Daniel Clune

Daniel Clune

Lives in United States NY, United States
Has a website at http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm
Joined on Aug 20, 2002
About me:

http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm
Nikon D800 24-120F4VR, sigma 50-500OS, Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.
Sold most of canon gear
Canon 1DS-MK11, Rebel-350D,Canon 17-40, 70-200EX, 50-500EX. 105EX macro Tamron 28-75Di Canon 300 F4, Canon 400 2.8, Sigma 300-800EX, Gitzo 1325, Feisol CT-3401N

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
On Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lab Test Review preview (230 comments in total)

I keep seeing the sigma 150-500 compared to the Tamron. The Sigma 50-500-OS is the better lens. Sigmas 150-500 has ALWAYS been a stinker. I tested 3 of them they were ALL sub par even compared against my first gen 50-500 non OS let alone the newest 50-500 OS. BUT it does cost more so maybe thats why but still.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2014 at 17:57 UTC as 37th comment | 4 replies
On Tamron to develop 150-600mm F5-6.3 ultra-telephoto zoom article (193 comments in total)

Will see how it compares against the Sigma 50-500 OS. From what I have read the Sigma isn't quite 500mm (around 480mm) so I wonder if this will also be true about this lens? I really like my Sigma so it will need to be at least as sharp to even consider it. Oh being a F6.3 wont hurt focus at all. I used my original non OS sigma which is F6.3 on a D30 yes D30 not 30D a 10D and then a few 1 series bodies with no problem with any of them. So being F6.3 is a non issue for focus. Just forget about adding a 1.4 tele converter to it.Now I use the latest sigma 50-500OS on a Nikon D800 and it works quite well.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2013 at 19:01 UTC as 20th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I think AA filters don't make sense anymore. Just have small enough sensels to be past Nyquist for any lens and do analog/digital reduction in resolution. Easy. As I account for Bayer filters, a 5um sensel is at Nyquist for a lens resolving 50lppmm -- which few do corner-to-corner. 5um is just 14MP APS-C, or 36MP FF -- i.e., the D800. A little higher sensel count just makes the AA issue disappear.

Interesting because if the pixel size on the D800 doesnt really need a AA filter allready then if the rumor about 54 meg it certainly wouldnt need ANY AA filter so why bother with a variable one at all? Unless there wont be a 54 meg camera at all but just another 36 meg one, humm?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2013 at 16:45 UTC
On 2013 Waterproof Camera Roundup preview (123 comments in total)

Humm looking at the images from these it looks like the Nikon is better yet you say its one of the worst? I downloaded the pic of the clock for the Nikon and the TG-2 and the Nikon is clearer, sharper and has more detail. I also noticed both pics were taken on the same day almost same time. 5-31-13 aw110 at 5:16 and TG-2 at 4:16. So there fair to compare. Then if you use your image compare thing on the review of the TG-2 going through the various iso ratings again the Nikon sure looks like it has more detail throughout the whole iso range. So confused about image quality rating in this comparison. I found a review on yotube that also thought the Nikon had best image quality. What am I missing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btcljWkpg5U

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2013 at 15:49 UTC as 36th comment | 2 replies
On The DSLR Field Camera article (180 comments in total)

I use D800 and Helicon software to combine different focused shots to get depth of field like a Tilt shift lens can do. If more rez is needed then do a stitched photo. If I had the money I would try a tilt shift. I haven't yet tested to see if more pixels would get a sharper shot for a 20 by 30 inch print which is about the largest I do. But wide angle and hyper focal with D800 just doesn't work well enough. Helicon solves that problem.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 26, 2012 at 19:41 UTC as 62nd comment
On Just deployed: New dpreview.com forums system article (699 comments in total)

Why are you downsizing images of say a 1000 pixels wide. It makes them look like crap. Click on image it then up-sizes this downsized image making it look even worse. Yes you can click on Original in corner but that's a real pain plus it then pops it up in another box. I thought this was a photo site. Why make looking at those photos so POOR?

Most monitors are now at least 1200 pixels wide, why downsize 1000 pixel wide pictures which is what I consider ideal web size. Not tiny 600 wide ones.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2012 at 19:34 UTC as 84th comment | 1 reply
On Canon announces EOS 5D Mark III 22MP full-frame DSLR article (488 comments in total)

Overpriced for a FF 7D.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 05:09 UTC as 161st comment
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7