 08:02 UTC
In reply to:

Robgo2: All but the most fanatical Nikon fans will have to agree that 24MP for an entry level camera is truly absurd. The phrase "wretched excess" is an understatement in this case.

Rob

> All but the most fanatical Nikon fans will have to agree that
> 24MP for an entry level camera is truly absurd
No, I predict the opposite. Megapixels matter the most for common people who like entry-level cameras.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 07:51 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: Way too many pixels for me, who really needs pictures that big? My D40x has it just about right with 10mp, nice big pics with enough detail to stun on my 17" monitor. I never blew up prints that big so don't need them biggger.

Sooner or later someone will realise it's all about marketing now and that picture taking has taken second place and we can all get sane again and stop slowing down our computers with things we don't need....

> who really needs pictures that big?
Those who can afford something better than 17" monitor.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 07:31 UTC
In reply to:

ZAnton: There is already Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for almost 1/10 the price.
Only real crazy techno-geeks will buy Zeiss.

@ZAnton
No, Ken does not estimate resolution mathematically, for example, as lenstip does. He only cares for things that a sane buyer should check.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2012 at 15:37 UTC
In reply to:

ZAnton: There is already Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for almost 1/10 the price.
Only real crazy techno-geeks will buy Zeiss.

> There is already Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for almost 1/10 the price.
Yeah, and for idiots. Even Ren Cockwell admits the Samyang is a piece of crap.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2012 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

professor4321: From Imaging Resource,
Overexposure "Blooming"
A final limitation of CCD sensors is their reaction to severe illumination overloads. This is the reason for including a shiny pot lid in the Dave Box targets on the Imaging Resource website, because it reflects light sources back into the camera lens. In the face of extremely high light overloads, some CCDs will "leak" charge from the overexposed elements into adjacent cells. This phenomenon is called blooming, and various methods are employed to prevent it. It most frequently shows itself as a colored fringe around specular (shiny) highlights. Frequently, the sensor will bloom differently in each of the red, green or blue channels, producing the colored fringes where one channel has bloomed more than the others. The impact of this for your particular work will depend on its nature. If you intend to photograph a lot of chromed auto parts, blooming could be a big problem. It would be a complete non-issue in photos of bath towels.

CCD generally exhibit somewhat different kind of blooming that looks like streaks. CMOS is considered more resilient to this problem. However, I can see something very similar to Fuji glitches in some photos from my phone Nokia N8 that has a CMOS sensor.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2012 at 18:16 UTC
In reply to:

professor4321: There's a lot of speculation on this thread about what's causing the problem but none of these posters actually know, do they? Let's hope Fuji explain soon.

By the way when everyone's finally finished with the orbs you can move onto the following,
"The image area with high brightness might be recorded as "black-out" area, just in case of dedicated shooting condition, This unpleasant phenomenon is improved."

From latest firmware update.

> Let's hope Fuji explain soon.
But Fuji has explained a long time ago: "The blooming issue is something not uncommon to many types of digital camera". Just poor blooming protection, that's all.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2012 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

jorepuusa: I have Fuji X10. I did not buy it to shoot white orbs. I bought it because of its superior ergonomics. The white orbs can be seen sometimes when a shot is taken. But one has to hunt the picture to find them and if You do not know what to look, You cannot see them at all.
I´m sure that 99% of people who write here do not have a Fuji, do not know what the orbs look and do not find them in a picture.
I admit that they are there BUT similar white orbs are produced by Canon G12, Nikon P7000, not to speak of cheaper point and shoots.
This " conversation" here shows the main problem among amateur photographers.
Most of them cannot shoot a proper picture and they know that they never will, anyways they want to stay in the crowd of photographers and the only way is to write miserable and laughable thoughts of technology.
That is the worst way of making photography go further.
All cams over 500€ produce pictures that cannot be separated from each other in web and very thinly as prints.

> I´ve covered war and crisis and famine in 9 countries for AP, UPI, DPA and AFP
Not exactly a believable claim considering how bad your portfolio is.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2012 at 09:52 UTC
In reply to:

jorepuusa: I have Fuji X10. I did not buy it to shoot white orbs. I bought it because of its superior ergonomics. The white orbs can be seen sometimes when a shot is taken. But one has to hunt the picture to find them and if You do not know what to look, You cannot see them at all.
I´m sure that 99% of people who write here do not have a Fuji, do not know what the orbs look and do not find them in a picture.
I admit that they are there BUT similar white orbs are produced by Canon G12, Nikon P7000, not to speak of cheaper point and shoots.
This " conversation" here shows the main problem among amateur photographers.
Most of them cannot shoot a proper picture and they know that they never will, anyways they want to stay in the crowd of photographers and the only way is to write miserable and laughable thoughts of technology.
That is the worst way of making photography go further.
All cams over 500€ produce pictures that cannot be separated from each other in web and very thinly as prints.

> I admit that they are there BUT similar white orbs are produced by Canon G12, Nikon P7000
This is not true. For example, X10 would significantly screw these shots but G12 and P7000 are OK:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28073671@N05/5482796830/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/girolame/5675225540/sizes/l/in/photostream/

> I have Fuji X10. I did not buy it to shoot white orbs.
Alas, you'll have to.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2012 at 09:48 UTC
On article Samsung US announces rugged and waterproof SD cards (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

wlachan: About time. The fragile plastic body of SD is a major weakness. I had some working SD which had to be trashed just because the plastic bodies cracked beyond usable condition.

You may want to note that Samsung does not actually claim metal body but rather metal "design" which may easily mean usual plastic body encased in very thin metal. Or metal may be glued to the plastic. Just weasel words like "best-in-class" and "withstand the force of a 1.6 ton vehicle".

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2012 at 08:10 UTC
On article Lensbaby Edge 80 Quick Review (76 comments in total)

Maybe I've missed something but isn't the lens body made of plastic? No wonder it is so cheap then.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2012 at 11:00 UTC as 17th comment
On article Lensbaby Edge 80 Quick Review (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

roblarosa: Lensbaby = Overpriced crap.

Zebooka: you are feeding a troll.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2012 at 10:51 UTC
On article Lensbaby Edge 80 Quick Review (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

klopus: Anything that Lensbaby does can be easily and totally done much cheaper in post and with better quality if you use decent ordinary lens. And you don't have to toil manually in PS (though it isn't hard). There are many plugins that can simulate free form tilt/shift and selective focus. Heck, on iPhone and Android there are hordes of apps doing same thing.

The only Lensbaby advantage non reproduceable in post I see is to use movements to level architectural perspective which is main application of the classical T/S lens. Not sure if this even can be done reliably with Lensbabies since they lack precise controls and sharp end-to-end optics.

Not true. Tilt for "extending DOF" cannot be replaced with editing a single frame and focus stacking is certainly not 'easy'.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2012 at 10:48 UTC
On article Fujifilm firmware attempts to fix X10 white discs (264 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ernest M Aquilio: Just how impactful is the "white orb" effect in real world shooting? I am on the fence about this camera and cannot imagine that this can totally ruin a photo. Any examples of this that caused the photo to be totally unusable?

> Any examples of this that caused the photo to be totally unusable?
Any dark night city shot at ISO 100 on tripod if there are some bright light sources : http://fotkidepo.ru/?id=photo:734437
This is a shot after the firmware update (and not made by me).

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2012 at 10:57 UTC

I tried the Sony 500/8 at a short distance and in such a situation it loses contrast significantly so the "making the lens potentially interesting for chasing insects and the like" clause is not quite realistic, IMHO.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2012 at 10:25 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

D200_4me: I'm not sure I see the value of this lens. Manual focus, no zoom, F/6.3? I would rather have my stabilized 30-110mm (81-297 equiv) Nikon 1 lens :-) Just as compact and it's a zoom...and it's stabilized...and it's sharp....and it's only $250. No, I don't have a m4/3 camera anymore so I wouldn't have a need for this lens anyway. Even if I did have a still have a GH2, I can't find a good reason to buy something like this.

> You can check my 'work' online to see whether or not I'm an idiot
I have checked that 'work' and the answer is unfortunate for you.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2012 at 10:20 UTC
In reply to:

Peter Evans: I'm interested in this camera only as, well, a matter of interest. As someone who earns his living from photography and, as a career-long Nikon owner, I've already bought heavily into one system and so have no intention of taking up another.

What I would like to voice here, as several other already have, is my disappointment in the 'red-top journalism' English used by DPReview in this announcement. "Put a dent in your pocket" and "the amount you'll have to scrape together" are phrases we shouldn't be seeing on a respected site such as this. It's sufficient merely to state what the new price is expected to be and leave it at that.

Finally, and just my 2 centimes on the camera system itself, from what I've seen so far, it looks pretty good to me - ideal for those photographers who hanker after a Leica system but can ill afford the Leica prices.

Check the other comments - the article style quite fits the audience ;).

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 23:16 UTC
In reply to:

simon65: @Conrad567

"I can remember when a good quality film camera cost $2400"

Wow really? Please name that camera?

I recall the very high quality Nikon FM 2 selling for years at around £250 in the UK (around USD 500 at the time).

"You numb skulls will never except that quality craftsmanship has a price"

Come on, its going to mass produced in Japan/Thailand not carefully assembled by an artisan in a workshop somewhere in the Swiss Alps.

Ultimately the market will decide, but I'll wager that in these straightened times Fuji have got it wrong and pitched too high. There're fools. I would have gone in at a lower price to build market momentum, and establish share.

The camera market is in a state of flux and is up for grabs. There's absolutely no reason why Fuji can't be a major player, but not with pricing like this. They're being greedy and shortsighted.

simon65
> the FM 2 was built of Titanium
Yes, and it was listed for $1120. More than 15 years ago it was quite a sum.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 23:08 UTC
Total: 69, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »