Calvin Chann

Calvin Chann

Lives in Portugal Estoril/Cascais, Portugal
Works as a Finance
Joined on Oct 30, 2002
About me:

Way too much equipment ;)

Comments

Total: 498, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Displayed so that you won't see just how freaking enormous they are.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2018 at 14:29 UTC as 31st comment

Price is accessible. Will they make one for large negative sizes?

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2018 at 16:07 UTC as 42nd comment

And just to be different, Nikon put the teleconvertor switch on the wrong side so that you have to take your hand away from the shutter release to activate it.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 12:10 UTC as 26th comment | 9 replies

For those who are surprised by the price, you need to get out more. The Canon version came in at almost exactly the same price when it was launched. Why would Nikon do anything different?

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 12:07 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Ian: 180mm? Goodbye Canon, I'm leaving you and your lousy, not wide enough 200-400 1.4x behind ;)

The specmanship from Nikon is hilarious!

What bitterness? As a Canon, Fuji and Sony user, I'm happy that Nikon have eventually offered something like this. Just why it's taken so long ...

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 12:05 UTC
In reply to:

lambert4: Is this a fixed barrel length? I know not a deal breaker but I have long preferred fixed barrel design vs extending for environmental sealing. Maybe its just a preference but the breathing to me has always seemed more susceptible to drawing in moist air and dust. What a gorgeous lens and real added value to the system.
Regardless of how many people will buy it, it is a solid offering. I will be getting a 200-500 f/5.6 for my budget but it doesn't mean I cannot appreciate what this lens is and wish for it some day.

1Dx4me, well maybe you shouldn't get the 1Dx until you understand a bit more.

In reply to lambert4, I would seriously doubt that this lens changes length while zooming. The Canon version certainly doesn't.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 17:39 UTC
In reply to:

Focus Shift Shooting: Is this a joke? A $12,999 lens? What's the point? Seems like a waste of time.

People wanted those 3 cameras. Nobody really wants this. It's $12,999.
But the idea of 3 cameras based on 3 focal lengths had traction.
Well, it's too late now.

Go work on Mirrorless. It's what the people are asking for. So give them the best mirrorless there is. That will be something.

You need to get out more.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 17:36 UTC
In reply to:

chimbos_matt: Congratulations to the 4 people that will actually purchase this lens!!! Nikon should be focusing on the lenses that people do buy and there sharpness, they are falling further and further behind.

Nice summary of DXO scores by lens type.
http://briansmith.com/sony-fe-lenses-sharp-canon-nikon-glass/

Actually, when Canon released their 200-400 1.4x all those years ago, they sold quite a few.

sandy b, last variant? They've had this lens before?

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

Calvin Chann: Would like to know how rugged Sony bodies are compared to Canon or Nikon bodies. They inherently feel more fragile to me.

@Clayton 1985, well, the question is aptly placed at Lens Rentals given that they rent gear and would presumably have data on frequency of repair across brands.
@LessMirrored19, thank you for your well thought out answer. I actually do shoot Canon DSLR (5D3 and 1Dx) as well as Fuji (X-Pro2, X-T2 and GFX) and Sony (A7R2) mirrorless and will continue to do so.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 10:30 UTC

Would like to know how rugged Sony bodies are compared to Canon or Nikon bodies. They inherently feel more fragile to me.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2017 at 16:30 UTC as 60th comment | 16 replies
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: a real panning mode would be cool. But there is always the Brenizer method. This is quite useless (as is any crop mode) because it can be done quite easily in post.

Neither do some others on this thread.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2017 at 15:38 UTC
In reply to:

goodgeorge: So they basically expect, that user is unable to crop images in post process... ok ;-)

Try thinking a little outside of the box. If you shoot un-cropped, how'd you know the composition that you have taken will crop down to what you thought it would?

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

left eye: X-Pan crop might have some use for web-site banners, or ads on buses?

Rather odd that the jpeg isn't cropped. When shooting RAW + JPEG I find it useful to see the jpegs cropped when viewing a day's shooting.

On my GFX, the jpg is cropped and the RAW isn't.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: a real panning mode would be cool. But there is always the Brenizer method. This is quite useless (as is any crop mode) because it can be done quite easily in post.

X-Pan mode shoots one picture and doesn't stitch anything. Movement is fine because it's one frame. The frame comes to 25 mp on the GFX and the RAW is uncropped so the X-PAN can be replicated. You guys shoot from the hip withut knowing what you're talking about.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

anticipation_of: Do many people out there shoot in crop modes regularly? I always shoot at my camera’s full resolution, and then crop from there in post if I feel the image would look better with a different aspect ratio. Sometimes I have a particular aspect ratio in mind when I’m shooting, but I still crop later; in fact it’s a standard part of my workflow to pull up the crop tool right at the beginning of an edit and play around with different framings. I feel like I get more flexibility this way (e.g. if I want a little more or less sky than I thought at the time of shooting, I can have that) and have more opportunity to maximize the resolution of my photos, rather than throwing some of it away right at the beginning. Am I in the minority here?

One big reason for getting the GFX was the X-Pan mode, which I shoot in a lot. It aids composition, for me anyway.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 16:25 UTC
In reply to:

Aleks7: X-Pan instead of crop: using famous labels in a need for attention?
My cell phone has it as well, they call it panorama

Except that with a cellphone panorama or even a camera panorama you get movement artifacts which you won't with an X-Pan. The X-Pan aspect ratio is 65 by 24

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 16:23 UTC
In reply to:

dmanthree: I think this is as close we'll ever get to a Mamiya 7 II, as well. I'd love to see the Texas Leica appear in digital form, but that's beyond a longshot.

I had an xPan and loved it, but honestly adding a crop mode to this cam isn't quite the same. And not really necessary.

I have an X-Pan II and find shooting in X-Pan mode on my GFX means much better composition rather than cropping it later, which I can do with the RAW files. The problem with the film based X-Pan was getting good scans.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 16:19 UTC

Already shooting X-Pan mode with my GFX-50s.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 16:15 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

Calvin Chann: In what way are the controls conventional?

In the conventional positions, doing the conventional things?

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 11:01 UTC

In what way are the controls conventional?

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2017 at 16:35 UTC as 61st comment | 2 replies
Total: 498, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »