gordon lafleur

gordon lafleur

Joined on Feb 23, 2011

Comments

Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Photokina 2014: Hands-on with Leica X and X-E article (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

straylightrun: Would rather get the Fujifilm x100

It's a no brainer. If you want a status symbol buy the Leica. If you want to make photographs buy a FujiX series. (I own three)
http://lightmancer.blogspot.ca/2014/09/the-day-leica-left-me.html

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 18:48 UTC
On Photokina 2014: Hands-on with Leica X and X-E article (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

straylightrun: Would rather get the Fujifilm x100

Buy one if you're interested in status. Buy a Fuji X-100T if you are interested in taking pictures, or an XT-1 with the 23mm 1.4 if your really think you need a faster lens.
Leica is redundant.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 17:26 UTC
In reply to:

AshMills: "minimum aperture not affected" - yes, but what about MAXIMUM aperture?

Dude, f3.5

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 19:47 UTC
In reply to:

Eyeglass10101: The idea seems great: no loss of aperture (no typical teleconversion loss of two stops or more) and seemingly great Fuji optical quality. But my experience with teleconversion screw-on lenses have always been poor. I hope they have figured something out that has not been done yet.

f3.5 I'm afraid

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

Mattersburger: That's a lot of metal & glass to get to an f2 normal.

Hey, it's not f2, it's f3.5.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 19:45 UTC
In reply to:

schaki: Lol. Sony and their huge lenses..

Tmmbits Full frame lenses do not have to be bloated clunkers llike this. Lots of full frame lenses are very small, especially primes. Old film lenses like Pentax M series and Olympus OM lenses were very small. Leica M lenses are very compact. Old Zeiss lenses were bloated clunkers like their modern ones however. The lenses for the old Contarex 35mm cameras were huge.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2013 at 22:03 UTC
In reply to:

Daniel Bliss: A small camera wants a small lens. This one is begging for a really good 35/2.

$800 for a 35mm f2.8? $1000 for a 50mm f 1.8? give me a break. I'll spend my money elsewhere thanks.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 23:15 UTC
In reply to:

Daniel Bliss: A small camera wants a small lens. This one is begging for a really good 35/2.

The only stealing going on is by Zeiss and Sony. Your average "junk" lens, like a Nikkor or Canon do just fine thanks. I remmember a few years ago seeing tests in one of the mags of a round-up of 50mm normal lenses. The Zeiss was twice as expensive as all the other "junk" lenses, but it tested in the middle of the pack.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

schaki: Lol. Sony and their huge lenses..

Nice little cameras, big clunky over-priced lenses. The lenses may be smaller than the DSLR ones, but those are monstrous. What's the point of making compact camera bodies if you don't make lenses to match. Maybe they could hire Pentax or Olympus to make lenses for them. Zeiss is a big part of the problem. Their lenses have always been bloated, over-rated clunkers.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 23:07 UTC
On Sony Alpha A7 / A7R preview (2372 comments in total)

Why does Sony persist in making lovely small cameras, then only offer big ugly clunky lenses?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2013 at 22:37 UTC as 454th comment | 4 replies

This is complete horse-pucky

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 16:33 UTC as 411th comment | 1 reply
On DxOMark investigates lenses for the Nikon D800 article (80 comments in total)

No surprise that the clunky Zeiss lenses fared so badly. They've always been over-rated. Maybe they should be selling re-badged Samyangs.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2013 at 19:03 UTC as 37th comment | 1 reply

Wow, check out the white paper nay sayers, very impressive.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2013 at 18:51 UTC as 23rd comment
On Just Posted: Fujifilm X100S first-look preview article (146 comments in total)

I love my x100, but I have two concerns that are not mentioned in the preview. The shutter lag, not from the autofocus, but the crazy aperture dance the camera does befor every shot, and second, the terrible overlay of the distance scale which obscures the bottom of the viewfinder in manual focus mode (and which they won't let you turn off in manual mode)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2013 at 16:47 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On Just Posted: Fujifilm X100S first-look preview article (146 comments in total)

Sounds good so far, but my biggest concern, does that horrible distance scale still intrude into the picture area in manual focus, and will the camera let me turn off now?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2013 at 23:18 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
On Just Posted: Leica X2 real-world sample gallery article (114 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: IQ seems good, but the colors from the Fuji X cameras are significantly better.

But the image of the kid on the beach show the big problem with a lens sans lens hood as with light hitting the front element, contrast is horrible. I don't know if there is a way to mount at least a screw in lens hood, but just shooting the naked lens in not the way to go.

Fuji's lenses are every bit a match for Leica's.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2012 at 05:20 UTC
On Just Posted: Leica X2 real-world sample gallery article (114 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: I would rather pay $800 more for the FF Sony RX1, APS-C compacts are a dime a dozen but there are very few FF compacts under $3k.

Ehhhh....I'll stick with my Fuji x100 thanks very much. Hey, and DP review, if you need someone to shoot some test pics, I'll gladly help out for free. These are frankly dreadful.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2012 at 05:17 UTC
On IMG_0899-ACR photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (6 comments in total)

Good grief, look at the horrid noise! My Fuji x100 blows Canon's doors off at high ISO

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2012 at 18:47 UTC as 1st comment
On Hands-on with the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR article (258 comments in total)
In reply to:

ImagesInstyle: About time nikon. i was getting tired of lusting after canons 70-200mm f4.
now stop playin, and include the tripod ring, and were all good.

I agree about the tripod collar stuff, I have an aftermarket one for my Canon f4, but have never used it in the two years I've had it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2012 at 00:36 UTC
In reply to:

itsastickup: 19 stops of dynamic range. There are lots of pics that are currently impossible without Portra. I borrow my brother's DSLR but otherwise I'm still using film.

Canon are getting close, however, with their multi-shot DR mode that is almost fast enough for portraits, but not quite.

OK while were at it, I want a real honest to gosh 6x7 cm digital back for my Mamiya RZ (have to get it back, sold it, with multiple lenses and stuff for $1000 a year or so ago.) Doesn't have to be more than 12 megapixels, but should shoot at high ISOs. Those sub-645 (36x48 or so) "medium format" backs they make now are a joke.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2012 at 00:45 UTC
Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »