Barbu

Lives in Romania Bucure?ti, Romania
Joined on Apr 8, 2009

Comments

Total: 58, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

loitokitok: I get the impression many of you haven't realised what the market is for this lens. It's ideal for people who want high quality photos of small things such as coins and other collectibles for sites like eBay. It's also great for those who like photographing flowers and you only have to visit a few gardens to see how many of those there are.

Those two groups alone probably easily outnumber all the photographers in the world who specialise in Macro and it's a new market.

Canon have actually been very smart here.

Dentists prefer the 90/100/105mm lenses. Even the 60mm EF/S offers waaaay too little working distance.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2016 at 17:07 UTC
On article Beta: try out our new 'light' color scheme (659 comments in total)
In reply to:

Miwok: On the Dark Side, I will stay ...

Like many others, I enjoy what has always been a ray of light ;) between countless other sites: DPReview with a dark theme. I even customised my browser to switch colors on the zones with black text on white, and I'm using the launch of the light theme to truly thank you that you offered the sight-for-sore-eyes site, for the ones that get that the screen is not a piece of paper. So: big THANK YOU for the dark site!

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 05:02 UTC
On article Picasa will be phased out in favor of Google Photos (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

egruber: I really don't care if Picasa Web Albums goes away and replaced with Google Photos. But I did like the Picasa desktop tool to edit my photos. Google Photos has online editing, but only for the photos stored online. I usually edit them on my desktop and upload them when done. Picasa did all the basic things well. I know Picasa will continue to work, but is there another free desktop tool that is as good?

While it's hard to envision a GDrive closure, it still seems a bit ironic to count on Google to backup... Google :)

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 17:45 UTC
In reply to:

Don Diafragma: Also named the 'One'D'Kamosaurus X II'.

Strong and powerful, fat and heavy and very jurassic due to its mirror.

I'm sure there's a mirrorless waiting somewhere for the more „delicate” people. And even in a pink colour ;)

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 21:05 UTC
In reply to:

D135ima: Теперь "Лейку" можно утопить в лейке.

And while we're on the topic of pronounciation... Do remember that Leica = Leitz Camera, so we would appreciate some german speaker enlightening us.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 06:58 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: red-eye flash?

Divers will care; not for UW portraits, but because it will light up every particle close to the lens. Did you ever take a flash photo while it snows? Imagine that... times ten.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 06:55 UTC
In reply to:

ShatteredSky: Finally a larger sensor, but no zoom. I guess there is probably not a big enough market for a largish (RX10 size) rugged camera sporting the 20MP "1 inch" sensor, a lets say a 24-120 equiv 2.8 lens and wireless charging and data transfer (avoiding doors). The Nikon 1AW sadly does not cut it (yet), accident and lens-wise.

Take care of the O-rings and water sealings; use some sylicone paste, check that the rubber is not cracked from heat. Sooner or later *every* waterproof case needs some replacements, and I've seen it happening ($800 *WP* camera, of course that warranty was rejected, as a manufacturer policy).

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 06:53 UTC
In reply to:

dsut4392: What's with that flash position? All the advice I have ever read about underwater photography is to get the flash as far off-axis as possible to reduce backscatter from suspended particles. Moving the flash 5 cm off-axis might halve the backscatter, but it would only increase the flash-subject distance by 3% (based on the 20cm minimum focal distance - the difference would be even less at greater subject distance). This position looks like a recipe for "fish in a snowstorm" pictures.

By that logic (flash in lens for waterproofing) why didn't they put it inside the body? Who cares that the (no) light would be even slightly less useful that the disastruous backscatter here, at least they would achieve an even stronger protection!
Not that there would be many to throw away $3k and actually care how it'll be used...

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 06:43 UTC
In reply to:

rialcnis: Very nice but no 4k video. At that price it's surprising it has no 4k.

At that price, it better came with a kitchen sink too. At least this way the collectors will get to claim that they have the requirements to use it... underwater ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 06:35 UTC
In reply to:

Prairie Pal: oh my god....it's full of stars!

Take a hike, spaceboy ;)

Link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 10:28 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II (533 comments in total)
In reply to:

crashpc: Canon killer. Grass definitely IS greener out there!

P.S.: also, a little intriguing is the 1/180s sync; what's up with that? Even entry level cameras from basically any other brand can do more.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 01:15 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II (533 comments in total)
In reply to:

crashpc: Canon killer. Grass definitely IS greener out there!

Long time Canon heavy user here (and until a year ago, Kx user too with two tiny standard zooms). I've tried time and again to „switch”, but one of not-so-secret things about Pentax are... lenses. Sorry, you might boast about long legacy, but the fact is that common bread-and-butter lenses (convenience or enthusiasts-going-pro) are more expensive, and sometimes a „consumer” K lens costs more than the classic pro EOS equivalent.
For at least 12 years I tried various ways to bite the bullet and switch (and for 3 years I actually used both), but... Sorry, nope. I liked the cameras and the out-of-the-box thinking for features, but the lens prices are deal killers. And I need to mention it: really not interested in old/used ones, but in the sparkling new stuff, right anyone can buy from a store. And on the telephoto ones (my main $$$ investment) it's even worse.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 01:15 UTC
On article Opinion: Canon EOS 750D and 760D (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

CNY_AP: Worrisome that a pro (the author) would think 18MP is "middle ground" when 24MP came out not very long ago and is way more than 99.9% of us need. The D70 is "only" 20MP yet costs more, so he must really dislike that camera. Only newbies buy cameras based solely or mostly on resolution, but there are a lot of those buyers, so in that regard, it was a wise and necessary move.

WTH? The author mentions (repeatedly!) that we all know better than to judge a camera by its megapixels number. Is this the new hipster trend, to bash in on a piece of writting? If yes, go be hip elsewhere. Especially since you acuse the author not only of something he did NOT do, and also specifically and repeatedly mentioned the other way around. The first paragraph, mentioning the MP case, ends like this:
„Readers of DPReview will know that pixel-count is far from everything and that volume of pixels alone does not a professional camera make, but it is a truth not universally acknowledged.”

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 21:50 UTC
On article Opinion: Canon EOS 750D and 760D (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

mahonj: It is about giving as many options at as many price points as possible for the minimum amount of extra engineering.
The innovation is the 24 Mpix sensor, which is available in 2 different bodies at prices $100 apart.
You don't have to get angry about it, just buy the one which best suits your budget.

Thanks, Donnie! Your sidetracked comment brought a smile, and it's like an oasis of humanity amongst all the commenters obsessed with DR or mirrorless supremacy. Good luck with those kids :)

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 21:43 UTC
On article Opinion: Canon EOS 750D and 760D (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

mgrum: "Canon has never offered us two cameras with the same sensor and asked us to pay more for one, to get some extra features before"

That's pretty much all Canon have done for the past 6 years ;)

I beg to differ, and I felt like I *had* to reply to that so people (especially the decision-makers at DPR) won't think that opinions are of less use.
The wording style is more than OK for me, and what really matters is that opinions like these are the main reason I come at DPR; for specs and stuff like that it's enough to check the BH listings.
While I agree that the „same sensor - never before” was an oversight, the more important part would be that exactly this opinion clarified some of my thoughts; I had a similar opinion, but way less crystalised and this article helped me.
Coming after 10 years of DSLR use, I felt like it would be the time to get a new camera (after 350D and 30D, and current user of two other oldish ones: 40D and 5D). I was kinda thinking to spring $$$ just for the 750D, since I already have two Canons with the „complete” control scheme. After reading this, it became quite clear that the price difference for the 760D would be money well spent.
Keep it up!

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 21:19 UTC
In reply to:

historianx: LOL love the we need autofocus comments, they crack me up. If you need A/F for a 12mm wide angle, then you should probably not be in photography LOL

Well, I've taken photos of kids only once, and that was for a friend.
But I've been dozens of times in the middle of the dancers (paid photog), and that was since before anybody could get their paws on a full-frame under 5000$; hence, the Tokina 12-24 use.
BTW, even if I have no use for video footage (or I can't be bothered by it; leaving it to the young guns), still I can see a flaw in the logic for a stabilization system for UWA: of course, it's... video. Even with a fisheye, you still see the small jerks ;)
(and no, using a mFT or a Pentax with IBS for video isn't really a solution).
Anybody trying to bash Nikon for puting AF on their 14-24? Or stabilization on their 16-35? Crickets? :)

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2014 at 04:35 UTC
In reply to:

historianx: LOL love the we need autofocus comments, they crack me up. If you need A/F for a 12mm wide angle, then you should probably not be in photography LOL

Actually, from a gross oversight, he proves his point... but not quite. While yes, you *can* count on a super-wideangle to provide a very large DOF, at f/2.0 all bets are off. And while kids play nicely at a distance, in the sun, the huge DOF covers the problem. But... and it's a big BUTT ;) here: <b>the oversight</b>.
Meaning, with my Tokina 12-24 (almost always glued to 12mm), at f/4.0 I kinda need to push the ISO to more than reasonable, while being in the middle of a dance floor, for example. Action at one to two meters away, semi-dark... f/2.0 would be damn welcome to get at least 1/100s while still under ISO3200. And at f/2.0, short distance, you can bet your amateur photographer licence ;) that you NEED to be in focus. Wide open and zone focusing is just begging for the right moment to be thrown away, in the pile of junk "almost focused" photos.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2014 at 22:17 UTC
In reply to:

photofan1986: 1000 bucks for a 70-300 4.5-5.6 lens? What exactly do they smoke at Nikon's? I might be interested...in what they smoke, that is :D

And, more importantly, all people forgot something: while it's an incremental update from the full-format (FX) 70-300VR, it still has to cover only a much, much smaller sensor (2.7x smaller). So why the fsck is it NOT at least f/2.8 constant, and why still so big?
The price is not that outrageous, if (and only if) it offers at least as good quality as the newish 70-200 f/4VR. Still, 500$ would be the max price that would get me to buy it (and a V3 camera, but at a quarter of the official price).
And yes, price does everything... An unproven system, way too small sensor (I love DX, wouldn't really buy FX again), and they don't try to get it in the hands of the shooters; they basically try to stop you from buying it... So, while I might be interested to at least try it, I would *never* give even half the marketed amount of dollar$$.
P.S.: while we're at it... They insist on converting dollars to euros at an outrageous parity. For that difference amount, one can buy a plane ticket!

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 18:52 UTC
On article Nikon 1 V3: a quick summary (596 comments in total)
In reply to:

Blackraven: Lordy lord! There are a lot of trolls out today! The camera looks great and is extremely-well speced.....new sensor, fast focusing, touch-screen, wifi, articulating LCD, EVF, new lenses......... WOW
Those of us who are keeping up with technology will know that the IQ/sensor size ratio is improving with each generation. The V1 had pretty good IQ that is good enough for most "consumers". It certainly could print 16x24" size prints without any problem. This new sensor will certainly be an improvement on the V2's.
The styling is many many notches above the V2. If the materials and surface finishes matches the high-level of styling then we're talking about a premium product.
There's a good lens choice from regular speed to fast lenses that are small and good to excellent optical-quality.
The price is a little high for me now but i hope this will come down over time. I'm keeping my eye on this one for sure.

IQ/sensor size: any improvement in a tiny sensor would be applied to a large(r) sensor too. Sure, we can go all the way to ultra-large sensors found in satellites (not stoping for puny medium-formats), but... Let's face it: while the Nikon1 cameras are good enough for facebook, they were artificially kept down under APS-C/DX.
And as someone mentioned already... They will go the way of the Pronea bird ;) (google it, it's a revealing story about another resoundig fail line from Nikon).

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 18:38 UTC
On article Nikon 1 V3: a quick summary (596 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Salvas: From the minds that brought us the Pronea.

Perfect equivalent! Less is more now, exactly like it was then: less camera for us, more money for Nikon.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 05:50 UTC
Total: 58, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »