Stanchung

Stanchung

Lives in Malaysia Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Works as a Event Photographer
Joined on Jan 7, 2012

Comments

Total: 350, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ThePhilips: I use Google Image search regularly, and I yet to encounter the stock photos of high resolution. Largest dimension rarely exceeds 400 pixels.

Also I have never seen Getty images in the search results.

that's why nobody wants to buy Getty's images. Photos that anybody can buy and sold multiple times and yet buyers have no right to use hires images openly.

That's the worst deal I've ever heard of.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2016 at 14:33 UTC
In reply to:

stevevelvia50: If your main thing is landscape, casual street and fine art, the d7200 is simply the better choice. The price is Better by far, the build is absolutely fine, it is lighter, excellent AF, high iso is the roughly the same and it has higher resolution.

No it doesn't Stevevelvia50.
You're comparing jpegs I suppose.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2016 at 02:54 UTC
In reply to:

Yukon Ranger: Glad I didn't fall for the D500 hype. Download the D7200D/D500 @ 3200 ISO and compare faces at 100%. Even at this moderate ISO there are already fine details, lines and hairs the D500 simply does not pick up. ISO performance is a half stop improvement at best, so downsize your D7200 file to 20MP ... boom... advantage nullified.

The advantages of the D500 are AF fine tune, bluetooth, backlit buttons, and improved FPS/buffer. But if you can't get the shot with a 20 frame buffer, 100 won't help either....the moment will have already passed.

The problem for nikon is that a refurb 7200 is like ~750 bucks shipped, add to that a sigma 150-600 C lens and you are up and running with a high performing, extremely lightweight setup for LESS than the D500...with better IQ to boot.

I'll sum up the nikon buying guide for 2016:

-best DSLR IQ: D750
-best DX IQ: D7200
-best DX ISO: D500 @ the cost of resolution and detail

sorry to bust your bubble but you're looking at the jpegs. the RAWs tell a different story.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 10:07 UTC
In reply to:

Retro1976: I don't know why there is so much hype over the Sony A series bodies and lenses. Look at these samples: The rich color, skin tones, contrast and detail - the images are lovely, superb. Sony doesn't come close to Canon in this regard, and yet time and time again people talk about the superiority of Sony sensors, yet my eyes don't see it.

Strange discussion. Especially since everyone has different tastes.

Rich colour can be easily had- FYI it's the contrast and vibrance slider or the dreaded saturation one.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2016 at 05:07 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Phil Garcia (71 comments in total)

Stunning images of a shy animal. Nice use of foreground to create depth.
Talented & tenacious photog.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2016 at 02:35 UTC as 28th comment

I would have asked them about DF2, focus peaking[for all the manual lenses out there], lens quality vs 3rd party & prices.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 03:43 UTC as 25th comment
On article Adobe Camera Raw 9.5 introduces new color scheme (132 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dirk Nuary: Every camera geeks here. Please tell me what's the difference between Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop Lightroom when it comes to RAW editing. What's the advantage between the two? I'm already used Photoshop Lightroom and expect to use ACR.

ACR is a leaner fit together with Bridge & PS[if needed].

Because I also design stuff, PS is more useful than LR.

LR feels like an extra program, great if you only do photos. It's also cheaper than PS in the pre cloud days.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 03:20 UTC
On article Adobe Camera Raw 9.5 introduces new color scheme (132 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alfonso Bresciani: I hate Lightroom, its interface sucks, the panes are all nested and to many, it's a big mess even with two monitors. I even hate the sliders in LR.

I don't like using sliders too. Much prefer using the arrow keys in ACR or PS.

Compared to Nikon software, Adobe is nimble as deer. LOL

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 03:14 UTC
In reply to:

Stanchung: Definitely something special. and nice review.

Since it's a shift lens, is it able to get front to back sharp of say a field of lilies? Something impossible with a non shift lens even when stopped down?

ah

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 05:54 UTC

Definitely something special. and nice review.

Since it's a shift lens, is it able to get front to back sharp of say a field of lilies? Something impossible with a non shift lens even when stopped down?

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 02:22 UTC as 20th comment | 8 replies

Nice idea though not original. Lens is sharp at f2.
Bokeh looks looks creamy.

However,
700 is a bit steep.
No VR/VC/IS or AF.
T3.2 is quite a lot of lost light- more like a f2.8 lens in this respect.

Bokeh is really nice though but deal breaker for me is no AF.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 03:48 UTC as 29th comment
In reply to:

(unknown member): This is a good lens with a beautiful feature for a decent price. 105mm on a FF is excellent for portraiture, f/2.0 is also excellent for shallow DoF on a FF. Add the lovely APO effect and you have an excellent tool. I think I will try one on the K-1 soon. This one checks more boxes for me than the K-mount Samyang 135mm f/2.0

Bokeh quality will be better than a regular. 105 f2.8

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 03:39 UTC
On article Seriously sharp: Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM samples (262 comments in total)
In reply to:

FuhTeng: I'm going to leave this here for all those who believe sharpness (resolution? accutance?) is the most important thing about lenses -

"Our young men should spend more time considering the composition and merit of their images, and less time with magnifying glasses counting how many bricks and shingles they can resolve." - from a Paris newspaper article on Daguerrotype photography, from 1841.

It's sharp but I feel underwhelmed by the pictures, especially the lighting. Can't really say much about the bokeh, not many f1.4 pictures.

The point of a technical real world[ real enough] gallery is to show off the lens. Top on the list is sharpness & bokeh. Colour is more of the camera's bias IMO.

I would add an into the sun, sunstars and more f1.4 shots, closest focusing shots.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2016 at 02:12 UTC
On Connect post Microsoft Surface Pro 4 comes with larger screen and more power (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

springsnow: Microsoft is literally going back to Tablet PCs, where "tablets" are basically laptop PCs with touch screen running Windows.
This will definitely find its niche, but majority of consumers probably won't utilise the main selling points of the device, and simply use it as a laptop.

In the end, I believe a regular ultrabook probably will be a better solution for most people. I can't wait for the next gen Core M laptops.

Honeslty, I really don't like large touch screens. The greasy dirty screen is a real turn off. It's ok for a small screen but for a big one it's a PITA to keep clean.

Microsoft can try to get to the fence sitters and those waiting to upgrade to a newer device.

Most of us stick to the same OS, as such a surface holds little appeal to me because it's windows.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 02:25 UTC
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: NON of these are taken in someones garden and the Iceland one is a DESERT not a garden, I live in Iceland FFS an this is the dumbest competition name ever, just rename it "landscape"

There's one actually. A pigeon house.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 02:06 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: As alluded to below, there is not one native plant in the winning photo - it is a totally altered environment and the feature plants are aggressive weeds! Even that stream is highly modified. There has been a bit of grumbling in New Zealand about this photograph, as you can imagine.

Not that it is a bad image, just that it represents some sort of unreal fantasy which has come at a high price. Thank goodness New Zealand is no longer pushing the totally inaccurate "clean, green" image these days.

HDR? Don't see any HDR. Lifted shadows and slightly burned highlights maybe but it isn't your Trey Ratcliff stuff.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 02:01 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: As alluded to below, there is not one native plant in the winning photo - it is a totally altered environment and the feature plants are aggressive weeds! Even that stream is highly modified. There has been a bit of grumbling in New Zealand about this photograph, as you can imagine.

Not that it is a bad image, just that it represents some sort of unreal fantasy which has come at a high price. Thank goodness New Zealand is no longer pushing the totally inaccurate "clean, green" image these days.

Colour looks fine. I think some people have the saturation on their monitors and phones on overkill.

A little high on red and yellow in the highlights but otherwise no big deal.

Put in any software and analyse the RGB histogram and you will see.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 01:59 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Just the fact that they ordered the non vc version and list it higher is irritating! We're not stupid Pentax!

The 15-30 from tamron doesn't exhibit a noticeable tone bias. It looks clean.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 07:11 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Just the fact that they ordered the non vc version and list it higher is irritating! We're not stupid Pentax!

The Tamron is no slouch except in the corners wide open. Don't think the coating is going to be that big of a deal but weather sealing is.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 05:15 UTC
In reply to:

nikonosv: I am a professional fashion photographer and while I use a wider lens such as the 35mm occasionally, I believe this video needs to be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to photographing different types of people with a wider focal length.

Most of the models I photograph, are well proportioned, skinny/fit, have well defined facial features, and will just look good regardless what type of lens I use to photograph them. Likewise the models in this video tend to have fashion-esque features as well.

However, when photographing people that are either heavier set, wider, curvier, etc, I would not recommend using a 35mm or wider unless you really know what you're doing. Simply put, facial features will get exaggerated, meaning wide faces can end up looking chubbier, curvier bodies can end up looking bigger, and just plain unflattering. Short stocky bodies will end up looking even more compressed, etc you get the idea.

Variety is good but always keep the limitations in mind.

Sharp features do well with longer focal lengths.

Oriental faces could do better with a WA.

Avoid WA when dealing with big noses generally.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 04:08 UTC
Total: 350, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »