LKJ

LKJ

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Apr 27, 2011
About me:

Six year old camera
Some other bits and pieces

Comments

Total: 91, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Yongnuo creates near-clone of Canon EF 35mm f/2 article (167 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lapkonium: Do photographers who use copied gear have a moral right to prevent copying of their work? I'd say no.

Wait, who's mixing things up?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 23:55 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Since I am sure someone will say it is too expensive, how much is a high-grade 21mm f1.9 for FF?

SFXR: You are correct that f1.9 gathers less light than f0.95.

Per unit area.

Meanwhile, the FF sensor has almost four times the area of the FT sensor. That is why they are considered equivalent.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 23:57 UTC
In reply to:

micke69: Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical is $569

SFXR: The point being made there is that f0.9 on mFT is necessary to take the same photo as you could with f1.8 on FF.

I thought this had been done to death?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 23:22 UTC
On A closer look at the Nikon Coolpix P900 megazoom article (191 comments in total)

How long does it take to rack from 4.3mm to 357mm (and vice versa)?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 12:43 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

blakevanderbilt: I've never used a Tokina lens, but one question I have is why use italicised Times New Roman font for the lens name? It's hideous!

What should they have used; Comic Sans, or Papyrus?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 05:37 UTC
On More things we found cut in half (CP+ 2015 edition) article (139 comments in total)

The humour is deliciously bad. Especially that last one.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 05:36 UTC as 77th comment

The typo in your RSS feed ("11-24mm F2.8") certainly got my attention.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 03:21 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

Rahul Ranadive: Just tired of all the images showing death and destruction oh, and the Afghans and middle easterns. Its almost like a stage just created for all the photographers to show their concern!!

Unfortunately, we can't make war, famine, natural disasters, anthropogenic disasters, death, destruction and all the rest go away by ignoring them or pretending they're not there.

They'll always make powerful images and the images will always make the finals of photojournalism awards, because they will always bring attention to important issues.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2014 at 11:31 UTC
In reply to:

Jonathan Mac: Anyone not capable of getting good shots from a film camera should not be calling themselves a photographer. Many people choose digital because it's easier and cheaper, and many choose digital because they're not competent enough to get good images if they don't have auto-everything and the chance to take 20 photos and choose the best. Most of these people will never improve. Some choose digital because it's the best tool for the photography they want to do, and they can produce good results from it. However, many have used digital and become bored with it's often flat, dull look and have now gone back to film.

I use both, but I enjoy film more. The Ferrania re-start is good news, especially once they get around to producing print films.

I don't know if it was intentional but that comes across as more than a little pompous...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 09:46 UTC
In reply to:

OBI656: As simple aquation shows shooting film is cheeper then being involved in digital.
Even I do digital if there will be film processing labs as use too I will be shooting film no question about it.

I may have misunderstood but your "simple equation" is so simple that it fails to address the cost differences between film and digital workflows, which I thought was your point.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 09:39 UTC
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: At least these films are not treated as a "service for rent"...

Nothing lasts forever, but your choice of processing software doesn't affect the long-term viability of the files that come out of a digital camera (or the format to which you choose to archive).

Images stored on HDDs are far more compact than those stored on film, and have much more forgiving climate requirements. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 09:37 UTC
In reply to:

Tal Shachar: film is an environmental disaster, go digital now!

@Ontario Gone: You might just get your wish if things don't improve over in west Africa!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 05:08 UTC
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: At least these films are not treated as a "service for rent"...

Ahh yes.

Meanwhile, unless you do your own processing...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 05:08 UTC
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: At least these films are not treated as a "service for rent"...

What do you mean?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 22:29 UTC
In reply to:

Tal Shachar: film is an environmental disaster, go digital now!

The real environmental disaster is the socioeconomic group that has the time and money to be concerned about whether to shoot film SLRs or digital SLRs. :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 22:14 UTC
In reply to:

OBI656: As simple aquation shows shooting film is cheeper then being involved in digital.
Even I do digital if there will be film processing labs as use too I will be shooting film no question about it.

Would you care to share your simple "aquation"?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 22:09 UTC
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1656 comments in total)

Canon appears to be counting down to - if you will pardon the expression - a complete load of masturbatory nonsense. I wonder what it will be.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 22:20 UTC as 629th comment
In reply to:

nunatak: the author has an angry tone to his writing.

perhaps DPreview should ask him to do the camera maker executive interviews?

I disagree, but can you explain what you mean by an "angry tone"?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 00:08 UTC
On Canon confirms price drop on select EF lenses article (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Graham Meale: And will Canon Australia announce a similar price drop? I think I know the answer.

Aberaeron: If I made only 5% net on the hilarious prices they charge, I'd be embarrassed. And shortly thereafter, unemployed probably.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2014 at 00:35 UTC
On Canon confirms price drop on select EF lenses article (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chez Wimpy: I am sure they are doing it out of the kindness of their heart.

Photoman: While it's sometimes difficult to spot sarcasm on the internet, that one shouldn't have been a problem!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2014 at 00:33 UTC
Total: 91, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »