ryansholl

ryansholl

Lives in United States Johnston US, IA, United States
Joined on Mar 4, 2009

Comments

Total: 345, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Lytro announces Illum light field camera article (348 comments in total)
In reply to:

reginalddwight: 5 megapixel images? That is so retro for a forward-thinking product.

If nothing else, Lytro is finally making a product that resembles a photographic tool. The relatively high price point will likely prevent the Illum from gaining significant traction from a wider photographic community.

Ultimately, I see the company's technology bought out by a smartphone maker like Apple, Samsung, Nokia, etc.

I have to provide a dissenting opinion on 5mp not being enough. It's more than enough for an 8x10, and few people outside of photography enthusiasts (we're not a majority, people!) need to print any larger.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2014 at 16:50 UTC
On Ryan Brenizer on how to shoot engagement sessions article (72 comments in total)
In reply to:

JATO: One more thing to waste money on... Does the brides family pick up the tab?

I presume, then, that you eat only homesown beans and grains and forego extravagances like heat above freezing and internet service?

Wasted money is in the eye of the beholder.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2014 at 01:06 UTC
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (680 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: 645D (and now same shaped Z) is unbelievably comfortable to use. Because of its unique ergonomics and weight distribution thanks to its elongated body, it is more comfortable to use it than any modern DSLR with a longer lens.

Because it pushes the centre of mass forward, towards the natural *resting position of human arms*. Modern DSLRs and mirrorless, being thinner, push the centre of mass further back, which induces extra stress on arm and shoulder muscles even when camera has a small lens on it.

It takes more stress on your muscles and shoulders to hold a DSLR or even mirrorless in front of your eyes with arms close to body than to hold a heavier 645D with arms in their natural resting position away from the body.

Try it yourself if you don't believe it.

Ummm... no. I don't want to fall in love with a $9000 camera.

I figure it's like IV heroin.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2014 at 01:40 UTC
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (680 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hasa: I love wideangles and I am sad to see a camera that crops the understandably heavy and expensive wide angles like the 25mm.
I found a significant impact on image quality in each step of my x3 upgrade path from 3.2 Mpix (Canon Powershot) to 10 Mpix (Sony R1) to 36 Mpix (D800) but I fail to see the big deal in going from 36 to 50 Mpix. I looked at the (downsampled?) flower pics here http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/d941a0d7bc63895434b4b575933c0ad7/forUnderA3size__IMGP0144.jpg and compared to my own - also shot at 1600 iso. I am happy with the result even at the reduced color depth @ 1600 iso. The only thing the D800 needs is great glas - and maybe I should use a tripod :-) http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6268509557/photos/2897622/a02_0727-our-garden-1
More picels do make a difference if the glas and my photographic technique can cope. Kudos to pros who use this machine.

I don't think you're wrong. The MP upgrade is just *a little bit more.* The inherent advantages that come with sensor size are just *a little bit more*.

Finally, though, the cost is just *a little bit more*

In general anyway, still too rich for my blood.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2014 at 01:33 UTC
On Google applies for contact lens camera patent post (28 comments in total)
In reply to:

ryansholl: Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

Fortunately, a moderate-power handheld laser will immediately destroy this type of camera's aiming mechanism.

0MitchAG:

That was the joke.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 17:10 UTC
On Google applies for contact lens camera patent post (28 comments in total)

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

Fortunately, a moderate-power handheld laser will immediately destroy this type of camera's aiming mechanism.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 04:46 UTC as 20th comment | 3 replies
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (680 comments in total)
In reply to:

DPNick: "order of magnitude"
LOL!

Proof that DPR's business is garnering ad revenue and not so much the maths

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2014 at 18:12 UTC
On Lensbaby releases 5.8mm F3.5 circular fisheye lens article (20 comments in total)
In reply to:

davidodd: Does an angle of 185 degrees mean it can take a picture of what's behind you?

2.5 degrees beyond perpendicular to the barrel. If you're angled even slightly down you'll get some nice photos of your shoes.

edit: Not the lens you want to be using in the nude. [shudder]

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2014 at 19:44 UTC
On Lensbaby releases 5.8mm F3.5 circular fisheye lens article (20 comments in total)
In reply to:

sheckwel: Does this lens works with Canon 1.3 APH C sensors like the 1D mark III or 1D IV!

Any circular fisheye designed for sensor size X will work with a sensor size larger than X, you'll just have extra black at the edges of the frame.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2014 at 19:35 UTC
On Lensbaby releases 5.8mm F3.5 circular fisheye lens article (20 comments in total)
In reply to:

slick83: "Polished internal barrel for creative flare & reflection"

Oh boy ..... :-(

For the record, I "liked" this because I do not like this.

edit: On second thought after having looked at the photos on lensbaby's site, I don't mind that at all. If it's reasonably sharp around the edges I'd spring for it.

Gotta keep in mind though - if you're outdoors you'll be shooting into the sun 51% of the time!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2014 at 19:34 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 article (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

Putious: A little off topic, but does anyone know what music is playing in the vid?

*Shazam cannot identify singing or humming*

Sorry, I tried. And now I know how shazam works.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2014 at 01:13 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 article (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

km25: Big deal. Frist it is a movie, that is impressive, but for stills? Second the lens on adapter is F2.8. Just think a lens that is F1.2 would use iso 105k. Where would tht put a D4s. 12MPs has been past up years ago, a specially in FF. In APS-C and M43 we know of the two cameras their. It woud have served Sony much better to have cut the MP of the 36MP sensor in half for 4k movies with 18MP. Like the D4s Nikon and Canon camera. This super low light is a one trick pony, after you do some real low light stuff, then comes what. No lens and narrow use, Sony do you think before you leap?

I am amused that "12mp has been past{sic} up years ago" but there is very, very little difference in useable resolution between 12 and 16. Nikon blew past 16 years ago. Using Sony sensors.

And what had been Nikon's claim to low light fame? A 10mp sensor.

Make the butthurt less obvious.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 06:55 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 article (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

KrisAK: Whatever happened to those Canonian fireflies?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/09/13/canon-releases-sample-video-from-high-sensitivity-full-frame-cmos-sensor

Several things available on netflix in 4k already.

It's not 4k that interests me though. It's downsampling to 1080. From 4k. At 409600.

This actually makes me excited about video.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 06:50 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 article (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

bobbarber: Two thoughts:

1) Wow!

2) Aperture was f2.8. There are a lot of cheap f1.4 film lenses out there that could be adapted, which would get another two stops!

@ zoranT: Do you expect to be able to focus at all in the dark? Through an optical viewfinder?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 06:46 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 article (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThePhilips: OK, it looks... not good, but the new possibilities are very very interesting!

Pitch black at 1600 and you're hoping for more?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 06:42 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 article (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alexander Barus: I can only imagined what Fujifilm's new organic sensor would like (in the future)....

Odds are, something significantly less than Sony's alternative when it finally arrives.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 06:41 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 article (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

Daxs: And?

and that's pretty f***ing amazing, is what.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 06:36 UTC
In reply to:

l_d_allan: One of my "pet peeves" is small cameras that could have a small "grip" on the front, but don't. To me, unless the lens fully retracts into the body so the front is completely level, the designers might as well have a grip + larger battery ... and full size SD card in the case of the J1 thru J4.

As long as the lens protrudes somewhat from the rest of the body when powered off, you might as well have a grip that protrudes a similar amount.

For example, my S110 is quite a small camera that easily goes in a normal size shirt pocket. I'm mostly really happy with it, except for limited battery life and no grip.

When powered off, there is still about 3/16" of the lens protruding (~5mm). If there was a grip that protruded the same 3/16" inch, it wouldn't detract at all from being pocketable. Plus, the battery could be larger.

My 2¢

@jogger, I think that's exactly what he means.

Or my nex C3. What silly little stupid things those "grips" are.

Even on my nex7 the grip could stand to be a little deeper, as I'd have to have a lens just 7-8mm in depth for the grip to be the most protruding thing!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2014 at 15:20 UTC
On Adobe launches Lightroom for iPad post (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

saralecaire: Just when I thought Adobe could not stoop any lower, there they go blackmailing their customer to using CC, even though Lightroom itself is still sold as a standalone application apparently "to meet photographers needs".

Yet.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 21:53 UTC
On Adobe launches Lightroom for iPad post (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

erichK: The most important factor is Adobe's violation of their assurance that they would not compel Lightroom users to become captives of their "bleed-every-month" subscription system.

A very good reason to look elsewhere that this moster corporation for software. And an opportunbity for *real* innovators.

The "cloud" portion is only one aspect. You're glossing over the "use on tablet" portion.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 16:07 UTC
Total: 345, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »