RPJG

RPJG

Joined on Nov 4, 2011

Comments

Total: 224, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.

Tom, you really struggle either (a) with reading comprehension, or (b) to understand that other people have different requirements.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 07:55 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1129 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: Wow. My LX100 pocket camera seems to do better 1080p than the 7Dmk2, never-mind 4K.

Miki, your posts aren't really helping. Asking for "respect" for Canon? Did you even read any of the posts here? Even for people pre-disposed to liking the Canon ecosystem, this camera has some drawbacks for its stated purpose, as The Squire shows three or four posts above. It's literally ridiculous to expect "respect" for a particular device just because the overall set of products from the company is excellent.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 16:10 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1129 comments in total)
In reply to:

Yannick KREMPP: About ISO-Invariance and the comparison with the d7000:

Thank you for trying to make these concepts accessible to all. I know how difficult it is to explain these notions (it's part of my profession), and you've done a terrific job to clarify it.

Well done !

Rishi, how embarrassment! I spoke too soon :-)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 14:42 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1129 comments in total)
In reply to:

DVT80111: All the Mirrorless offers focus peaking now. Come on.

Miki: for Canon *not* to include a feature in its lesser models that almost all other manufacturers include, is in no way a "good" thing.

Seriously. Do you think anyone cares about protecting *your* investment in an expensive body? Of course not; they want a similar set of features that other manufacturers are offering for similar or (much) less money.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 10:46 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1129 comments in total)
In reply to:

Yannick KREMPP: About ISO-Invariance and the comparison with the d7000:

Thank you for trying to make these concepts accessible to all. I know how difficult it is to explain these notions (it's part of my profession), and you've done a terrific job to clarify it.

Well done !

It would be great to see a few "real world" samples to show the effect on processed expose-for-highlights-type images.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 10:42 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1129 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: Wow. My LX100 pocket camera seems to do better 1080p than the 7Dmk2, never-mind 4K.

Miki, the problem is, it shouldn't be hard for Canon to add some/all of those features into their cameras, as lesser/cheaper cameras do.

As it stands, apparently we have to wait for Magic Lantern to add them in instead, which is a strange state of affairs.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 10:39 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1129 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: Soft video lacks detail
iTR struggles to track fast moving subjects
Long screen blackout during live view shooting
No AF with continuous shooting in live view
No zebras to evaluate exposure
No focus peaking
No touch screen
No Wi-Fi
and no 4K.
Way to go Canon, the NX1 is going to eat your lunch.

I think the point is, you'd *think* it wouldn't have been hard for Canon to include most of the features Joe listed, to (1) take advantage of the dual-pixel tech, and (2) simply to keep up with The Joneses.

As someone who owns and likes Canon gear, most of those omissions seem a bit baffling/disappointing to me.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 02:51 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.

Jesus christ, are you really so pedantic? There's a difference between being able to see something you're looking for, and there being a difference that actually has an impact on the enjoyment of the image.

I'm out.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 12:40 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.

Come on, let's not split hairs. For web-page viewing and moderate-size prints, for the sort of photos that most people here take (family, friends, holidays, etc) then any differences are probably irrelevant. Does that make sense?

For large fine art prints, sure, get the very best kit you can!

Different strokes for different folks :-)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 11:16 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.

I'll repeat it for you:

Tom, I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but obviously there are many reasons. For example:

- for people who already have a DSLR, this lens turns their camera into a great do-anything system. (Why buy another whole camera?)

- even if image quality isn't as good as other lenses, *most* people will never notice the difference when their image is displayed on a webpage or printed at A4 size or whatever (not huge prints in art galleries, obviously)

- depending on the model, a DSLR has many advantages over many compact/bridge cameras, e.g. fps, autofocus, tracking, high ISO shooting etc. People here get their panties in a knot over invisible image quality differences, completely ignoring the benefits of actually being able to get the shot in the first place

- etc

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 10:43 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.

Sheesh... reading comprehension 101 for you.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 10:35 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.

Awesome. Everyone has different requirements, and I never understand posts that don't recognise that - especially posts like the OP which make no sense at all, for all the reasons listed.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 00:53 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.

Seriously Tom? Can you *seriously* not understand why someone sometimes just wants to take one lens to cover any eventuality, and where image quality is not the over-riding factor?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 14:32 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.

Right, because everyone is a photojournalist, not a traveller, who prints at A1 and cares about small differences in image quality, rather than the memories that the photos represent.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 04:23 UTC
In reply to:

HaroldC3: The thing with having the option of adding a camera is you can use the camera for other things. Having an integrated camera is a drawback in that regard.

I like that you get up to 25 minutes of flight time but how much with the camera on? half that? Another drawback.

Should be interesting to see the first reviews.

There are obviously pros and cons. Optional added camera? Extra weight, less flying time. Or if you want the same flying time, you need more power and batteries etc, therefore more cost - as referenced in the front page article sub-heading.

Why complain about choice?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 02:34 UTC
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

photofan1986: Don't see the point: that's p&s quality. You'd be better off with a good bridge camera.

Tom, I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but obviously there are many reasons. For example:

- for people who already have a DSLR, this lens turns their camera into a great do-anything system

- even if image quality isn't as good as other lenses, *most* people will never notice the difference when their image is displayed on a webpage or printed at A4 size or whatever (not huge prints in art galleries, obviously)

- depending on the model, a DSLR has many advantages over many compact/bridge cameras, e.g. fps, autofocus, tracking, high ISO shooting etc. People here get their panties in a knot over invisible image quality differences, completely ignoring the benefits of actually being able to get the shot in the first place

- etc

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 02:31 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (240 comments in total)
In reply to:

sierranvin: Read this carefully, checked the samples, and I am feeling so happy to have an a7R, a Sony-Zeiss 55mm f1.8, and a full wallet!

.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 02:25 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (240 comments in total)
In reply to:

iAPX: I've read many comments, and disagree with most, saying that it's just for print.

Last week I bought a retina iMac with it's incredible 5120x2880 physical resolution, planning 3 weeks of photo sorting, editing, tagging during the hollidays. I could say that many (if not all) of my APS-C D70/K10D/D2/D300-era pictures are not worth keeping to be displayed on it. Tablets are on the QHD era now, computers will be giving higher resolutions in the following years.

More than 24MP is a loss on a Full-Frame, due to the resolution of the optics themselves, and it shows. You could be fooled by the noise (it's an interesting fact), but if you would to construct your portfolio for the years ahead, you must bethinking about really high resolution, and this gear is perfect for that: landscape, architecture, and naturally studio shoot.

As I am throwing away most if not all of my photos from the last decades, I wonder if I should think forward and go medium-format instead Full-Frame?!?

So... photos that were perfectly good before, are now worthless, because you got a new monitor?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 02:21 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (240 comments in total)

"What I found was that this incredible camera wasn’t going to produce good photography by itself. It wasn’t going to let me passively walk in to a situation hoping to make a little bit of art out of it. I couldn’t just wander about with it and let set and setting determine what picture I was taking. The 645Z doesn’t like that. No, you have to be deliberate. The photo has to be in your head as an end goal, and only at that point does the 645Z become the tool to get the job done."

Seriously? This banal statement can be made about any camera ever made, maybe with the exception of using high-fps cameras to get a sporting shot.

And contrastingly from Ming Thein's review:

"Paradoxically, whilst most cameras benefit from being shot with the deliberation and care of medium format, this camera benefits from being shot like a DSLR – under such situations is where it’ll extend your image quality envelope enormously and bring previously unimaginable results."

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 13:53 UTC as 60th comment | 2 replies
On Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD real-world samples article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: The zoom range is obviously impressive - but IMO, I must say that the results from this lens are befitting of some massive super zoom (there are trade-offs). IMO, the trade-offs are in the areas of clarity & definition. The images look nice but are more a result of the camera than the lens.

There something missing from these images - perhaps that "you are there" quality - a veil, if you will, that some how prevents you from feeling the visceral impact of an image. But that's to be expected with the massive amount of glass employed in these super zoom lenses.

It's for convenience folks and quite frankly, other than needing something for an all-in-one venture (with clarity being sacrificed), I couldn't see adding this lens to something like the 7D Mk II or any of the other upper end APS-C sized DSLR's. But it will sell because of the nature of this lens.

I'd be curious to see what images taken in RAW (and processed carefully in the likes of Lightroom) would look like.

Ben, there are trade-offs? You don't say...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 03:21 UTC
Total: 224, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »