peterwr

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Works as a Webster
Joined on May 10, 2004

Comments

Total: 384, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

sharkcookie: Dear Nikon,
please ignore all the requests from people who want to tell you what you should do. Last time you did, you made the Df. Everyone said they want a camera like that and then no one bought it.

<< please ignore all the requests from people who want to tell you what you should do. Last time you did, you made the Df. >>

Yup, and what people told them to do was make a digital version of the compact, lightweight FM/FE. What they got was a brick that was so out of date on launch that only hipsters would buy it.

And then Fuji went and made the digital FM/FE everyone had been asking for and sold zillions of them.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2018 at 21:54 UTC

Someone should remind them of that famous old English proverb: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2018 at 22:39 UTC as 45th comment

Do Canon's marketing people not know any actual photographers they could have, you know, *asked* for a photo? Fuji, Leica and Olympus (and Hasselblad, and Nikon, and...) don't seem to have a problem doing that. Weird that the Canon marketing department, of all people, would feel they have to go trawling stock sites.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 19:40 UTC as 36th comment
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (383 comments in total)

I must stop reading Petapixel; it's really disorientating when the same articles keep on turning up here a week later.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2018 at 20:43 UTC as 98th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

tbcass: Just because somebody is on the internet or doing videos on YouTube doesn't mean they are expert reviewers. The fact is there is a lot more garbage than good when it comes to camera reviews. BTW, I did not watch the review. I'm basing it on previous reviews I've seen from this fool. I quickly realized he wasn't worth watching.

Personally for the price I don't understand why anybody would buy an RX0 when the vastly superior RX100iii is the same price. The RX100 and RX100ii are cheaper and still vastly superior.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Sony_DSC-RX100_vs_Sony_DSC-RX100_II_vs_Sony_RX0_vs_Sony_DSC-RX100_III/BHitems/869238-REG_984408-REG_1359163-REG_1049537-REG

That's pretty much why - waterproofing and ruggedising don't come cheap. Plus they're spreading the production cost/profit margin over a smaller production run compared to the RX100.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2017 at 18:24 UTC
In reply to:

tbcass: Just because somebody is on the internet or doing videos on YouTube doesn't mean they are expert reviewers. The fact is there is a lot more garbage than good when it comes to camera reviews. BTW, I did not watch the review. I'm basing it on previous reviews I've seen from this fool. I quickly realized he wasn't worth watching.

Personally for the price I don't understand why anybody would buy an RX0 when the vastly superior RX100iii is the same price. The RX100 and RX100ii are cheaper and still vastly superior.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Sony_DSC-RX100_vs_Sony_DSC-RX100_II_vs_Sony_RX0_vs_Sony_DSC-RX100_III/BHitems/869238-REG_984408-REG_1359163-REG_1049537-REG

<< I suppose there are some instances for a handful of people where the tiny size of the RX0 matters >>

And the ruggedness, and the waterproofness... That's why I suspected satire: the two cameras are explicitly aimed at two totally different markets. No-one who knew anything about photography, video or cinematography would seriously consider either of them for the other's use case.

If you'd watched the review, you would have heard Kai say it would make a good compact B camera or crashcam for a production that was already shooting on Sony cameras. He's right, it would - but a substitute for a GoPro in GoPro's target market it is not. Yet.

But if they develop it as fast as they've upgraded their other 1" cams, I'll be looking out for the mark ii or iii version with interest.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2017 at 17:35 UTC
In reply to:

tbcass: Just because somebody is on the internet or doing videos on YouTube doesn't mean they are expert reviewers. The fact is there is a lot more garbage than good when it comes to camera reviews. BTW, I did not watch the review. I'm basing it on previous reviews I've seen from this fool. I quickly realized he wasn't worth watching.

Personally for the price I don't understand why anybody would buy an RX0 when the vastly superior RX100iii is the same price. The RX100 and RX100ii are cheaper and still vastly superior.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Sony_DSC-RX100_vs_Sony_DSC-RX100_II_vs_Sony_RX0_vs_Sony_DSC-RX100_III/BHitems/869238-REG_984408-REG_1359163-REG_1049537-REG

<< Personally for the price I don't understand why anybody would buy an RX0 when the vastly superior RX100iii is the same price. >>

This is satire, right?

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2017 at 17:12 UTC

Milvus lenses weigh a ton. Not a proper replacement at all.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 12:43 UTC as 10th comment
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)

But is it full frame?

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 20:55 UTC as 132nd comment | 3 replies
On a photo in the Olympus 45mm F1.2 sample gallery sample gallery (4 comments in total)
In reply to:

peterwr: I'd have found something better to focus on than the tip of the horse's nose, but that's just me...

Seriously, DPR, you need to take this one out of the gallery.

Point taken, Carey, but I'd say the horse's eye is too dark to effectively judge focus, especially without pixel-peeping. I'd have focused on the guy (one of the first things I learned in cameraman school was "eyes go to people, light and movement") and let the rest of the shot go. The horse isn't bright enough in shot to attract the eye and make it obvious that it's the subject, imo. But whatever... :-)

@gravelhopper: yes, I guessed. I was commenting on the point of focus, not the objective.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 09:26 UTC
On a photo in the Olympus 45mm F1.2 sample gallery sample gallery (4 comments in total)

I'd have found something better to focus on than the tip of the horse's nose, but that's just me...

Seriously, DPR, you need to take this one out of the gallery.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 19:59 UTC as 1st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

daddyo: Had she been shooting Micro Four Thirds, he would have missed it entirely!
More seriously, this is what happens when a 'nobody' who thinks they are 'somebody' has an attack of over-inflated ego.

Who?

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 19:43 UTC
In reply to:

En Trance: That Law Suit should make him truly sorry. Pure assault with no basis whatsoever. Perhaps a few months in the Klink also would help. Wonder what kind of footwear he had on?

<< I'm not condoning what he did but it was a play kick anything severe she would have been hospitalized broken nose teeth out etc it wasn't like that >>

1. She WAS hospitalised. And unlike here in the UK (so far), it cost her a lot of money.

2. "Play kick"? Seriously? So if somebody kicked you in the face, wrecking your camera and necessitating a trip to hospital, then said they were only playing, you'd just laugh it off, pay the hospital bill and buy yourself a new camera?

Sure you would.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 19:38 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alphaville: I’d buy m43 because less separation at high apertures can be good.

<< There is literally no case where this is true. >>

Where what is true?

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 21:46 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alphaville: I’d buy m43 because less separation at high apertures can be good.

<< You simply cannot "get an iris in focus and an eyelash out of it" with 35mm equivalent lens, whatever format you use, in normal shooting conditions. >>

I know. I was commenting on bokeh/DoF flame wars in general, not on this specific case.

<< And DOF, background blur, bokeh or whatever, is NOT a function of the final image size. >>

*Apparent* background blur/DoF absolutely is. That was my point. If you view an image smaller, it will appear sharper overall. That's why people pixel-peep to check whether it's really sharp or not - because you can't make fine judgements about sharpness from a reduced image.

<< Try zooming image in and out to make the background blur change. >>

If you mean zooming in and out on the screen in post-production, that was exactly what I was saying. As you zoom in - i.e. enlarge the picture - you'll see more of the blur you saw when you took the picture. Zoom out, less blur.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 21:44 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alphaville: I’d buy m43 because less separation at high apertures can be good.

Indeed. In my professional work, most of the time my problem is too little depth of field, not too much. P*ssing contests about who can get an iris in focus and an eyelash out of it really tee me off.

And depth of field is also a function of how big the finished image will be viewed - something that the DoF bozos completely fail to take into account in their pixel peeping. Grr.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2017 at 17:02 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

eugene1979: In terms of angle of view and DoF it is equal to 35mm F/1.4 on 35mm full-frame cameras. Most of such lenses cost about 899-1499 USD.
And here we have a lens that covers only m43 and costs 1199 USD.
No, thank you.

<< its not useless if you want to emulate your shooting style on another format .....its just some have napoleon's syndrome and it bothers them .... >>

True dat. Equivalence has its uses; it's just that those aren't how most people use it. ;-)

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2017 at 16:49 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

eugene1979: In terms of angle of view and DoF it is equal to 35mm F/1.4 on 35mm full-frame cameras. Most of such lenses cost about 899-1499 USD.
And here we have a lens that covers only m43 and costs 1199 USD.
No, thank you.

<< It looks like about f2.4 from the samples. >>

Mmm hmm. Because you can judge that by looking at the pictures, rather than just multiplying the f number by two like everyone else.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2017 at 16:47 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

tinternaut: Grabs popcorn, sits back, and waits for a scholarly equivalence debate....

Awesome lens, by the looks of it.

<< Grabs popcorn, sits back, and waits for a scholarly equivalence debate.... >>

I've no doubt there'll be a debate, but don't hold your breath waiting for it to get scholarly... ;-)

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2017 at 16:09 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

Akgbkd: In not a hater but for me it still can't match the separation of a bigger sensor.

<< The only reason we buy $$$$ fast lens is to throw the BG OOF. >>

That and to take pictures in low light. You did know that, right?

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2017 at 16:07 UTC
Total: 384, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »