NDT0001

NDT0001

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Mar 20, 2009

Comments

Total: 58, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On Photokina 2014: Hands-on with RED's Epic Dragon article (34 comments in total)

Its a great camera. Not for everyone obviously but it generates beautiful stills that have a very different look to what you might be used to from nikon or a canon. Oh and you don't need all that computer hardware to make it work in post. My macbook pro easily lets me look at the footage at 1/2 debayer (resolution) and do frame captures as 60MB Tiffs.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 09:47 UTC as 12th comment
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sangster: Only US$4490!

@princecody It is a fact that anytime you add a convenience you will also take something away. I don't believe the basic philosophy and purpose of this lens, which lends itself to uncompromised image quality, would have the same optical results if it had AF implemented. It is likely possible but probably impacting on size and price.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 01:55 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sangster: Only US$4490!

I think you'd probably need to feel the way the focus mechanics work to understand why AF wouldn't be possible in this beast.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 01:15 UTC
On Beginner's guide: shooting high-key at home article (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

xfoto: What a beautiful woman

It seem someone else thought so too :-)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2014 at 21:24 UTC
In reply to:

Photoman: Why? I feel the Pana/Oly are better lenses than Canon, plus the weight saving alone. If I want to shoot FF for video, than use a FF camera.

I REFUTE!!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2014 at 09:08 UTC
In reply to:

Photoman: Why? I feel the Pana/Oly are better lenses than Canon, plus the weight saving alone. If I want to shoot FF for video, than use a FF camera.

I have a hefty selection of Canon L series lenses as well as a bunch of Zeiss ZE ef mount lenses. Being able to put these on my new GH4 for video jobs is a godsend. I confidently refute your opinion about Panasonic lenses beating the quality and range of L series canons.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2014 at 00:19 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (278 comments in total)

This is just a natural evolution away from the 5D and 7D canons, which have been used extensively in film production for several years. as well as the hits being tricked out by rental houses for professional use (google 'panavised Canon 5D' ) The big sensor and small form factor body is whats attractive to film makers, and now Its no big deal really.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 07:50 UTC as 53rd comment

I do like the idea of lens babies, but they are SO distinctive in their effect, that it turns the lens into a novelty. Ive found most people use it a few times and put it in the cupboard.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 23:37 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Shadowww: GH4 produces different files when it is connected to the interface unit? Huh, interesting.. I wonder what is reason for that.

Maybe it changes the file ID only and not the actual file contents, and as such may not be recognised by CR

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 23:22 UTC
On Canon India teases 'something big' coming soon article (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ben Stonewall: Maybe an 'M-III' that works and that people actually want to buy, but only for sale in India.

Whats an MIII ? A mirrorless?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 22:39 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.

@TheChefs. Hey i couldn't resist looking at your website. Stunning work mate. Film or digital, keep it up. The Japan and Nepal galleries are terrific.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 08:09 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.

The capture medium is much more important than the projection medium. Projection standards have surpassed print film, but not the case in capture medium.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 07:52 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.

Sorry but your wrong. I work with cinematographers every day and i do look at this stuff. I do love digital, but its not close enough (yet) to a great film scan, frankly an 8k film scan digitally projected on a 4k projector is simply breathtaking. It feels like reality and definitely looks more natural. Film goes deep in its complexity. As far as the storage argument goes, yes prints fade, but neg when looked after properly will outlast any digital medium and you have the advantage of having all that untapped information locked away for a very long time, until our scanners catch up. My jaws argument is reinforced by saying, in 50 years jaws will look amazing, where as say Star Wars the phantom menace which was shot Sony HD CAM, will never look any better than it does now.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 07:16 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.

>>Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had<<
Thats simply not true. A high res scan of even an old film negative will yield results superior to digital capture even by todays standards. There is also the other issue of archiving. Classic films stored on film will virtually last forever. The films shot recently on digital will only ever look as good as what the current technology will allow. If you shoot in HD, you will never be able to view in better quality than that. EVER. Not to mention that the playback medium may be unavailable in the future. (There are currently thousands of hours of tape stock sitting on studio shelves that can't be played because nobody makes or services the tape machines anymore. If you think film is inferior have a look at the remaster or JAWS on blu-ray. It looks better today that it ever did. Thats the magic of film right there.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 06:33 UTC
On Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 sample gallery article (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

Polytropia: It does not give "a 16-29mm equivalent range". That makes no sense. 16-29mm equivalent to what? Depth of field is not the same as a 16-29mm lens. A 16mm lens would have a different angle. How is that equivalent?

Stop lying to people, DPReview. And stop promoting 135F-format every freaking chance you get. Only a small minority even cares anymore about 135F-format. It's not helpful to continually relate focal lengths to a format that only represents a tiny percent of the market.

It's 2014 not 2004. Please get with the times and start using degrees to describe angles, instead of relating everything to a format few people use anymore.

I will bet anyone here $10,000 USD that less than 5% of photographers have ever looked through a 16mm lens on a 135F camera, let alone owned one or taken a picture with one. So how is it useful to make the analogy of this lens to that particular focal length and not even state that's what you're doing?

@Der Steppenwolf. Viewing the website is free, have you ever payed a cent to read an article here? , learn to read, your really showing who the 7 year old is here, pal.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2014 at 05:59 UTC
On Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 sample gallery article (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

Polytropia: It does not give "a 16-29mm equivalent range". That makes no sense. 16-29mm equivalent to what? Depth of field is not the same as a 16-29mm lens. A 16mm lens would have a different angle. How is that equivalent?

Stop lying to people, DPReview. And stop promoting 135F-format every freaking chance you get. Only a small minority even cares anymore about 135F-format. It's not helpful to continually relate focal lengths to a format that only represents a tiny percent of the market.

It's 2014 not 2004. Please get with the times and start using degrees to describe angles, instead of relating everything to a format few people use anymore.

I will bet anyone here $10,000 USD that less than 5% of photographers have ever looked through a 16mm lens on a 135F camera, let alone owned one or taken a picture with one. So how is it useful to make the analogy of this lens to that particular focal length and not even state that's what you're doing?

Why so angry Polytropia? No need to abuse and accuse DPreview, we all know they do great work, and its all for free, so just chill with the vitriol.
As for whatever your ranting on about, its commonly accepted that 35mm full frame is a reference point when talking lens field of views. It may change one day, (i doubt it) but that, my dear, is simply how it is.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 23:48 UTC
In reply to:

NDT0001: Man, whats canon doing releasing this stuff? Why don't they focus their efforts on producing products people want. In case no ones noticed they are getting creamed in the stills field by Fujifilm and Olympus , and creamed in the DSLR video field by Panasonic GH4, and Sigma now showing them how its done in high quality primes. Im very close to dumping my whole 5Dmk3 kit and 6 lenses for the above mentioned brands.

I do agree they are market leaders, but i think this is purely due to market penetration over the last 20 years. They have seriously slowed down with their product development, i would say on the verge of stall. They better watch out though, because companies like fujifilm with their new sensors and body design are surpassing them in this regard. Im speaking from personal experience here. Like the xt-. Superb image quality and ergonomics in a package 1/2 the size of the 5/7D models

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 08:49 UTC

Man, whats canon doing releasing this stuff? Why don't they focus their efforts on producing products people want. In case no ones noticed they are getting creamed in the stills field by Fujifilm and Olympus , and creamed in the DSLR video field by Panasonic GH4, and Sigma now showing them how its done in high quality primes. Im very close to dumping my whole 5Dmk3 kit and 6 lenses for the above mentioned brands.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 07:40 UTC as 53rd comment | 5 replies
On Updated: Nikon releases Capture NX-D 1.0.0 software article (111 comments in total)
In reply to:

SteveS: I hate sidecar files!

Our photographic predecessors would be envious of the amount of ease and control we have over the editing of our images these days.
Good times!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 00:01 UTC
On Updated: Nikon releases Capture NX-D 1.0.0 software article (111 comments in total)
In reply to:

SteveS: I hate sidecar files!

I dont understand how you think creating duplicate copies of your files won't l result in more data? Yes lightroom does create an edits database, but what I'm saying is, its always going to be smaller than duplicating files, even if you do just save them out as Jpegs.
I also don't get how you would think using an external program would be superior to having an integrated file manager in the software your working in .
I get you might prefer bridge which is totally fine, but to say its 'vastly superior' is just exaggeration.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 00:53 UTC
Total: 58, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »