GlobalGuyUSA

Lives in United States Los Angeles, United States
Works as a International Trade
Joined on Jun 24, 2007
About me:

My business is marketing international trade, not photography. My hobbies are primarily graphic art and then photography. Take comments with a grain of salt. I'll learn as much from you as I hope to share with others.

Comments

Total: 251, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

TN Args: First time I have heard anything described as both sharp and circular. Maybe a saw.

Pizza cutter.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 08:50 UTC
On article Photo gifts for every budget: 2015 Holiday Gift Guides (20 comments in total)
In reply to:

Franco8: These will also make great Christmas gifts

And lest we forget: KRAMPUS DAY, Dec. 5th!

Not sure the kid'll receive anything on these lists though...

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2015 at 03:51 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: As mentioned by others, a bright, golden brass ring should NOT be at the front of any optical system! These guys have #flare, not #flair.

Not to mention, I've never noticed my existing polarisers causing soft focus problems!

Brian

The pathways for light are all using BLACK MATTE. The brass ring is only at angles that cannot direct light into the lens.

If you look closely, the inner part of the filter has a small amount of brass, which is suddenly replaced by the BLACK MATTE, at an angle which would block any flare from the brass.

In other words, you don't have to worry about it at all.

Good note, but better not to make claims which are unproven.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2015 at 23:00 UTC

The biggest losers in Sony buying up the scandal-ridden Toshiba's sensors division will be us -- the consumers. Toshiba was a pressure against Sony getting a monopoly on advancement. You can already see Sony is implementing its sensors in its own cameras first, more than a year before other companies have access to it. It didn't used to be this way -- previously, they gave them to competitors first and only later implemented them in Sony cameras. Nikon, etc, could have had the option to use a Toshiba sensor instead.... but now that option doesn't exist.

I really wish Nikon & Canon had bought Toshiba's sensor business, instead of Sony. It doesn't seem that this is good for consumers. Especially now that Samsung is exiting the camera market, there will be no Samsung surprise. Instead, we're going to feel a Sony monopoly.

Right now, Sony is incredibly innovative, though. So let's see if that holds up. No criticism unless they drop the ball. But they have a responsibility now.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01 UTC as 25th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

G1Houston: Is "Income" the same as profit? Technically Profit = income - expenditure.

What about "revenue"?

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2015 at 03:57 UTC
On article Nikon D810 firmware C 1.10 now available (62 comments in total)

I didn't notice any problem with the D810, except for sometimes I wasn't sure if I had correctly pressed the shutter during movie mode when trying to take a still. Good to know this will smooth that out!

Fantastic camera. Can't wait to see what a D900 brings, given that the D810 is such a pleasure to use!

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2015 at 03:56 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

Schweikert: No need to bag on PW. I am still using my many PW's after 15 years with no issues for studio lighting and strobist setups too. That's quality electronics in my book.

"No need to bag on PW. I am still using my many PW's after 15 years with no issues for studio lighting and strobist setups too. That's quality electronics in my book."

Correction -- that is quality........ 15 years ago. And their technology seems to feel the same as 10 years ago, while being significantly overpriced. I wouldn't mind it if they were at the cutting edge of technology AND offered a more robust build with reliability. But if all you have to offer over the competitor is a reliable build, yet fall behind elsewhere (as they did), it doesn't make sense, when you can get competition that last years for a fraction of the cost (with more than enough left over for spares). This is supposed to be a high-tech option, so its not easy to justify that resting on the brand name and build quality is enough. People who use these things want improved capabilities. And a new generation of photographers want even more.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 07:03 UTC
In reply to:

weisman: Am I the only one who thinks that a flash on top of a transceiver on top of a camera is a tenuous stack of gear with a cantilever load that's a recipe for failure?
Also, the AF assist beam from the flash is going to move up significantly and may not sit over the camera's AF points correctly. I see this PW unit does not have its own AF assist beam to offset that problem.

Hm. Yes, you might be the only one. Unless you use only the largest flashes, you can easily put a small to mid-sized one on there without any issue whatsoever (I'm assuming PocketWizard won't use plastic screws), and its also good for attaching LED lighting and/or AUDIO, which may be desirable if using video occasionally, moving around, filling, note-taking, etc. The key point is that having the option = good. Not bad.

And I feel doubtful the problem you mentioned is really a problem -- I haven't measured the effect, but the angle of the AF assist beam from a Flash has always been just that, angled. So the "AF points" issue you're theorizing has always been relative to distance. Stacking in this manner is no different than standing one or two feet CLOSER to the object. Most flashes don't suddenly stop working if you step one or two feet forward or backwards. Well, possibly at very close macro distances, maybe?

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 06:56 UTC
In reply to:

bilmenot: Guys take cover, grandpa is coming !!!
I don't want to use the word, but this beast looks absolutely ugly to me, and the top LCD too small, I expected to see a matrix display, and the articulating screen looks like the beast is in the middle of transformation to something more lethal, or a hidden drone take to flight !!
I hope this is still an early prototype, or a nightmare of mine, I hope to see something as pretty or more pretty than the K3, I don't want a 67, or the shot was taken with a non Pentax lens with heavy distortion ??
I still want a FF, but my wallet is not as swollen as this one, I may take the next bus...

I don't see anything wrong with it from the pics. This is just a mockup anyway.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2015 at 06:40 UTC
In reply to:

Dirk Nuary: What is the term of 'fast' here? It's manual lens isn't it? Of course can't do fast auto focus. And its name is SPEEDmaster, what is this?

"Fast" is referring to the SHUTTER SPEED. Because glass that opens wider (say, f/1.2 [fast] vs. f/8 [slow]) is able to use faster shutter speed times, we say that its "fast." "Slow" glass requires longer shutter speed times to get the same exposure.

The TIME needed to achieve an exposure varies, depending on how wide open you can get a lens. f/0.95 typically being the fastest you're likely to ever see/own. And anything above f/4 generally being considered "slow" because of the longer exposure times needed. (VR helps offset camera shake, but cannot freeze movement, so even a lens with VR at f/4 is still not "faster" than an f/0.95 lens).

f/3.5 and f/4 is generally considered "average" speed (any people with fast glass often stop-down to these "speeds" because they are perfectly fine in normal use and can sharpen the lens when stopped down a bit). f/2.8 is the beginning of fast. f/2 & f/1.8 are fast. f/1.4 and f/1.2 are "very fast". f/5.6 starts to be "slow" & f/8 to f/11 is.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2015 at 05:26 UTC
In reply to:

xiao fei: "stupendously large"
They've got a point. While bigger is certainly inconvenient, after a certain point it makes you feel like a badass.

This is a tripod lens. That's all there is to it.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2015 at 05:17 UTC
In reply to:

Carerra: This is crazy, who would buy this, the weight would be hell, the aperture would be probably terrible at 1.4, you have that gorgeous Nikon 300 F4 compared to this, The Velvet is already peeling off in picture 2

There is no reasoning which can justify bashing innovation.

The company should be lauded for its efforts, not ridiculed.

Let's see the final product, and let each ACTUAL buyer be the judge of the value....

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2015 at 05:16 UTC
In reply to:

Gabriele Sartori: Who would give $3000 to this company?

The company is reliable and produces decent glass. Its manual, not AF, but its decent. The price is for the R&D for an f/1.4 @ 135. You can go SONY if you want a 135 f/1.8 Zeiss.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2015 at 05:14 UTC
On article Second time lucky? A closer look at Sony's new RX1R II (543 comments in total)
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: Very cool. Pricey. But cool.

If this dropped to $1,000; it'd easily be worth it. At $2,000, you'd be hard pressed to know yourself well enough as to why its worth it, when there are other full frame cameras available. At $3,000, it really has stopped feeling worth it to most people not born into money except those who are 35mm lovers. But at nearly $3,300, you really gotta wonder why this isn't something more like $2,300.

That being said, although its a bit out there, this is still a positive direction compared to Leica pricing! Sony is doing good things for the industry, bringing innovation and changing the game a bit, but keeping prices down doesn't seem to be one of them.

These types of cameras are actually great for brands that need to grow -- but where people are reluctant to go DSLR, because they aren't used to the "system" -- by being isolated from any "system", fixed-lens cameras (and zooms like the RX100III) really help new consumers to give a new brand a chance.

@FujLiver,

Yes, a BARGAIN for people "born into money" -- we already covered that.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

Martinka: Can this lens be reverse-mounted for macro?

It should take filters (and therefore have a thread, which could be used for reverse-mounting), if that's what you are asking. Its designed for landscape, after all. Those petal hoods at the front of Zeiss OTUSes are removable, even though they look integrated with the body.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 22:19 UTC

SWEET!! I hope this means that SIGMA is going to make the auto-focusing 28mm/1.4 ART lens that Nikon should have made!!!

Can't wait! :-D

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 22:18 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: I just wish they made these "fixed-lens" cameras -- designed to be integrated with the lens -- as "triple-lens" cameras instead. Like, it really confused me why did Sigma make 3 "DP" fixed-lens cameras. In other words, why design it to work with only one lens -- instead, make it interesting with a 3-some! Having three (3) changeable lenses would be fantastic:

-18mm/f2.8
-40mm/f1.8
-85mm/f2

I FULLY UNDERSTAND that they can't make it a full system, because they'd need more sensor-lens distance/etc; but they could probably get at least 3 lenses to work perfectly (even if not the ones I listed). And they could give it a very cheap PANCAKE 28mm/f4 with nearly no protrusion whatsoever, as a body cap, just for fun. I'm talking about 3 serious limited-series integration lenses + a cheap pancake body cap.

Why not?

Sorry, this is philosophical difference -- I don't want a "Nikon 1" soap-bar style mirrorless (POS Canon M/Nikon 1 soap bar mirrorless cameras), where they are all crippled. If I buy a mirrorless system, it should be very professional and have all the right knobs and dials and switches and jacks and ports, etc. Not crippled.

Philosophically, that (a "system" camera -- like the Fuji XT-1, etc, etc) is MUCH different from a, let's say, "convenience" camera (which might be soap bar -- such as this fixed-lens camera).

As such, what I am suggesting is a "simple-system" instead of a "fixed lens" convenience camera. For example, in a manner of speaking, the RX100III is a convenience camera, even though it has a 24-70 zoom. A zoom certainly is convenient, as is the pocketable form factor. In a sense, this new camera has a lot in common. Its not exactly pocketable, that's all. But more convenient than a "system" camera. It doesn't BECOME a system camera just by having 3 lens options.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 22:13 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: I know sony is the only one innovating now, but it seems sony is exploiting that situation... Please release $1499 RX2 with 24MP and OIS. I don't need super duper 40+MP $3000 P&S...

That's not true -- the A7II is large/ugly (bulbous, humps, bumps, etc) & is designed as a "system" interchangeable camera. This one, by contrast, has the same svelt form factor as the "RX-100III", which is highly desirable (from a certain point of view; obviously not everyone agrees -- but there are many, many fans).

As such, its possible to make an "RX-7II", if you will with a fixed, compact lens, full-frame, and all those other things that this new camera has, but with older sensor tech, to keep price down to reasonable $1,500 to $2,000 area.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 22:06 UTC
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: I just wish they made these "fixed-lens" cameras -- designed to be integrated with the lens -- as "triple-lens" cameras instead. Like, it really confused me why did Sigma make 3 "DP" fixed-lens cameras. In other words, why design it to work with only one lens -- instead, make it interesting with a 3-some! Having three (3) changeable lenses would be fantastic:

-18mm/f2.8
-40mm/f1.8
-85mm/f2

I FULLY UNDERSTAND that they can't make it a full system, because they'd need more sensor-lens distance/etc; but they could probably get at least 3 lenses to work perfectly (even if not the ones I listed). And they could give it a very cheap PANCAKE 28mm/f4 with nearly no protrusion whatsoever, as a body cap, just for fun. I'm talking about 3 serious limited-series integration lenses + a cheap pancake body cap.

Why not?

Why is that? This shape is like "RX100III", which is a very desirable form factor for certain segment. I don't expect a camera this shape to be a system camera. But to have wide, normal, and tele option would be the best case. No one established that it "must" be fixed lens. Simply, they optimized it for one lens. If that's the case, they can optimize it for 3 lenses. This is just an idea.

I would not want to put super-teles 500/4VRs or gigantic 15-35/2.8VRs on it. I just want 3 basic lenses and a pancake body cap, to complement the form factor.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 22:03 UTC

I just wish they made these "fixed-lens" cameras -- designed to be integrated with the lens -- as "triple-lens" cameras instead. Like, it really confused me why did Sigma make 3 "DP" fixed-lens cameras. In other words, why design it to work with only one lens -- instead, make it interesting with a 3-some! Having three (3) changeable lenses would be fantastic:

-18mm/f2.8
-40mm/f1.8
-85mm/f2

I FULLY UNDERSTAND that they can't make it a full system, because they'd need more sensor-lens distance/etc; but they could probably get at least 3 lenses to work perfectly (even if not the ones I listed). And they could give it a very cheap PANCAKE 28mm/f4 with nearly no protrusion whatsoever, as a body cap, just for fun. I'm talking about 3 serious limited-series integration lenses + a cheap pancake body cap.

Why not?

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 21:54 UTC as 74th comment | 9 replies
Total: 251, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »