delete

delete

Lives in United States United States
Joined on May 15, 2006

Comments

Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mckracken88: too bad the many added elements for VC will make IQ much worse than the nonVC version.

same thing with the 17-50.

and all just because Nikon and Canon wont put VC in their bodies....

Am I to understand Canon and Nikon are able to build optical stabilizers w/o added elements, as in contrary to Tamron? :)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2012 at 14:47 UTC
In reply to:

delete: If this lens would have been available 6 months ago, it would be in my photo bag. Now I already have the f/2,8 VRII. Which is an excellent lens, but per physics also a very heavy and large one.

Not sure if to trade it in for the new f/4 would make sense for me. This would cost me probably nada. On the plus side would be the ~700g less, smaller size and better VR, on the negative side the one stop aperture.

Need to check my photos made with the big one, see how many of them were actually shot with f/2,8.

No, I paid 1799€. I am not sure what the number of ED glasses means in RL. So let's wait and see what the performance of the f/4 is.

During my Canon years, I loved the 70-200 4 L...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

delete: If this lens would have been available 6 months ago, it would be in my photo bag. Now I already have the f/2,8 VRII. Which is an excellent lens, but per physics also a very heavy and large one.

Not sure if to trade it in for the new f/4 would make sense for me. This would cost me probably nada. On the plus side would be the ~700g less, smaller size and better VR, on the negative side the one stop aperture.

Need to check my photos made with the big one, see how many of them were actually shot with f/2,8.

No, I paid 1799€. I am not sure what the number of ED glasses means in RL. So let's wait and see what the performance of the f/4 is.

During my Canon years, I loved the 70-200 4 L...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 19:12 UTC
In reply to:

delete: If this lens would have been available 6 months ago, it would be in my photo bag. Now I already have the f/2,8 VRII. Which is an excellent lens, but per physics also a very heavy and large one.

Not sure if to trade it in for the new f/4 would make sense for me. This would cost me probably nada. On the plus side would be the ~700g less, smaller size and better VR, on the negative side the one stop aperture.

Need to check my photos made with the big one, see how many of them were actually shot with f/2,8.

No, I paid 1799€. I am not sure what the number of ED glasses means in RL. So let's wait and see what the performance of the f/4 is.

During my Canon years, I loved the 70-200 4 L...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 19:11 UTC
In reply to:

delete: If this lens would have been available 6 months ago, it would be in my photo bag. Now I already have the f/2,8 VRII. Which is an excellent lens, but per physics also a very heavy and large one.

Not sure if to trade it in for the new f/4 would make sense for me. This would cost me probably nada. On the plus side would be the ~700g less, smaller size and better VR, on the negative side the one stop aperture.

Need to check my photos made with the big one, see how many of them were actually shot with f/2,8.

No, I paid 1799€. I am not sure what the number of ED glasses means in RL. So let's wait and see what the performance of the f/4 is.

During my Canon years, I loved the 70-200 4 L...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 19:10 UTC
In reply to:

Dan: I bought my 70-200mm F2.8 VR for ~$1400 brand new (including the built-in tripod collar). Just trying to keep things in perspective people.

VR I or VR II?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 19:03 UTC

If this lens would have been available 6 months ago, it would be in my photo bag. Now I already have the f/2,8 VRII. Which is an excellent lens, but per physics also a very heavy and large one.

Not sure if to trade it in for the new f/4 would make sense for me. This would cost me probably nada. On the plus side would be the ~700g less, smaller size and better VR, on the negative side the one stop aperture.

Need to check my photos made with the big one, see how many of them were actually shot with f/2,8.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 07:30 UTC as 63rd comment | 6 replies
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III review article (706 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: DPR, comparing 5D3 with D800... D800 has got lower score on "features". What features does D800 miss in comparison to 5D3?

Probably the lightning fast fps rate of the 5DIII? :)

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2012 at 15:40 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

Weyskipper: Thanks DPreview for a very thorough and high quality review as usual. I personally think that DPR is the benchmark for in depth and quality reviews.

I have been using the D800 for more than six weeks and I find it the most fantastic camera I have ever used.

Quite a few of the posters here have asked that the score be clarified. I have read through all the posts this morning and have not see a response from DPR. It really does require explanation. I have used all the cameras in the comparison list except the Pentax. There is more than clear space between the D800 and the others.

Here's the thing, if DPR thinks the score is important, it has to be correct. There is no way on planet earth that the D300s can out score the D800. It really does require urgent clarification.

If the score is unimportant, DPR should drop it. Unfortunately there is no half-way house.

Thanks Amadou, the metrics part is now made clear!

As for the categorization, I've seen this statement on the page, but nowhere the concrete criteria. There must certainly be a fix and firm list/matrix of market position (BTW, Nikon tags the D800/E as Professional), the feature set and price point a camera must have to qualify for one of these 4 levels?

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 14:24 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

Weyskipper: Thanks DPreview for a very thorough and high quality review as usual. I personally think that DPR is the benchmark for in depth and quality reviews.

I have been using the D800 for more than six weeks and I find it the most fantastic camera I have ever used.

Quite a few of the posters here have asked that the score be clarified. I have read through all the posts this morning and have not see a response from DPR. It really does require explanation. I have used all the cameras in the comparison list except the Pentax. There is more than clear space between the D800 and the others.

Here's the thing, if DPR thinks the score is important, it has to be correct. There is no way on planet earth that the D300s can out score the D800. It really does require urgent clarification.

If the score is unimportant, DPR should drop it. Unfortunately there is no half-way house.

"A camera's score represents 'a moment in time' - the date the review is published"

Understood and accepted. Still this leaves some questions regarding the different partial data as

Build quality
Ergonomics & handling
Features
Metering & focus accuracy
Image quality (raw)
Image quality (jpeg)
Low light / high ISO performance
Viewfinder / screen rating
Performance
Movie / video mode
Value

are they no measurements against scales which are kept constant but also depending on the moment in time?

Plus, I couldn't find the criteria you apply for the categorization of a camera. What is the system which determines if you tag a camera

Entry-level
Mid Range
High End Enthusiast / Semi-Pro
Professional

Certainly this doesn't depend on the moment in time but on a clearly defined set of criteria - where can wie find it?

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 14:01 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

clear glass: Anyone know how the IQ from the D800 compares to a medium format camera with the same MP's?

There are already a lot of comparisons online, for instance here

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http://www.dslrmagazine.com/pruebas/pruebas-tecnicas/mas-alla-de-los-30-mpx.html

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 20:03 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

AnHund: Some people complain about the lack of a "small raw" recording format. But there are several options to reduce size of files.

1. If you want small raw you can select "Lossless compressed raw recording" which will reduce file size with 20-40%.

2. You can also choose to use "Compressed raw recording" which will reduce file size by 33-55%, but you will loose some info.

3. Another option is to use 12bit instead of 14bit color depth.

4. If you can live with jpeg the file size is only something like 15-20MB.

So plenty of options to reduce size.

Probably stupid question, but what exactly are the real world differences between 12 and 14 bit, in terms of dynamic range, filesize or whatever technical or 'optical' aspect?

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 19:58 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

delete: "Wedding, event and studio photographers" are no professionals, since according to dpreview the D800, which "is an exciting prospect indeed" to them, is just a semi-pro camera.

May I kindly ask what exactly are the requirements dpreview needs to be fulfilled to tag a camera as professional?

Apparently I did not make myself clear, sorry for that. Issue is: Nikon itself officially states the D800 is a pro camera. dpreview disputes this, says it is a semi pro camera.

I am just curious to understand how come dpreview disagrees with the manufacturer on this. Certainly there must be objective reasons for dpreview to do so, these I'd like to know.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 18:36 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)

"Wedding, event and studio photographers" are no professionals, since according to dpreview the D800, which "is an exciting prospect indeed" to them, is just a semi-pro camera.

May I kindly ask what exactly are the requirements dpreview needs to be fulfilled to tag a camera as professional?

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 15:20 UTC as 80th comment | 6 replies
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

delete: So, according to dpreview, *in total* the Canon 7D is superior to the Nikon D800. Since it is in the same category ("Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category") and was awarded 2 points more. Seems to me the calculation scheme is in need of an update.

@sandy b: I know, but what sense do these absolute figures make at all if one must take certain other aspects into account?

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 12:29 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

John Clare: I'm a part-time professional nature photographer (not a wannabe).

I take issue with this quote from the conclusion: "Not so good for Professional sports/action photographers or Nikon users who do not own top of the line lenses."

Please! Who in their right mind buys a $3000 camera and skimps on the lenses?

Your only legitimate gripe is FPS - 4 is distinctly poor for a prol camera. The focus mode button is a blind person's joy. I can _feel_ exactly where I am with that button. And it's the same as the D7000, my backup body. As is the battery. And they both take SD.

One very important omission from your review is that this camera comes with a built-in flash. This is why I never switched to a Canon 5D, 5D II, or 5D III, despite their beautiful images. This allows the D800 to take advantage of Nikon's unrivaled Creative Lighting System. My mind boggles at how this camera can get 82% compared to its class, according to dpreview. Please, have some journalistic integrity!

According to dpreview the D800 is not a pro but only a semi-pro, as written in the review: "Semi-professional Interchangeable Lens camera / DSLR".

Nikon apparently sees this differently.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 11:46 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)

So, according to dpreview, *in total* the Canon 7D is superior to the Nikon D800. Since it is in the same category ("Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category") and was awarded 2 points more. Seems to me the calculation scheme is in need of an update.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 11:19 UTC as 96th comment | 4 replies

"The X10 and X-S1 are fitted with a very advanced sensor, which gives excellent picture quality and low noise, but which does give a different ‘blooming’ effect from other cameras. "

Funny how they attempt desperately to give the problem a spin so it sounds more like a feature than a bug :)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 12, 2012 at 20:25 UTC as 126th comment

So far I happily survived w/o joining FB and/or G+. And the things I read in this thread about the IPR handling by these services, and general terms of use, convinces me I'll continue like that until the end of (my) days.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2012 at 14:29 UTC as 2nd comment

The photographer writes

"All of that being said, I’m usually in the hole at the end of the year, and take on many family portraits, senior portraits and corporate jobs in order to make ends meet."

So why does she wedding jobs at all if she loses money on them? Doesn't sound logical to me.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 09:29 UTC as 243rd comment | 1 reply
Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »