IcyVeins

IcyVeins

Lives in United States San Jose, CA, United States
Joined on Aug 18, 2010

Comments

Total: 256, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

"Sony does not have good lens selection" is code for "Sony doesn't have exotic 600mm telephoto lens or exotic tilt shift lens or 26 thousand versions of a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom"

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 05:22 UTC as 19th comment | 9 replies

I don't get the point of GPS anyway. Just to automatically mark the location of your photos? What is the point of that? Wifi seems much more useful.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 05:19 UTC as 31st comment
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC HX20V Review article (61 comments in total)

Are these travel zoom compacts ever going to have good IQ?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2012 at 02:55 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply

Flickr is great for people who care about photographs just slightly more than those who limit their posting to facebook. Unfortunately that type of photographer far outnumbers the enthusiast and professional photographers that find Flickr underwhelming for their needs. So I just don't see a whole lot changing at Flickr unless they add a higher tier of membership that is targeted specifically for pros and high end enthusiasts.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 01:02 UTC as 103rd comment
On Richard Franiec creates accessory grip for Sony RX100 article (115 comments in total)

I always use a wrist strap because I sure as hell don't want to drop a $200 camera, let alone a $650 camera

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2012 at 20:03 UTC as 25th comment

The weight is listed as 380g. That can't be right because that's how much the 45-200 weighs.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2012 at 06:25 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply

I like that Panasonic decided to stop allowing preorders until 30 days before availability. It's silly to force people to commit months in advance to a camera.I think it's reasonable for them to announce it early so they can have all their announcements on the same day.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2012 at 05:30 UTC as 47th comment

$300 for this is absurd when the 45-200 costs $236 and the silver 45-175 costs $290.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2012 at 05:15 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies
On Just Posted: Nikon Coolpix S9300 Review article (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dabbler: 1/2.3 sensor? not interested.

Can't change the lenses? Not interested.
No f/0.95? Not interested.
Costs over $100? Not interested.
Longer than 0.1 second autofocus? Not interested.
And finally:

Didn't get a gold star from DPR? Not interested.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2012 at 23:48 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon Coolpix S9300 Review article (56 comments in total)

What is currently the best pocketable superzoom camera (at least 10x zoom) in terms of IQ and features? The "top of the line" cameras I know about are:

Canon SX260
Sony HX30V
Fuji F770
Panasonic ZS20
Olympus SZ12
And of course this Nikon which doesn't seem to be very popular with DPR.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2012 at 22:11 UTC as 22nd comment | 2 replies

Pancake lenses are pretty pointless for DSLRs. The handgrip and hump on most of them are going to obscure a lot of the markings on this lens as well.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2012 at 14:11 UTC as 20th comment | 2 replies

Just wondering but why would you need f/2.8 for doing macro? Don't you usually want as much DOf as possible since you are focusing so close?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2012 at 05:27 UTC as 38th comment | 14 replies

Sony...TAKE GOOD NOTES!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2012 at 19:46 UTC as 11th comment
On Canon issues allergy warning for EOS 650D/Rebel T4i article (176 comments in total)

Great job Canon. You've made your final Rebel DSLR and now you're killing off your customers so that they don't switch over to Sony and Nikon once you've closed up shot on Rebels for good.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2012 at 02:32 UTC as 87th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

IcyVeins: This is, quite simply, a godly lens. A lens of this quality normally costs $2000 or more, and is of course much larger and heavier. The corners are razor sharp wide open, there is no light falloff or CA, there's really just about nothing to complain about here. Anyone who is a m/43 enthusiast should be racing to get this lens, based on these samples and the test results from SLRGear.

The Canon and Nikon lenses aren't designed to be used on m4/3, you have to use an adapter and there is no autofocus and they are larger because they cover a larger image circle. The only reasonable comparison is to compare each lens on the cameras for which they are intended to be used.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 07:04 UTC
In reply to:

intruder61: nice and all, if your into head shots....otherwise a useless FL.

Just like 24mm is a useless FL if you're not into landscapes and 400mm is a useless FL if you're not into wildlife, right?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 06:51 UTC
In reply to:

IcyVeins: This is, quite simply, a godly lens. A lens of this quality normally costs $2000 or more, and is of course much larger and heavier. The corners are razor sharp wide open, there is no light falloff or CA, there's really just about nothing to complain about here. Anyone who is a m/43 enthusiast should be racing to get this lens, based on these samples and the test results from SLRGear.

T3 you're being ridiculous arguing semantics, it's plainly obvious that the lens will simulate a longer focal length and nobody cares about how long the physical lens is, only what kind of image it produces. I think you're letting your love of Canon cloud your judgment here, this lens is clearly better

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 06:50 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Images 8 and 16 are most telling to me. Purple fringe is readily apparent and softness is pretty average for a fast prime used at max aperture.

Image 8 is a shot of obscenely glaring light reflection that they took probably on purpose just to see how the lens would respond, and there's very little purple and easily correctible. There are only a tiny amount of lenses that wouldn't show any purple on a shot like that. and they are all much pricier and heavier than this lens.

16 may look soft in the corners but it's because the wall is close enough so that the narrow DOF put the corners out of focus, it has nothing to do with corner sharpness. Also it's kind of funny that you are using a photo of a brick wall, a test subject that nobody shoots in real life, to attack the lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 06:47 UTC
In reply to:

IcyVeins: This is, quite simply, a godly lens. A lens of this quality normally costs $2000 or more, and is of course much larger and heavier. The corners are razor sharp wide open, there is no light falloff or CA, there's really just about nothing to complain about here. Anyone who is a m/43 enthusiast should be racing to get this lens, based on these samples and the test results from SLRGear.

Wow you found one tiny bit of purple on a single image, in which they shot the most absurd light reflection probably on purpose just to see what kind of aberation they would get. There's not a lens in the world short of maybe an exotic supertelephoto that won't show some purple from a shot like that, and as for the focus there is no way to tell exactly how sharp it is because the surface is totally flat and there is no texture detail, it is completely smooth. That image does however show what extremely shallow depth of field is possible, something the trolls have been constantly whining about.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 06:36 UTC

deleted

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 06:35 UTC as 88th comment
Total: 256, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »