wootpile

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 6, 2011

Comments

Total: 177, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

They mess it up again.

A compact camera with a fully articulating screen like the G5x now has makes it less important to have a viewfinder. Fully articulating means you can always find an angle that lets you see the screen adequately in daylight.

Had they chopped the viewfinder hub it would have been pocket-able. I wish they would put such a screen on the M body (just the screen sans viewfinder bulb)

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 04:51 UTC as 115th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

wootpile: 4 lessons to be learned from this:
1) since most are taken on film it boggles the mind even more - you just couldn't capture events with a couple 8 frame bursts in those days because that = a full roll of film! Cost, time to change rolls, weight of carrying too many, cost again of processing... you always had a limited amount of shots. Made me remember that staking out a scene, waiting, watching, calculating the moment, the composition, the light, trying to make every click count = the real joy of photography. YMMW
2) you got to be there to see it. I need to get out more.
3) looking at the bald eagle, I wonder, and doubt, I could get a Sony file look as good without seeming over-processed, certainly not as a ooc jpeg. It isn't just the greater dynamic range, they saturate a different way from digital.
4) daylight white balance for everything. When you shot film (unless you processed each roll separately with tweaks) you had one WB to go by - whatever your roll was. Daylight rules!

@utphoto that's exactly it. you have 110 rolls and that's it, not a single additional image even if a bear comes by and says hello. 110 rolls is less than 4000 shots. if you are out for 4 days that's 1000 a day. not much if you spent 10 grand getting there. anyway, there is also the cost each transparency roll probably costs about 12 bucks these days, add development, mounting etc and you have a FILM cost of over $2500 on every such shoot. once again, that's when you decide every frame has to count. I used to have a messenger-like bag solely for the film with me when doing reportage trips. We have it incredibly easy these days with digital.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 12:30 UTC
On article SmugMug Films: Renee Robyn's digital domain (18 comments in total)
In reply to:

wootpile: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Great results... but what GEAR is she using?! I saw nikon d800, a canon in one scene, lots of heavy lenses and, I think, an Asus notebook. Which one? Which studio strobes. GEAR!!! :)

I've tried doing composites. I found it really really difficult. Just matching light angles between images drove me crazy. Talented girl, impressive results! Hope she wears full body protection when riding.

Ah found it http://inmybag.net/renee-robyn/

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 05:51 UTC
On article SmugMug Films: Renee Robyn's digital domain (18 comments in total)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Great results... but what GEAR is she using?! I saw nikon d800, a canon in one scene, lots of heavy lenses and, I think, an Asus notebook. Which one? Which studio strobes. GEAR!!! :)

I've tried doing composites. I found it really really difficult. Just matching light angles between images drove me crazy. Talented girl, impressive results! Hope she wears full body protection when riding.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 05:19 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply

4 lessons to be learned from this:
1) since most are taken on film it boggles the mind even more - you just couldn't capture events with a couple 8 frame bursts in those days because that = a full roll of film! Cost, time to change rolls, weight of carrying too many, cost again of processing... you always had a limited amount of shots. Made me remember that staking out a scene, waiting, watching, calculating the moment, the composition, the light, trying to make every click count = the real joy of photography. YMMW
2) you got to be there to see it. I need to get out more.
3) looking at the bald eagle, I wonder, and doubt, I could get a Sony file look as good without seeming over-processed, certainly not as a ooc jpeg. It isn't just the greater dynamic range, they saturate a different way from digital.
4) daylight white balance for everything. When you shot film (unless you processed each roll separately with tweaks) you had one WB to go by - whatever your roll was. Daylight rules!

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2015 at 05:31 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon D7200 Field Test: Desert dance photo shoot (101 comments in total)

Thanks, enjoyed this. Dpreview's videos are the way to go.

I would like to see a longer video specifically about off-camera speedlight use, and different modifiers for it. There's a lot of videos on youtube about it, some really good, but a dpreview version couldn't hurt right?

Edit: another video suggestion, I would also like to see one of portrait posing tips.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2015 at 04:47 UTC as 30th comment
On article Nikon D7200 Field Test: Desert dance photo shoot (101 comments in total)
In reply to:

dcolak: NIKON! Put the goddamn EVF on your cameras and win the market!

I agree. I don't get why cannon nikon pentax are so latent with this. Offer us a mirrorless body that keeps the current lens mounts, no need to build a whole new system, just redesign what already exists, both version could co-exist. If Nikon or Canon had it, I would ditch Sony in a sec.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2015 at 04:44 UTC

Excellent video, more of this type of review/hands-on plz!

(I would like to see a complete video (regardless of brand/mount) about using daylight/hss flash, such as seen here in some snippets.)

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 06:04 UTC as 26th comment
On article Quick Review: PhotoKeeper (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

YashG: I am Yash, creator of PhotoKeeper. I'd like to add a few more things

PhotoKeeper is not just about storage. Cloud storage is one half of the service. The other half is what you can do once all your photos are in the cloud.

DropBox/iCloud store your photos but you can't search your photos based on EXIF data. They also won't show you thumbnails of RAW files.

There aren't many dedicated cloud based photo backup services that store RAW files. Flickr and SmugMug don't support RAW.

PhotoKeeper is only marginally more expensive than Google. Nobody can afford to give 1 TB of space for free. Flickr gives but you can't upload RAW files. RAW files are what take the most space. Somebody mentioned whether cloud backup companies will be in business 5 years down the line. Valid question. We want to be in the business for a long run that's why we do not have free accounts. Just like SmugMug.

These are early days of our service. Looking forward to support from all you wonderful people.

Feature request: missing from many competitors is the ability to add watermark, preferably large enough to make a difference (such as used on alamy.com), or even size-customizable.
Perhaps a development feature to consider for your service?

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 06:46 UTC
On article Quick Review: PhotoKeeper (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

wootpile: Here's an easy reason Barney as to why some of your readers may feel this "review" leans more toward advertisement: it isn't a review of any sort, just a statement of features and functions.

Here's an easy solution: make it a true "review" (even if ultra-short) by simply listing a few pro's and con's.

"Review"... as in: ok, we've taken a look and here is what we think of it.

Yes, I completely did! :(
I apologize for my earlier post above.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 06:12 UTC
On article Quick Review: PhotoKeeper (103 comments in total)

Here's an easy reason Barney as to why some of your readers may feel this "review" leans more toward advertisement: it isn't a review of any sort, just a statement of features and functions.

Here's an easy solution: make it a true "review" (even if ultra-short) by simply listing a few pro's and con's.

"Review"... as in: ok, we've taken a look and here is what we think of it.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 20:42 UTC as 22nd comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR (333 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: They should have

- updated the 17-50 2.8 with VR and weight reducing tech
- made this F/4 through the FL range and made it cheaper

or my favorite

- used these resources to make some wide fast DX primes. No way am I gonna pay $700 for an FX prime to use on a DX body when the 35 1.8 DX is $200. They need an 11 2.8, 16 2.0 and 24 1.8 in DX to go with that.

@ deliverator Constant 4 would make it smaller and cheaper
Still, it's a lens I would want if I were still with Nikon. the price.. it's a trend look sparked by mirrorless lens prices, but perhaps also a reflection that making a lens like this for 24 megapixels is quite demanding tech.

I wish sony would take hint here on how to make lenses. I have no doubt this Nikon offer will squash Sony enthusiast lineup when comparing IQ.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 04:58 UTC
In reply to:

wootpile: These samples make me buy Ricoh GR

@ By tkbslc
Let me know how your 2.5MP crops to 70mm equiv. turn out.
...

hehe, have you looked at the rx100 70mm 100%?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/3238218.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWXD4UV3FXMIDQLQ/20150701/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20150701T085936Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=a2caa520ccff54e47353f0ab3e33e3a1ed8ac7c411a5fdf50b7e7bc317d0e2c3

https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/3238221.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWXD4UV3FXMIDQLQ/20150701/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20150701T090148Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=9bb3b6a7d8f6f4d6f27422190cf9efb02b40470de479875c15cadfc27b98953e

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2015 at 09:02 UTC

These samples make me buy Ricoh GR

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 05:44 UTC as 25th comment | 6 replies
On article Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison (224 comments in total)

For once a lens where I can stomach the pricetag, and actually, compared to all sorts of lenses recently launched by sony, olympus, Fuji etc, the impressive performance on this one makes the price very reasonable, specially compared to Sonys offers

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 14:54 UTC as 64th comment
In reply to:

QuarryCat: who the f.... is Sony - 11% market share - not enough for Sigma,
the Alpha 7 must prove that they get accepted and bought.

Jim I guess you are right with the difficulty since the design would have to a lot different for e-mount barrel length. Still, we must hope. Sigma has promised lenses - this one is one i would very much like to have. Sony ought to (perhaps they are) facilitate Sigma entering the e-mount market in force since for buyers like me, it would sway me to faster transition decision, to 7 fullframe bodies.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 14:10 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: who the f.... is Sony - 11% market share - not enough for Sigma,
the Alpha 7 must prove that they get accepted and bought.

I disagree
Sony has almost 50% of the interchangeable lens mirroless market
Nikon has perhaps 30% of the interchangeable lens DSLR market
What are the actual numbers in sold bodies this year that would accept Sigma lenses? very close.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 13:13 UTC
In reply to:

Olympuser: If you are going to make a superfast zoom, make it truly BIG. Make a 24-70 f2 OS, or a 24-50 f1.4 OS. 20cm long, 10cm diameter, 2kg, $2000. Sure many FF maniac folks would buy it!

LOL you know, big isn't better any more, times gone

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 11:32 UTC

This is the lens I want for Sony E-mount. I wouldn't care if it broke the bank. awesome FF range and very useful for street on aps-c.
PLEASE Sigma!!!

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 11:29 UTC as 95th comment | 1 reply

If the new sensor delivers, I'll buy this when RX10III nudges the price. I grumble about Sony having a high price-point on gear, but then again... they keep older models on market which is an interesting strategy. Just look at RX100 version 1 a fine pocket cam at very nice price now that 1 2 3 and now 4 is on the market :)

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 19:43 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
Total: 177, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »