I moninate Emma Gruner for the "Can't Been Unseen Award 2016". Not safe for work, by the way.
Marcel: I prefer RED BULL Motor Cross event shots where motorcrossers take dangerious loops and that kind of things.
Btw i notice that the shutterspeed is too high if i see that the spikewheeks are bloody sharp. The should be blurry in order to suggest speed of the rotating wheel. Everything else should be sharp.
A slow shutter speed is only required when the wheels are on tarmac. On dirt or in the air it doesn't matter, because the movement is obvious.
Panning shots only show the skill of the photographer. They don't show how good the AF is.
DaddyG: Speaking of the Olympics, do you think any sports pros will be using the vaunted Sony A6300?
Not a single one.
No lens hood?!
Probably 90mm f2.8 and 91-280mm f4.0. :-)
Starkiller: The piano <> Minimoog comparison is odd. The Minimoog is an analog synthesizer. The digital equivalent of a piano would be a ROM synthesizer. In a direct comparison I prefer a real Mimimoog over any other instrument, including every piano ever build.
“You know, forget about your incredible piano, you're going to play this concert with a Minimoog.”
I'm sorry, but you can't compare a (grand) piano with a Minimoog, unless you are really comparing only the amount of keys.
In terms of sound you can compare a real (grand) piano with lesser pianos or any ROM keyboard/synthesizer featuring piano multisamples, but you definitely can't compare it with a Minimoog. Piano vs Minimoog is like printed photo vs painting.
The way Emmanuel Lubezki said it ("incredible piano" > Minimoog), depreciates the Minimoog as an instrument. If you ask the best music producers and the best players (i. e. Rick Wakeman), they will all tell you nothing can beat a Minimoog in terms of sound and playing it live. If you want the best sound -> any Moog. If you want an "incredible piano": anything but a Moog.
The piano <> Minimoog comparison is odd. The Minimoog is an analog synthesizer. The digital equivalent of a piano would be a ROM synthesizer. In a direct comparison I prefer a real Mimimoog over any other instrument, including every piano ever build.
I want an interview with the janitor working at Canon HQ. He is probably the only Canon employee to say something worth reading.
Interviewing any Canon Executive is like talking to my hand. If the Managers and Executives can't or won't answer your questions, don't interview them anymore.
joelR42: Wait. You an't use the touchscreen to navigate or review images? That seems really odd.
You can scroll through your images with the big wheel besides the LCD way faster than with any touchscreen.
Pandimonium: How 'bout dads old dslr ;)
$135 USD for a strap is only justified if the leather comes from the last unicorn.
Sir Corey of Deane: I'm waiting for the 1200mm f/0.95.
Transformers! That's why it's Optimus Prime, not Optimus Zoom.
Canon showcased the front element of a 2000mm f2.8 at the Canon Expo 2015. That front element alone weights 115 pounds.
f0.95 is only 1/8th stop faster than f1.0, but with a 2xTC you get a 2400mm slightly faster than f2.
JackM: 24/1.8, nice, I'm jealous. Canon has no exact match - there's the aged 28/1.8 or the slower 24/2.8 IS. Price on that Nikkor seems about $150 too high though.
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM?!
Douglas F Watt: How does it get to be so big at just slightly wider (11mm vs the 12mm of the Nikon), while the Nikon is 2.8 and it's f4? Don't get that one . . . .
(Only) The entrance pupil is f4.0. It's located in the middle of the lens. The other lens elements do not count. The front elements can be as large as the manufacturer wants them to be. Just look at the vintage Nikon 13mm f5.6. It's only f5.6, but the lens is way larger than the 11-24mm f4 or the 14-24mm f2.8.
Neil Schofield: Looks like a very good camera, however for the reviewer to state that the 5D lll AF system is behind the times
I don't think so
It's a feature rarely useful in practice. For example if you shoot people, you want them to look or move towards the center of the frame. If your subject looks or moves in the wrong direction (towards the left or right border), the photo is useless. You can see this on page 8 of your review in the twelve shot (test) sequence. It's nice that the camera can identify the eye and track it, but the composition in all the shots is not good. You always have to align the camera manually for the best composition. And then the AF field (or AF group) stays the same all the time. I think it's far more important to have as many as possible AF fields than to have face detection and a tracking feature. Plus it's very important to have cross type AF fields as close to the corners as possible. The D750 is better than the 5D3, but personally I would pick the 5D3 over the D750 just for having cross type AF fields where I need them. The AF future however is mirrorless. The winner is probably Sony.
For 78k I get two sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.
nerd2: So basically equivalent to MF 20mm f5.6 for FF?
2.1 is about (not exactly) 1/8th stop slower than 2.0. If t2.1 is in this case f2.8 (almost a full stop of transmission), then yes. The FF equivalent would be a 20mm t4.36.
In the next video Holly explains how to dry your eqipment without a microwave.
AbrasiveReducer: Nikon has repeatedly said they will focus on high profit margin items so no surprise there. But this business of converting dollars to Sterling at 1:1 puzzles me.
Does anyone how much profit a single lens generates when sold for 12k? Canon and Nikon need more competitors. Imagine a car manufacturer wants 30-50 percent more money for next version of a current car model. Noboby would buy it.