PIX 2015
Antony John

Antony John

Lives in Kuwait Cape Town, Kuwait
Works as a Divisional Manager/Polymer Chemist
Joined on Nov 16, 2007

Comments

Total: 438, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Bang for the Buck: Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Review article (575 comments in total)
In reply to:

topstuff: I think people are so easily suckered into always wanting "bigger, better, faster, more !!".

Sometimes sufficiency is perfect.

The simple truth is that for many of the keyboard warriors on DPR banging on about full frame, the 16mp sensor on the Oly is perfectly good enough.

I bet a lot of you only look at pictures on an iPad anyway... in which case, pixel peeping over FF is a ridiculous waste of time and money.

Take a look at Robin Wong's web blog, and I would wager that many people would be perfectly happy with the IQ he gets from the Oly 16mp cameras....

Robin's portraits in particular are excellent. Many people even with the 'best of the best' equipment would be well satisfied to achieve what he can.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 11:53 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: Is anyone else surprised that this new lens wasn't an f4 instead?

No. Nikon needed to update their old 24-70 for the Pros.
However I agree that they're missing a potential market without an F4 version. As they've been developing a range of good quality affordable lenses then maybe we'll see an F4 variant in a year or 2.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2015 at 07:35 UTC
In reply to:

MarioV: That was awesome. Nicely captured. I assume that retardant exposure is non-toxic..

SmeggyPants. In theory (officially) they should be non-toxic but there's a history of chemicals that get moved from non-toxic to toxic classifications.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2015 at 14:48 UTC
In reply to:

MarioV: That was awesome. Nicely captured. I assume that retardant exposure is non-toxic..

If they are using mercaptans (thiols) as free radical scavengers they're probably non toxic - may just smell very unpleasant.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2015 at 04:21 UTC
In reply to:

Antony John: Lots of negative comments but:
1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).
2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)
3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.
It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.

@Photomonkey. Sense is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent on DPR.
Also have been under therapy - wondering when it'll wear off :-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 04:37 UTC
In reply to:

Antony John: Lots of negative comments but:
1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).
2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)
3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.
It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.

Brendon1000 - 400 is short for birds and wildlife. I'd guess the 200-500 has better IQ than the 80-400 @ 400 also - in fact I'd be surprised if it didn't.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

Antony John: Lots of negative comments but:
1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).
2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)
3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.
It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.

abortabort - Agree. Easier to make a decent 2.5X zoom than a 5X zoom like the 80-400.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 15:12 UTC

Lots of negative comments but:
1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).
2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)
3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.
It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 10:21 UTC as 64th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

RichRMA: Still amazed at how relatively inexpensive the 200-500mm lens is. If it's good optically, it's a bargain.

And doesn't have a new set of 'issues' as Nikon has been prone to lately.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 04:25 UTC
In reply to:

Cheng Bao: 200-500 is steal

At 2.3 Kg, 95mm filter size and $1,400 I guess compromises must have been made somewhere?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 04:18 UTC
In reply to:

intermezzo1: Watching his work with feet on table...

Showing the sole of his shoe to Arabs (which is an insult BTW)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2015 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

geraldPP: It is well-known that BBC reported the collapse of Tower 7 BEFORE it happened.
Has anybody even question that?

@robmanueb
Perhaps they spoke to Architects and Engineers for9/11 truth?
http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html
Interesting articles.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2015 at 14:56 UTC

"Then I start to shoot and experiment with digital manipulation until I have a creative photo that makes viewers ponder and contemplate."
Probably the substantive difference between Achraf's work and Joel Robison.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2015 at 03:52 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

alcaher: Well done!!
Picture#1 cool. Picture #2 Nicola Tesla at work ??
No matter if there have been plenty of images/art similar to this on the net... I always like this type of work

Why Tesla?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2015 at 12:40 UTC

Would be nice to have DPR's Nikon D810 review.
A little outstanding don't you think?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2015 at 10:25 UTC as 52nd comment
On Nikon D810A: An astrophotographer's perspective article (113 comments in total)
In reply to:

tsk1979: Wrong pictures for this camera. I was expecting more deep-field. If nothing else, at-least the humble Horsehead!!

As they say it's all about 'capturing the light' :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 03:40 UTC
On Nikon D810A: An astrophotographer's perspective article (113 comments in total)
In reply to:

tsk1979: Wrong pictures for this camera. I was expecting more deep-field. If nothing else, at-least the humble Horsehead!!

Or at least a super massive black hole or two ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2015 at 13:14 UTC
In reply to:

MeganV: This thing gets it bass-ackwards.

It's awkward to clip a big tube onto your phone, using your your phone as the anchor.

Instead, we need a cool ergonomic camera (DSLR, anyone?) that you clip your phone into, using your phone as the viewscreen and, possibly, processing computer.

Nikon, Canon: here's your leap-frog techno-jump disruption opportunity! Skip giving your DSLRs screens and processors. Instead, just let me clip my iPhone onto the back of them. Voila, game changed. Doesn't even have to be wireless--instead of putting the camera's view screen at the end of a tilt-swivel mechanism, put a lightning (or usb-c) plug. I then clip my phone on and rock with a durable, ergonomic, full-frame ILC with real shutter-aperture dials that uses my phone as its (better) brain and (better) view screen. A camera like that could even still use an OVF and traditional mirror box!

Cameras need to become imaging "harnesses" for phones. It'd solve so many problems.

MeganV,

By which time caller has hung up?

And that 'photographic moment' you were waiting for has gone while you had disassembled the rig?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 02:37 UTC
In reply to:

MeganV: This thing gets it bass-ackwards.

It's awkward to clip a big tube onto your phone, using your your phone as the anchor.

Instead, we need a cool ergonomic camera (DSLR, anyone?) that you clip your phone into, using your phone as the viewscreen and, possibly, processing computer.

Nikon, Canon: here's your leap-frog techno-jump disruption opportunity! Skip giving your DSLRs screens and processors. Instead, just let me clip my iPhone onto the back of them. Voila, game changed. Doesn't even have to be wireless--instead of putting the camera's view screen at the end of a tilt-swivel mechanism, put a lightning (or usb-c) plug. I then clip my phone on and rock with a durable, ergonomic, full-frame ILC with real shutter-aperture dials that uses my phone as its (better) brain and (better) view screen. A camera like that could even still use an OVF and traditional mirror box!

Cameras need to become imaging "harnesses" for phones. It'd solve so many problems.

Can you imagine trying to answer a phone call with a mobile attached to a D4S with a 500mm lens mounted?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2015 at 03:39 UTC

I guess we'll also see a 12-24 Art lens at some time which, with this 24-35, would make quite a nice 2 lens setup for those interested in wide angle photography.
The 24-35 makes sense as a first introduction because I'd imagine the 24 - 35 F/Ls will probably have more 'universal' appeal amongst the 'wide' lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 05:25 UTC as 33rd comment | 3 replies
Total: 438, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »