Archiver

Archiver

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Feb 24, 2005

Comments

Total: 161, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

caspia: I am "old school", being 71.
I owned many cameras (Exakta Varex to a Nikon F4S) and took thousands of photographs.
Photography has changed enormously over the last fifteen years. I bought a Leica Digilux 2 (part exchanging the Nikon 4 S + lenses. Wow! Five Megapixels!
It took remarkable photos despite the mongers who claimed that digital would never beat film quality...
The nub, is that with a slow camera and an even slower person handling it, one can still take great photos. Today, speed appears to be of the essence. Photos taken at arm´s length over a crowd....catching movement.... etc.
What´s the hurry? Cartier-Bresson´s photos are masterpieces of timing but in the artistic sense. Granted we are not geniuses like he was, but so what?
If you want to just take photos, use your mobile. If you want to record photos for posterity, buy a decent camera. If you want to savour the pleasure of taking photographs, buy a Leica. I envy all that can afford one but relish in their enjoyment.

"If you want to savour the pleasure of taking photographs, buy a Leica."

^^^^^^

This.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 05:29 UTC
In reply to:

Gesture: Kardashian family just made a bulk order!

They would need a bulk order to be able to fit in the size of their egos and rear ends.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2014 at 09:12 UTC

From a gear perspective, I understand how he would have used his 5D Mark II's, as he is a stills photographer first.

But for someone wanting a DSLR style package for video, a couple of Panasonic GH3s, the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100, and either a Voigtlander Nokton or the Panasonic Nocticron, would give far better image quality and usability, at about half the price, and one third the weight and size.

You wouldn't even need the Z-Finder under most circumstances. I used to use a loupe with the 5D Mark II, but its completely unnecessary with the EVF of the GH3 and the swivel LCD.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 22:01 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

Ben O Connor: ─░ts like rolex watch. Surely there are multi functional army watches by far better priced from Casio
Or there are thousand other car brands. No need the drive Rolls-Royce ...

IT - IS - A -UNIQUE - LUXURY- ITEM !!!

I also don't see ANY logic to buy something exact same than Panasonic models. But this one is UNIQUE !

@Ben O Connor - you do realize that the Leica X 113 is a completely Leica-designed camera, and not a rebadge of an existing Panasonic? Perhaps you are thinking of the D Lux 109, which is a rebadge of the Panasonic LX100.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 1, 2014 at 01:08 UTC
In reply to:

MattiKJ: It is kind of sad, these special Hasselblad cameras include the most ergonomic grips available from any manufacturer. The rest of the hardware just doesn't add anything to the value.

You mean... you actually handled one??? How could you? I hope you washed your hands afterwards!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2014 at 02:49 UTC
In reply to:

Pritzl: Like a bad movie, the reruns keep coming...

No, this is worse. It's like Van Damme's classic Kickboxer, followed by Kickboxer II, III, IV and V, with increasingly dodgy acting and direction. But unlike the b-grade awesomeness of the Kickboxer series, Hasselblad's compacts pretend to be of far higher quality than they actually are. At least the Kickboxer movies knew what they were.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2014 at 02:47 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (828 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photard: I'd like to know the image quality compared to the Fuji x1oot.

That is top of my wishlist right now. How does the LX100 compare as far as stills and overall image quality?

thanks.

A way to compare might be to check Fuji X100S images against images from the Panasonic GX7 or GM1. Those are the nearest equivalents. I'd expect the X100S/T to have better image quality.

Something to consider, though, is how much image quality you consider to be desirable and acceptable. I'm often surprised at how much I like the images from my GM1 and tiny Olympus primes, even though I have an original X100, a Leica M9, and many other cameras.

Another thing to consider is how you'll deal with your images. Do you want in-camera jpegs and no postprocessing? Do you want to process raws? Fuji X-Trans raws can still be tricky to process in Lightroom and Photoshop. The alternatives are things like Photo Ninja and Raw Therapee, which don't have the same functionality as LR.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 09:29 UTC

Some years ago, there was a photo of a Sony sensor with a large 'cage' around it, ostensibly to show the size of the stabilization system in relation to the working sensor. It illustrated how big the entire set of components was, and served to affirm why their DSLR bodies were not smaller.

How times have changed! In-body five axis stabilization for a full frame mirrorless camera that is positively (relatively) tiny.

This suggests that a RX2 may be on its way. And that the new grip and control layout will be in the S and R variants in the future. Exciting times ahead!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 09:14 UTC as 267th comment
In reply to:

MayaTlab0: Do we have any technical information explaining why, with FE OSS lenses, the lens will take care of pitch and yaw instead of the sensor ? Is it related to the range of correction possible in lens vs. in body or to the sensor heating up, for example ?
Because, to me, although I can only congratulate Sony for adding IBIS on a FF mirrorless camera (and continue to despise their designers for not realising that their auto ISO implementation is subpar), it seems that it's again an example of Sony's "every six months, I want to do something new". Indeed, what's the point of developing stabilised lenses (which might possibly be a little more expensive, heavier, and harder to manufacture to a certain tolerance), if they already knew that they were going to release a stabilised body ? As far as I understand, but I may be mistaken, stabilised lenses still have an advantage in terms of correction range for certain axes, but that's mostly at the telephoto end, not the wide end.

Perhaps the in-body stabilization will not be extended to the A7S upgrade, or a significant number of other models, for whatever technical reason. It would justify having optically stabilized lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 09:09 UTC
On JVC introduces GY-LS300 4K camcorder with MFT mount article (75 comments in total)

This sounds very promising, but as always, the proof will be in the eating. Dynamic range, overall image quality and colour science, high ISO capabilities, usability in the field with a range of lenses, etc.

For those of us with a set of Canon EF and m43 lenses, this could prove to be very beneficial.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 16, 2014 at 07:50 UTC as 4th comment
On Canon introduces new $78K 50-1000mm cine lens article (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkpenalty: I see Impossible.

Impossible to afford.

@Teila Day - my comment wasn't directed at you, but at the multitudes of commenters here who cannot even seem to read beyond 'Canon zoom lens costs $78k' and immediately question its value or use. I agree with you about the relativities of money entirely. Sorry if you thought I was addressing you.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 06:05 UTC
On Canon introduces new $78K 50-1000mm cine lens article (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

Archiver: I'm disappointed. I was expecting Team Doofus to write comments like, 'why is this news on DPReview/how come this lens is so expensive/who would buy anything like that/it's got nothing to do with me so I won't read about it'.

Calling the peanut gallery: your usual opportunity has arrived!

Ah. It appears I jumped in too early. Team Doofus has indeed joined the conversation. :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 23:40 UTC
On Canon introduces new $78K 50-1000mm cine lens article (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkpenalty: I see Impossible.

Impossible to afford.

Facepalm. This is a cine lens. For CINEMA. The people who are going to rent a lens like this shoot with $70k digital cinema cameras like the Arri Alexa or the Red Epic Dragon. The costs for productions that involve this kind of equipment, and the support team and infrastructure required, are much, much greater. See the comment below about how a similar lens was used in Hannah Montana 3D. $30m budget with perhaps half of that EXTRA spent on marketing.

This isn't a lens for some amateur who wants to shoot BIF any more than a 1Dx is a suitable camera for a five year old, or the aforementioned Bugatti is a good 'first car for Jimmy'.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 23:37 UTC
On Canon introduces new $78K 50-1000mm cine lens article (173 comments in total)

I'm disappointed. I was expecting Team Doofus to write comments like, 'why is this news on DPReview/how come this lens is so expensive/who would buy anything like that/it's got nothing to do with me so I won't read about it'.

Calling the peanut gallery: your usual opportunity has arrived!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 03:02 UTC as 63rd comment | 2 replies
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1659 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: BREAKING NEWS:

I think this update got lost further down in the comment replies: One of the 4 success stories, that of short movie "Panic Attack" by Fede Alvarez, was not shot on Canon but Sony!!!!

Now, Fede Alvarez complains to Canon on http://youtu.be/5_LFmQ6eH1I in the comments section.

Can it get worse? Sure, because At Canon We See Impossible ...

That's pretty darn bad. As it stands, we don't know whether Canon just made a mistake and ran with it, or deliberately lifted Fede's work. If the former, it's forgivable. If the latter, that just adds another depth to which this new campaign has sunk.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 10, 2014 at 00:19 UTC
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1659 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: Canon estimates that, this year, they will sell 9.5 million compact cameras, and 7.0 million DSLRs.

Not bad, for a company that does everything wrong, and that everyone hates. :-)

"It's way more entertaining to me to be able to bash somebody who can bash back instead of a company or brand who isn't allowed to or can't bash back even if they wanted to. The way I see it, only a bully brags about beating up the kid who has no arms. I prefer to beat up the bully."

So, you're admitting that Canon is a kid with no arms? Lol!

Hope the post work went well. Who's next?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2014 at 23:56 UTC
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1659 comments in total)

I see dead people. Not impossible.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 23:06 UTC as 213th comment
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1659 comments in total)
In reply to:

Valiant Thor: Canon is announcing they got Ashton Kutcher away from Nikon.

http://newcameranews.com/2014/05/18/nikon-reorganizes-names-ashton-kutcher-ceo/

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 03:07 UTC
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1659 comments in total)
In reply to:

samhain: That new icon(light busting out of a box) is definently relevant.
Makes me think they put a big sensor in a small camera. Im leaning towards something medium format related...

"Geez, talk about lack of imagination. How about a small sensor in a big camera? No one dares to do that."

Two words: Fuji X30.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 03:05 UTC
On Photokina 2014: Hands-on with RED's Epic Dragon article (50 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bernard Carns: The problem with grabbing still frames from a video camera is the lack of pixels in the vertical dimension.

It's like having a 100MP camera that is 1 pixel high.

Its all panorama.

You mean hyperbole as a subset of rhetoric?

And I was momentarily thinking of the 6K resolution, rather than the 19mp raw frame size.

Really, a 19mp frame in 16:9 ratio isn't exactly hard to crop, or compose in camera.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 04:50 UTC
Total: 161, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »