forpetessake

forpetessake

Lives in United States Transylvania, United States
Works as a exorcist
Joined on Oct 3, 2011
About me:

I don't reply to private messages.

Comments

Total: 572, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X-T10 First Impressions Review preview (359 comments in total)

Something strange happened. A universal adoration with Fuji cameras turned into a universal derision. It's especially strange that the second category includes current Fuji camera owners. Did Fuji offend people releasing cheaper version with better specs?

Direct link | Posted on May 19, 2015 at 00:55 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
On Fujifilm X-T10 First Impressions Review preview (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

worldcup1982: so, this is a x-e2 in a different form?
i hope the x-e3 comes with a x-t1 evf size...

Why would you say that? It definitely beats X-E2 especially in AF.

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2015 at 18:46 UTC
On Fujifilm X-T10 First Impressions Review preview (359 comments in total)

Definite improvement, the pictures look sharper than from previous models. But the colors are still weak, skin is still waxy, and subtle color transitions lost.

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2015 at 18:40 UTC as 43rd comment | 5 replies

Poor Apple, they have no competent software developers left.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2015 at 01:52 UTC as 32nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

photogeek: The only real solution to this is to legalize (and therefore regulate) prostitution in the state. That way, instead of keeping all of it illegal, we could keep only the truly horrible parts of it illegal, and get the government out of the sex lives of consenting adults aged 18+ (or better yet, 21+, since kids are really stupid at 18). That way, there would be an easy, legal choice for the johns, and sex workers would be protected (and tested for STDs).

Agree, get your health check, get a license and run your business. An adult is free to trade anything he/she wants, even his/her own body. The only immoral thing here is the government violent intervention in a free trade conducted by adult parties.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2015 at 00:30 UTC
On Big Zoom: Nikon Coolpix P900 real-world samples article (153 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: When will DPR stop publishing misleading numbers? It's NOT "a mind-blowing F2.8-6.5 24-2000mm equivalent zoom".

You either provide conversion for both f-stop and focal length, which are mind-blowing F14.6-33.8 24-2000mm FF equivalent. Or provide the physical parameters, which are F2.8-6.5 4.6-385mm.

It's hard to believe DPR continues making honest mistakes -- writing a F14.6-33.8 4.6-385mm would have been an honest mistake, and I've never seen that.

Yeah, right, the physics is wrong ... may I suggest you repeat the high school course of physics, -- it sounds like a child arguing about multiplication table at this point.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 18:35 UTC
On Big Zoom: Nikon Coolpix P900 real-world samples article (153 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: When will DPR stop publishing misleading numbers? It's NOT "a mind-blowing F2.8-6.5 24-2000mm equivalent zoom".

You either provide conversion for both f-stop and focal length, which are mind-blowing F14.6-33.8 24-2000mm FF equivalent. Or provide the physical parameters, which are F2.8-6.5 4.6-385mm.

It's hard to believe DPR continues making honest mistakes -- writing a F14.6-33.8 4.6-385mm would have been an honest mistake, and I've never seen that.

For Pete's sake, read at least DPR article before arguing: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
So many ignorant people, who are eager to offer their opinion -- it's mind-boggling.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 23:38 UTC
On Big Zoom: Nikon Coolpix P900 real-world samples article (153 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alex Permit: The FZ1000 can go up to 1600mm using its digital zoom. I wonder if the image quality would be comparable to the P900 at 2000mm. Take into account that the the FZ1000 sensor is roughly four times the size of the P900.

You do get more megapixels from the p900, but i doubt youre getting 16mp worth of resolution at 2000mm

.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 23:35 UTC
On Big Zoom: Nikon Coolpix P900 real-world samples article (153 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: Just for testing, compare it to a 24mp APS DSLR with a 300mm lens. Uprez the DSLR image to match the Coolpix at 2000mm. See what it compares like. If you can see more detail with the Coolpix, then it has a place.

"If you can see more detail with the Coolpix, then it has a place" -- I don't think so. Even if it's less ugly than the other, it's still ugly.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 07:54 UTC
On Big Zoom: Nikon Coolpix P900 real-world samples article (153 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: When will DPR stop publishing misleading numbers? It's NOT "a mind-blowing F2.8-6.5 24-2000mm equivalent zoom".

You either provide conversion for both f-stop and focal length, which are mind-blowing F14.6-33.8 24-2000mm FF equivalent. Or provide the physical parameters, which are F2.8-6.5 4.6-385mm.

It's hard to believe DPR continues making honest mistakes -- writing a F14.6-33.8 4.6-385mm would have been an honest mistake, and I've never seen that.

Please refrain from the silly f2.8 is f2.8 comments. It's good to know the subject before commenting and embarrassing oneself.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 06:45 UTC
On Big Zoom: Nikon Coolpix P900 real-world samples article (153 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alex Permit: The FZ1000 can go up to 1600mm using its digital zoom. I wonder if the image quality would be comparable to the P900 at 2000mm. Take into account that the the FZ1000 sensor is roughly four times the size of the P900.

You do get more megapixels from the p900, but i doubt youre getting 16mp worth of resolution at 2000mm

Everything longer than 200mm eq. looks terrible even in those small 1MP samples. Simple cropping from the bigger sensor cameras would likely look better.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 04:29 UTC
On Big Zoom: Nikon Coolpix P900 real-world samples article (153 comments in total)

When will DPR stop publishing misleading numbers? It's NOT "a mind-blowing F2.8-6.5 24-2000mm equivalent zoom".

You either provide conversion for both f-stop and focal length, which are mind-blowing F14.6-33.8 24-2000mm FF equivalent. Or provide the physical parameters, which are F2.8-6.5 4.6-385mm.

It's hard to believe DPR continues making honest mistakes -- writing a F14.6-33.8 4.6-385mm would have been an honest mistake, and I've never seen that.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 03:15 UTC as 45th comment | 16 replies
On Samsung NX1 Review preview (1234 comments in total)

Pretty good results. But everybody asking the question, where are the lenses?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 17:50 UTC as 134th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

lacikuss: Finally, I've been able to look at the pictures with a decent sized monitor and without any pixel peeping I would say the images look soft with a lack of contrast. I can understand this lens only as an all around travel lens, but otherwise a super zoom cam will do just the same from the IQ point of view for much less money.

@theprehistorian -- yes, they were shot side by side, search the forum. Despite the fact the experiments were sloppy, it can be clearly seen that 18-200 generally fared better. Though neither of those lenses is good for a demanding user.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 01:49 UTC
In reply to:

lacikuss: Finally, I've been able to look at the pictures with a decent sized monitor and without any pixel peeping I would say the images look soft with a lack of contrast. I can understand this lens only as an all around travel lens, but otherwise a super zoom cam will do just the same from the IQ point of view for much less money.

The funny thing, it compares poorly even with 18-200mm Sony lens, which isn't sharp lens to begin with. Sony will have hard time selling this puppy.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 06:12 UTC
In reply to:

straylightrun: Not bad for a FF superzoom that starts at 24mm, but the RRP is crazy.

It used to be called MAP (minimum advertised price).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 05:54 UTC
In reply to:

Juck: That slow zoom had better be a hell of a performer for $1000.

@ljmac
I would ask flat-earthers and equally dim individuals restrain from embarrassing themselves posting such comments. It's always a good idea to educate yourself before exposing your ignorance to the world.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 08:07 UTC

"Sony brings big zoom power to FE-mount with 24-240mm F3.5-5.6 lens"

No, the lens is 24-240mm F3.5-6.3.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 07:31 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Juck: That slow zoom had better be a hell of a performer for $1000.

Really? If that lens has a good optical quality the price would be a bargain.
This lens is fully equivalent to a M43 12-120mm f/1.75-3.15. Now compare it to more than 3 times slower Olympus 14-140mm f/4-5.6 which is sold for $600.
Or look at APS-C. This lens is equivalent to 16-160mm f/2.3-4.2. Compare it to a more limited and much slower Fujifilm 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6, which cost $900.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 07:29 UTC

"In theory, the X-Trans sensor should be well-suited to native monochrome capture."

That's an embarrassing statement. "X-Trans sensor" is a Sony sensor with a Fuji non-bayer CFA, and as you can guess, the monochrome cameras have no need for CFA.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2015 at 04:02 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
Total: 572, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »