zorgon

zorgon

Joined on Nov 14, 2006

Comments

Total: 66, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Martin87: These cameras are so pointless in this age of mobile phone cameras.

It's a good first camera for a young kid, especially if you don't want them to own a mobile phone and it will be better than a similarly priced mobile phone too.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 22:49 UTC
In reply to:

zorgon: PF maybe a blatant ripoff of canon's DO lenses, but Nikon have done something that Canon haven't; they've actually made the lens lighter.

Canon's 400 f4 DO ii weighs in at 2100g, is still huge and costs $$$.
Canon's 70-300 DO actually weighs more than the non-DO version.

So the Nikon 300mm PF is a remarkable piece of engineering at 755g. 300mm is a bit short for wildlife though.

I wasn't trying to argue with you. If the patent has expired, then they have every right to rip it off.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 23:27 UTC
In reply to:

zorgon: PF maybe a blatant ripoff of canon's DO lenses, but Nikon have done something that Canon haven't; they've actually made the lens lighter.

Canon's 400 f4 DO ii weighs in at 2100g, is still huge and costs $$$.
Canon's 70-300 DO actually weighs more than the non-DO version.

So the Nikon 300mm PF is a remarkable piece of engineering at 755g. 300mm is a bit short for wildlife though.

@ Mssimo, Actually, forget that, this can't be a fresnel lens at all as a fresnel lens is a refractive optic NOT a diffractive optic. What you've written is not correct at all

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 21:43 UTC
In reply to:

zorgon: PF maybe a blatant ripoff of canon's DO lenses, but Nikon have done something that Canon haven't; they've actually made the lens lighter.

Canon's 400 f4 DO ii weighs in at 2100g, is still huge and costs $$$.
Canon's 70-300 DO actually weighs more than the non-DO version.

So the Nikon 300mm PF is a remarkable piece of engineering at 755g. 300mm is a bit short for wildlife though.

@ Mssimo, no this is not a simple fresnel lens, the IQ would be horrible if that was the case. Canon's design compensates for the diffraction caused by a fresnel lens to give clear images.
Either Nikon have bought the rights from Canon or have designed theirs sufficiently different so as not to get sued.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 21:18 UTC

PF maybe a blatant ripoff of canon's DO lenses, but Nikon have done something that Canon haven't; they've actually made the lens lighter.

Canon's 400 f4 DO ii weighs in at 2100g, is still huge and costs $$$.
Canon's 70-300 DO actually weighs more than the non-DO version.

So the Nikon 300mm PF is a remarkable piece of engineering at 755g. 300mm is a bit short for wildlife though.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 10:30 UTC as 6th comment | 5 replies
On Leica M9 users report sensor corrosion issue article (379 comments in total)

These images clearly show the superiority of the M9's CCD sensor. Look at the way in which these spots are rendered in a film-like classical aesthetic, akin to ASA 50 Fuji Velvia of the 1980's. Better still, the M9 does not even require dust for one to appreciate this fine rendering. In contrast, the CMOS sensors used by Canon and Nikon create a harsh digital dust rendering which hurts the eyes and offends the senses.
It's these little details that set the M9 apart from the mainstream competition

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:43 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Thiepval68: Usual ridiculous UK price......as usual buy from B&H.....

When ordering UK to US, you ALWAYS get charged import duty these days due to stricter customs regulations. It's still cheaper but you need to factor that in to your calculations.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 10:16 UTC
In reply to:

Lawrencew: Any idea of the EU and UK price?
No price is given in the EU press release.

Remember the EU and UK prices include sales tax and US prices do not. Yes it's still more expensive, but not as bad as it seems.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 10:11 UTC
On Photokina 2014: Hands-on with Leica X and X-E article (132 comments in total)

They could have at least changed the screen on the X-E. I can't see much reason to get this over the Ricoh GR.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 12:28 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
On Video preview of the Canon Powershot G7 X article (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

TFD: Nice but I think Sony trumps them in two areas, Video and Panoramas. From my experience no one is as good at Panoramas as Sony.

I find the auto panorama mode on my RX100 to be worthless anyway. Why? Because the camera defaults to 1/500s shutter speed to avoid motion blur while panning. So unless you're shooting in full sunlight, the image quality is poor. I much prefer to take individual shots and stitch using Hugin. (It takes much more effort of course. ) IMO, there are too many useless features and settings on these compacts making them more complicated than DSLRs.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 10:25 UTC
On Video preview of the Canon Powershot G7 X article (77 comments in total)

It's hard to believe that they can make a lens that small, with that zoom range and aperture. On paper at least it looks better than the Sony RX100III and Panasonic LX100 but I get the feeling that something has to give. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the image quality is like.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 09:46 UTC as 9th comment | 9 replies

WEX prices:
400mm f2.8 ii = £7799
400mm f4 DO ii = £6999

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 22:03 UTC as 2nd comment
On Lights, Action in the meteor shower challenge (2 comments in total)

Nice shot. You've got a meteorite, the northern lights and the m31 galaxy all in one picture. Interesting foreground too.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2014 at 17:41 UTC as 1st comment
On Niko announces service advisory for D810 'bright spots' article (379 comments in total)

This is why I always wait at least a couple of months after release before buying a new camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2014 at 22:48 UTC as 47th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: From their website and important for me:
•Cactus V6 does not transmit TTL information wirelessly

Ah OK, I get it now. Only the flash attached to the TX unit is TTL and the rest are manual as normal.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: From their website and important for me:
•Cactus V6 does not transmit TTL information wirelessly

From reading the manual, it doesn't transmit wireless TTL information but it does have a "TTL passthrough" mode which makes the flash behave as if it were attached to the camera.
The flashes must use same TTL system for this mode to work so no brand mixing.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 09:52 UTC

So does this mean I can use my 5Diii wirelessly with my Canon 580ex, Nikon SB-28 and Nikon SB-800 all at the same time?

That would save me a huge amount of money over a 600ex-rt setup.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 09:20 UTC as 27th comment | 2 replies

For some reason, I read "Leica to go under the hammer"

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 17:00 UTC as 53rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Adrian Harris: The real problem with curved sensors is that if anyone dares introduce them, their customers current lens line-up will be obsolete overnight. Which company would dare do that???
...well Sony already have about 4 different lens systems, so what the heck, here we go for a 5th lens line-up!!!

Would Canon or Nikon dare do that?
...which is maybe why it hasn't been done before.

@blackwiggle, I'm not so sure.
Simple telephoto lenses naturally have less field curvature than wideangles. In this case they'd have to deliberately engineer field curvature into the lens to match the sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 09:58 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

MGJA: It's not often that the DPR editorial slant takes such a comprehensive beating in the comments.

But that is fully justified this time.

That's not what it says. What it actually says is:

"More bad news for photographers looking to use unmanned aircraft for photography"

That's a VERY different statement.

People here need to learn to read things properly before criticising. Did you get bored half way through reading the sentence?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 09:26 UTC
Total: 66, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »