ryansholl

ryansholl

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

Comments

Total: 288, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
On Just posted: Our Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens review article (81 comments in total)
In reply to:

achim k: Flare test:
putting a light source just a bit outside the frame may also mean, that reflections may be caused by a surface inside the camera body!
I rate the EF 40/2,8 as one of the best flare-resistant lenses I ever had!

Achim

I know what he's referring to, and it still doesn't convey a point.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2013 at 20:13 UTC
On Just posted: Our Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens review article (81 comments in total)
In reply to:

achim k: Flare test:
putting a light source just a bit outside the frame may also mean, that reflections may be caused by a surface inside the camera body!
I rate the EF 40/2,8 as one of the best flare-resistant lenses I ever had!

Achim

What's your point? Either way, it's a problem.

Didn't read review, don't know what's being referred to, but your post is not really making much sense.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2013 at 16:18 UTC
On Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Preview preview (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just another Canon shooter: It is an interesting lens without doubt. But..., it just shows how limiting the APS-C format is, not otherwise: narrow FL range, horrendous OOF rendering near the focus plane, kinda soft and low contrast. The Tamron 24-70/2.8 is very similar in price, weight, and probably price; and is much better in every respect on FF, and has IS.

The whole point of the smaller format is portability. Once you try to match larger formats, you get absurd solutions like this one, or the m43 f/2 zooms.

However any full frame camera with an equivalent lens is significantly higher in price than this with any but the most expensive available bodies.

It's an option. It's not for everyone, but for those that don't want to invest in FF or reinvest in new FF tech it may well be an extremely attractive option.

Between availability of extremely large aperture primes, speed booster/variants, and now large aperture zooms I'm certainly rethinking my own desire and ownership of full frame.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2013 at 16:28 UTC
On Just Posted: Our Nikon Coolpix A review article (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

ryansholl: *Obligatory bitching about not having reviewed some other camera*

/sarcasm

Presumably combatmedic870 wrote his own online review to combat this deficiency for other potential users.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 19:13 UTC
On Just Posted: Our Nikon Coolpix A review article (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

ryansholl: *Obligatory bitching about not having reviewed some other camera*

/sarcasm

Barbie Video Girl hasn't been reviewed yet...

DPR is totally dropping the ball!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 17:47 UTC
On Just Posted: Our Nikon Coolpix A review article (352 comments in total)

*Obligatory bitching about not having reviewed some other camera*

/sarcasm

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 17:18 UTC as 90th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

Peiasdf: I am sure someone will take it in now that it is in the NYTimes. That said, most of SOHO art scene is just trendiness, not art.

30 years of trendiness is history. Someone's interested.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2013 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

AZBlue: If this is the quality of photos produced by these photographers, they deserve to get fired.

He intentionally used the same equipment he is to be replaced by. You've just crapped on your own point in support of his.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2013 at 19:26 UTC
In reply to:

Nigel Wilkins: I'd be happy to buy one if I needed or wanted it enough. Nobody bats an eyelid if you spend £12k on a car, yet the car's value will drop like a stone...unlike this lens.

Yeah, I completely understand what was meant, tkbslc. Saw the opportunity for comedy, went for it.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2013 at 13:50 UTC
In reply to:

penguinman: From Andy Rouse web page.

Pointless Comparison

This is a plea to the lens geeks. Please do not start comparing the Canon lens with the Nikon one, it is pointless. The Nikon 200-400 does a great job for Nikon photographers and the Canon lens will do a great job for Canon photographers. Comparing the two is just pointless, as no one is going to change camera system to use this lens are they? No they are not, so please don’t fuel the silly Canon vs Nikon debate anymore, it’s not what this lens or this review is all about.

To be fair, I was being intentionally daft, as I imagine rallyfan with his "doesn't fit a canon camera, so doesn't matter" comment was intentionally naive.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 23:19 UTC
In reply to:

penguinman: From Andy Rouse web page.

Pointless Comparison

This is a plea to the lens geeks. Please do not start comparing the Canon lens with the Nikon one, it is pointless. The Nikon 200-400 does a great job for Nikon photographers and the Canon lens will do a great job for Canon photographers. Comparing the two is just pointless, as no one is going to change camera system to use this lens are they? No they are not, so please don’t fuel the silly Canon vs Nikon debate anymore, it’s not what this lens or this review is all about.

Seldom do I see someone miss the point by such a wild margin.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 20:23 UTC
In reply to:

penguinman: From Andy Rouse web page.

Pointless Comparison

This is a plea to the lens geeks. Please do not start comparing the Canon lens with the Nikon one, it is pointless. The Nikon 200-400 does a great job for Nikon photographers and the Canon lens will do a great job for Canon photographers. Comparing the two is just pointless, as no one is going to change camera system to use this lens are they? No they are not, so please don’t fuel the silly Canon vs Nikon debate anymore, it’s not what this lens or this review is all about.

I spent a few days at Kruger with a man that owns nothing but a FF Nikon body and the 200-400vr. Someone in the position he was in years ago would certainly benefit from comparison. Aside from worry that a prized lens might not fare well against new competition, I see little reason not to run such a comparison.

Stop lowering the bar for accountability in lens performance.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 19:43 UTC
In reply to:

penguinman: From Andy Rouse web page.

Pointless Comparison

This is a plea to the lens geeks. Please do not start comparing the Canon lens with the Nikon one, it is pointless. The Nikon 200-400 does a great job for Nikon photographers and the Canon lens will do a great job for Canon photographers. Comparing the two is just pointless, as no one is going to change camera system to use this lens are they? No they are not, so please don’t fuel the silly Canon vs Nikon debate anymore, it’s not what this lens or this review is all about.

That has merit if no one ever based initial buy-in to a system based on available lenses.

This is a specialty item. One that people seek out, and Nikon's version is very, very popular. There is a great deal of merit in comparing the two, as with the relatively low cost of a camera body in comparison to the glass there's nothing keeping one from just picking up a body of the other brand to use with a superior lens investment, even if they ARE invested in a different brand.

Compare! It's not a Nikon vs Canon debate, it's Nikon 200-400/4 vs Canon 200-400/4 debate.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 18:34 UTC
In reply to:

Nigel Wilkins: I'd be happy to buy one if I needed or wanted it enough. Nobody bats an eyelid if you spend £12k on a car, yet the car's value will drop like a stone...unlike this lens.

I wear a belt to work, which keeps my pants up, which keeps the crack of my ass from showing, which keeps me employed. But it definitely does not earn my living, nor did your car earn you yours.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 17:53 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: It's a white lens with a feel that is unique.

The switches are ergonomically appealing.

This is what the users wanted, and Canon listened.

Even the tripod collar has been made streamlined shaped.

Although the IQ reports remain to be checked, the ergonomic design of this new lens is quite the right proper design. Nikon should be following up with it's own... since the shape is not at all patented or exclusive,

.

@ Thorgrem:

1% of a helluva lot is a helluva lot

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: Nikon does not really play to the small sensor strengths.
What they need is an ultrafast zoom. Just take the lens from Panasonic LX7 - f/1.4-2.3 24-90 mm equiv. for 1/2" image circle, and scale it up for 1" image circle. How much glass is in LX7? 50-70g? That would be 200-300g for Nikon 1, quite reasonable, and a great kit zoom. Or look at what Sony did in RX100 - small and light for the same size of sensor.
f/3.5-5.6 zooms? f/4-6 zooms? OK for FF, a joke for 1".

Another advantage - possible zoom range. 20x zoom can be made for 1" quite compact, and for no other ILC system. Play to it too. Beer can of 10x 10-100 PZ is a joke, when 16x is available for MUCH bigger APS-C - from Nikon itself.

Another one? Macro. Nothing can compete in macro with small sensors. Where is Nikon 1 macro (which could be macro zoom for those pesky insects, say, 2x, again to play to the unique strengths).

Ah, yes. The "just make it bigger and all the physics of the lens will work the same" argument.

Hint: It doesn't work that way.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 16:04 UTC
In reply to:

Slynky: These days, laws are (it seems) usually made to give more rights and leeway to the corporate world at the expense of the individual (who will never have the wherewithal to seek redress).

It's simple really.

Citizens are commodities.

Citizens? Is that what consumers used to be called?

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

Marques Lamont: An interesting question I have is this:

In general, how much do you plan on spending on photography per year?

I think this question will make things a bit clearer.

I take it that many here don't plan on spending more than $500 per year?

Well, what can one buy for $500?

A nex 3 series, late model, new
Full set of legacy primes from 28 to 200mm
Tripod and all necessary accessories

or

Photoshop

If you chose photoshop, your choice next year is:

Photoshop

The next:

Photoshop

And who knows how long you'll be able to afford it even if you could squeak it by this year. Pricing is at Adobe's whim, is it not?

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 16:21 UTC
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1879 comments in total)

An interesting question in my mind, perhaps not in others:

Regardless of software used, a modified photograph in common vernacular has been "photoshopped" or "'shopped."

Suppose that will always be the case? If it is, will one day down the road people have to consult a dictionary to figure out just where in the hell that term came from?

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 14:38 UTC as 413th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

ARB1: Dang Nikon, were is our video update?

Well. There it is. Found it.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2013 at 19:48 UTC
Total: 288, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »