ryansholl

ryansholl

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

Comments

Total: 295, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
On Sony A3000 preview (676 comments in total)
In reply to:

beavertown: What is the point to buy the G16?

Sometimes people type LOL and I really honestly doubt that they laughed out loud.

I laughed out loud, Esign.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 06:21 UTC
On Is Sony making a sensor/lens combo for smartphones? post (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rooru S: Hope you can take the lens away from the phone and still take pictures.

There was a demo video from an electronics show where the presenter did exactly that.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 12, 2013 at 23:35 UTC
In reply to:

brdeveloper: Probably these lenses have a lot of thorium in the glass or other radioactive materials so common in bright lenses that days. I wouldn't keep one inside my room. However, I wouldn't get a cancer playing with one of these for a couple of days.

You could look this up and not leave it to conjecture.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2013 at 03:22 UTC
In reply to:

mike kobal: sweet, the PSCamX35mm records up to 450fps, has a global shutter, on the market since Fall 2011. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, wake up and take notes!

Yes. And the only price I could find online was 58,000 euros to get it.

Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic: Put that notepad back down!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2013 at 03:20 UTC

The complaining here is just getting unbearable.

If you don't think it's worth the money when you're faced with the need for lenses of a different mount, go ahead and search ebay, risk getting an item not as described (because that never happens to anyone, right) pay your shipping costs, pay the 4% or whatever to ebay and 4% to paypal from the sale of your own lens, and move on with your life.

When you know you've got a great lens, could it just maybe be that $80-$250 to not F around with all the potential perils of ebay might just be worth it?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2013 at 14:44 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

tkbslc: Awesome. You reap what you sow, right?

I rip what I sew.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2013 at 21:52 UTC

Go Sigma Go!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2013 at 14:52 UTC as 65th comment
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 (349 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
Total: 295, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »