Old Ed

Lives in United States Vancouver, WA, United States
Joined on Sep 20, 2000

Comments

Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Shooting experience: how the Nikon D7500 won me over (194 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joed700: It's nice to see that Nikon has put so much effort into their APS-C sensors and bodies. I wish they would have done the same thing with their FF systems. The only reason I'm not getting the D500 or alike is that there are not too many good dedicated lenses for APS-C from Nikon. Sigma have some good ones, but they are not , as always, consistent with AF performance...

Hey Deliverator...
Assuming you're correct about the 7500 dropping AI vs. (screw) AF, I thank you for the correction. I'd have to re-find the description I relied on to be sure whether it was badly worded, or I read it wrong.
But the bottom line would be the same for me:
A deal-breaker downgrade from 7200. I only have four screw-drive AF lenses I like to play around with; but I have about a dozen AI and AI-S lenses. So for me, losing the indexing would actually be worse.
Happy shooting, OE

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 05:00 UTC
On article Shooting experience: how the Nikon D7500 won me over (194 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joed700: It's nice to see that Nikon has put so much effort into their APS-C sensors and bodies. I wish they would have done the same thing with their FF systems. The only reason I'm not getting the D500 or alike is that there are not too many good dedicated lenses for APS-C from Nikon. Sigma have some good ones, but they are not , as always, consistent with AF performance...

Hi CT23,

I'm going to guess that you're responding to my post, so I'll respond to yours.

You seem to be missing the fact that FOV is crucial for primes--hence the notion of "equivalent" focal lengths.

The "point" of a DX 50mm would be to do what 85mm does on FX. And the inexpensive FX nifty 50's do approximate that.

But ideally, the DX should be 55-60 mm, and a stop faster.

The only FX fitting that description would be the (relatively) big, heavy, expensive, and soft 58mm.

Compare it, for example, to the Pentax 55mm f/1.4 DA* SDM lens. Another comparison would be the gorgeous Fujifilm XF 56mm f/1.2 R Lens. (But that comparison wouldn't be quite "fair," as the Fuji also has the mirrorless advantage.)

And what about the 28mm "equivalent" for DX? That would be 18-20mm, say the FX Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED.

Compare that to the Pentax DA 21mm f/3.2 AL, or the (mirrorless) Fujifilm 18mm f/2.0 XF R.

P.S. Canon's APS-C lineup looks as pathetic as Nikon's. I'm surprised.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2017 at 21:15 UTC
On article Shooting experience: how the Nikon D7500 won me over (194 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joed700: It's nice to see that Nikon has put so much effort into their APS-C sensors and bodies. I wish they would have done the same thing with their FF systems. The only reason I'm not getting the D500 or alike is that there are not too many good dedicated lenses for APS-C from Nikon. Sigma have some good ones, but they are not , as always, consistent with AF performance...

Hi Joe, I agree with most of what you say.

But I think you're letting Nikon off the hook waaaaay too easy when you say "...there are not too many good dedicated lenses for APS-C from Nikon."

Not too many? How about a grand total of four DX primes, and only one of those general purpose? This is FAR worse than any other APS-C camera maker I can think of, even the much-maligned Sony.

Another note: Losing a card slot, although bad, wouldn't be a big problem for me. But losing (screw drive) AF is absolutely a deal-breaking downgrade for me. If I needed another prosumer DX body, it would be a 7200.

BTW, I say this as a faithful Nikon system guy for about 45 years.

Happy shooting, Ed

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2017 at 20:01 UTC
In reply to:

PeaceKeeper: Maybe not the best bit of PR, but in retrospect I think it will be an important piece of documentation. It's journalism. It isn't supposed to be all rainbows and unicorns.

The rise of this man into a position of power is the most prominent(if disheartening) piece of political news that has happened in the US in decades, and it may turn out to be even more important as time passes. Documenting and understanding history as it happens will help the future make better decisions.

Good morning, marike6!

Your assertion about "previous presidents," is of course false if your intended meaning was ALL previous presidents. But if you had in mind only those presidents who were (also) Constitution-flouting leftists, then your assertion is correct.

As for your assertion that Presidential divesture is Constitutionally required, it reveals epic ignorance of not only that document, but also its historical context. (Billion-dollar American multinationals did not even exist in 1787.)

Should you choose to acquire some knowledge on this subject, this would be a good place to start:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/conflicts.pdf

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 17:10 UTC
In reply to:

GinoSVK: What is the keymission of the next president?

Good job, Ahmet!
You perfectly exemplify leftists who call hateful names because they're incapable of coherent debate.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 16:16 UTC
In reply to:

GinoSVK: What is the keymission of the next president?

An oversimplified answer:
First term: Repair as much of the Incumbent's damage as possible.
Second term: MAGA. (BIG job!)

-OE

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 03:53 UTC
In reply to:

PeaceKeeper: Maybe not the best bit of PR, but in retrospect I think it will be an important piece of documentation. It's journalism. It isn't supposed to be all rainbows and unicorns.

The rise of this man into a position of power is the most prominent(if disheartening) piece of political news that has happened in the US in decades, and it may turn out to be even more important as time passes. Documenting and understanding history as it happens will help the future make better decisions.

It sure sounds like you're describing the Incumbent!
But cheer up, Constitutionalists are smiling: Help is on the way.

Regarding European history, you might read up on what happened when Germans elected a man who dismissed their Constitution with a "phone and a pen." Spoiler Alert: It ended badly.

-OE

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 03:40 UTC

A few quick thoughts from a long-time Kodak film user...
1. Ektachrome wasn't just one film, of course; there were many variations. I used most of them, and wasn't much impressed. They were grainy compared to Kodachrome, and the "standard" speed ones (e.g., 64) were over saturated, with an excessive emphasis on blues and reds.
2. Kodachrome also had several variations, notably 10, II, 25, 64, and 200. Below 200, all were incredibly fine grained, with unrivaled archival qualities.
3. Kodachrome 10 deserves great credit as the pioneer. I still have perfect Kodachrome 10 shots from the early 1940s (not shot by me).
4. The absolute standout, IMO unrivaled as the all-time greatest "slide" film, was Kodachrome II. It had the expected fine grain and archival qualities, but its COLOR made it the greatest: dead-on balance, neither over nor under saturated.
5. Kodachrome 25 and 64 were a BIG step down, with an awful tendency to cyan skies. (Thanks for ending the golden age, EPA!)

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 17:03 UTC as 41st comment

Great, wonderful, lovely imagery, no commercials, I love it! If people can figure out contact info for Mr. Carminati, he might have an influx of business.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 21:10 UTC as 48th comment
In reply to:

Old Ed: Site selection was great, as was drone perspective. Kudos for that.

But here, the downsized 4K video is just nasty. Full of blur, artifacts, and jerkiness. Just about any HD video clip I've seen looked better, technically speaking. Are others seeing this?

Most other video clips play fine for me, but not this one. However, it seems to work for several other folks. So it's a bit of a mystery. No biggie.
Happy shooting... OE

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2016 at 03:17 UTC

Site selection was great, as was drone perspective. Kudos for that.

But here, the downsized 4K video is just nasty. Full of blur, artifacts, and jerkiness. Just about any HD video clip I've seen looked better, technically speaking. Are others seeing this?

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 16:19 UTC as 15th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Michael J Davis: Lovely - my sort of photos!
But why do you call "gasholders" - "gasometers" ? - it has nothing to do with metering!

I would be grateful if G9 could explain how suppressing water vapor clouds constitutes a "major environmental advantage." And what percentage of the worlds clouds originate in cooling towers?
Perhaps G9 is referring to the frequent (and dishonest) use of water vapor emission images as symbols of "pollution." If so, there is a good case that eliminating them is useful in the PR/propaganda war.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 16:32 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (280 comments in total)

The hardware in this looks very nice, even though it seems to be drifting towards big-camera territory. I'll look forward to seeing if there are significant UI/menu improvements. DPR has described Olympus' menus as somewhere between train-wreck and nightmare (not exactly their words) for a long time now.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 14:59 UTC as 45th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

steelhead3: Ah, the pleasures of holding the Olympics in a country with a huge disparity of incomes.

Just curious: What countries do NOT have a huge disparity of incomes?

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2016 at 18:08 UTC
In reply to:

TheTrickster2k: When has ANY of the FourThirds or mFT camera been a cropped sensor camera? This is poor editorial by the DPReview team.

Come on, Jeff!
DPR is a very useful, slick, and beautiful web site; and your staff are professional DP journalists. So I'd think that you'd want to use photographic terms correctly. Would you want your MD talking about your "thingamajig?"
All mFT cameras ARE "full-frame," of course--namely the smaller FT frame. The APS-C cameras are more debatable, since they natively accommodate lenses designed for a larger format.
I hope that in the future you'll try to use terminology correctly, and not imitate the sloppy semantics of some of your viewers. But many thanks for a great site.
-OE

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2016 at 13:42 UTC

Maybe some posters should lighten up, and wise up.

Panasonic is imitating Casio's success on this one (look it up); and they're following the money. DPR enthusiasts won't want this camera; but there's a good chance that a lot of Asian females will want it.

If this succeeds, Panny will have more money to spend developing things that DPR enthusiasts WILL like. What's wrong with that?

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 16:10 UTC as 35th comment

Very nice! And I'd bet that the workers shown don't live in dirty dorms above the factory floor, either... unlike certain other sources that shall not be named.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 21:35 UTC as 38th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Lee Jay: This is why I have SLRs. They do everything well. Great ergonomics, great viewfinder, great autofocus, great speed, great responsiveness, great flexibility, great image quality. Every other type of camera is a sacrifice. For example, picking on the first camera mentioned in the article, the A6000 has the worst ergonomics of any camera I've ever held and also has a terrible viewfinder.

"Which is easier to handle, a 0x90 screw from a pair of glasses or a 3/8" bolt from a car?"

Nice try, but...
1. You conveniently dropped weight from this mini-thread entirely. I assume you couldn't find even implausible reasons why "great" weight would make a camera easier to transport.

2. You did find an innovative ploy on the size angle though: Trying to change the subject from camera sizes to the sizes of near-microscopic parts.

But sorry, no dice. The handling properties of things 1,000 times smaller than the subject cameras is irrelevant. Why not 1,000 times larger? Applying that factor to one of the subject camera bodies would make the size around that of a small refrigerator, with a weight around half a ton. Lugging such an item around wouldn't be "great" for me, at all. But then, I have to admit that I never made an Olympic weight-lifting team.

"I use my SLRs around 10 times as much as my compacts."

By all means enjoy, and you can cancel your gym membership!

-OE

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 21:21 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: This is why I have SLRs. They do everything well. Great ergonomics, great viewfinder, great autofocus, great speed, great responsiveness, great flexibility, great image quality. Every other type of camera is a sacrifice. For example, picking on the first camera mentioned in the article, the A6000 has the worst ergonomics of any camera I've ever held and also has a terrible viewfinder.

"Great weight and great size is correct. ...easy to transport."
Huh? Excuse me, but in what universe does great weight and size equate to ease of transport?
I have an extensive DSLR kit, but its "great" weight and size have relegated it to at-home use for years.
My "enthusiast" digicam gets 10X the use. That's because its NOT-great weight and size means I can easily take it with me when away from home.
YMMV of course, and you're 100% entitled to your preferences.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 16:00 UTC
On a photo in the Fujifilm X100T Real-world Samples sample gallery (2 comments in total)

Sephia?

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 23:23 UTC as 2nd comment
Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »