dash2k8

Joined on May 13, 2010

Comments

Total: 726, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Astrophotography with the Sigma 14mm F1.8 Art lens (75 comments in total)

Pretty strong endorsement for this lens to replace the venerable Nikon. I was already sold and now have peace of mind that I made the right choice.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 04:30 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply

There's also a helicopter video of the same effect on Youtube. Looks like the chopper is just hovering through space.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 04:27 UTC as 22nd comment

Is it me, or is this comment section looking really like a "Canon vs. Sony" or "Canon vs. Nikon" or "your brand vs. mine" sort of thing? This article is filed under "OPINION" for crying out loud, it's one man's preference. The article is not trying to persuade anyone to jump ship, so it's puzzling why people are all up in arms about this. Relax, have a cup of coffee, and go back to your OS and hardware of choice.

Oh wait, did I just start a war between coffee and tea drinkers? ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 01:34 UTC as 236th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

rsf3127: OSX and Linux are still above Windows. I am obliged to use W10 at work and it is the second best version (after 7) but still crashes regularly and I have to waste time fixing drivers and looking for third party software to do things that are much easier in the other OSs.

@archivist, I'm replying to the OP: "still crashes regularly." Learn to read, bro.

BTW, it's "and just WHO says..." So two things: read better, and learn to use "whom" properly. Have a great day.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 01:30 UTC
In reply to:

rsf3127: OSX and Linux are still above Windows. I am obliged to use W10 at work and it is the second best version (after 7) but still crashes regularly and I have to waste time fixing drivers and looking for third party software to do things that are much easier in the other OSs.

If your Windows machine is crashing regularly, there's something wrong with the hardware.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 23:32 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: It's hilarious to see ppl say"I switched to Windows and after a while switched back..." It looks more like a case of not being familiar with PC hardware than any real issues. I tried switching to Mac before and ran into problems, which I'm sure Mac worshippers would never admit to cost, but I also recognized that I was not familiar with Mac so I would not pass judgment. In the end, you use what you are comfortable with, but please refrain from using broad canvas statements like "this system is much worse" when you have limited experience.

*never admit to exist

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 22:10 UTC

It's hilarious to see ppl say"I switched to Windows and after a while switched back..." It looks more like a case of not being familiar with PC hardware than any real issues. I tried switching to Mac before and ran into problems, which I'm sure Mac worshippers would never admit to cost, but I also recognized that I was not familiar with Mac so I would not pass judgment. In the end, you use what you are comfortable with, but please refrain from using broad canvas statements like "this system is much worse" when you have limited experience.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 22:09 UTC as 289th comment | 3 replies
On article Simple demo shows the power of a polarizing filter (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: I don't need any demo...

I am sold just wearing my sun glasses!

My cameras and lenses envied me, so I bought some for them too...

.

Duly noted and learned something new! I stand corrected.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 19:44 UTC
On article Simple demo shows the power of a polarizing filter (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

davev8: they have their use for unwanted reflections ....but especially with wide angle lenses the sky often looks very unnatural with parts of the sky having more polarised light than others parts...i prefer to use LR instead much better results are possible

The OP is correct that on ultra-wides the sky can get ruined by a CPL (I've experienced that first-hand). However, LR doesn't achieve the same effect, it just darkens the sky. Not the same thing.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 03:42 UTC
On article Simple demo shows the power of a polarizing filter (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: The de-reflected leaves looks cool and totally unreal. It is not always that green growing stuff look good with polarizer.

I'm surprised someone made a similar point as me! You're right, once the reflections are removed, the scene takes on a surreal (unreal?) look.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 03:39 UTC
On article Simple demo shows the power of a polarizing filter (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lobalobo: No need for a "circular" polarizing filter unless viewing an image reflected by a mirror. Since so many cameras now are mirrorless, the advice to make sure to get a circular polarizer is overstated.

The OP clearly 1) did not watch the video and 2) doesn't understand what a CPL does. Thanks for coming.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 03:38 UTC
On article Simple demo shows the power of a polarizing filter (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: I don't need any demo...

I am sold just wearing my sun glasses!

My cameras and lenses envied me, so I bought some for them too...

.

Not here to argue, but a pair of sunglasses is just an ND filter, not a CPL. Different in in the way they work.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 03:37 UTC
On article Simple demo shows the power of a polarizing filter (134 comments in total)

I remember when I first learned of the wonders of the CPL, I shot almost everything with it. The downside to this is that, after the reflections are removed, the colors sometimes become TOO vivid. That's because we're used to seeing the highlights and reflective surfaces blown out, and thus the scene becomes a bit surreal without them. As with everything, use with moderation.

EDIT: A lot of comments here are confusing CIRCULAR polarizers with ND filters. Not the same thing!

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 03:36 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Karroly: I have just discovered a Polaroid 101 in my father's attic. It comes with :
- flash gun #268
- mechanical self-timer #192
- cloud filter #516
- UV fliter #585

Strangely, it looks like new...
It is for sale.
Anyone interested ?

If you're being serious, I think you will quickly find takers on ebay.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 10:32 UTC
In reply to:

Vanitas Photo: Photographers: annoyingly nitpicking with other's stuff but never with their own stuff.

I doubt Top Gun or Rambo are real life accurate.

Rambo is not real??? ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 10:30 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: I have a better plot. They all are taken with a Canon DSLR and the Dynamic Range is so low that they have die in darkness. The mainactor tries to push the shadows but they all coming back noisy and with banding.... what a horrortrip ;)

Or maybe you expose properly and the dynamic range doesn't matter? ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 10:30 UTC

I want that flash! So small yet so powerful, why hasn't any of the major brands made something like this yet? Canon, Nikon, Sony et al., are you guys seeing this!?

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 10:30 UTC as 45th comment | 4 replies
On article Embracing the Lensbaby Velvet 85's glow (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

zzzxtreme: that smooth bokeh reminds me of Nikon 50mm f/1.4

*(replied to wrong comment)

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2017 at 13:35 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: I went to the linked site looking for a direct comparison to the excellent Canon 11-24 but came away inconclusive. MTF charts only tell part of the story. Guess we'll need to wait for real world samples. The Canon 11-24 does a terrific job of keeping vertical lines vertical. The Sony's price and size/weight look nice, though. And if Roger Cicala is impressed, I'll take his word at face value.

I meant vertical, I wrote vertical, and you went off the reservation with the tilt-shift thing. As you yourself said, the distortion gets worse towards the edges, but this lens doesn't do that regardless of which direction you hold the camera (the horizontal line is already perfectly straight, so either way, it's the VERTICAL LINES that are VERTICAL). You're the one who decided to go full throttle on my very simple message, so I think you should read what people mean instead of try to make something out of nothing. Then there will be no over-analysis.

Once again you have shown yourself to never have used this lens. If so, then why are you even commenting on this? I sure don't pretend to know anything at all about things I've never touched, neither should you.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2017 at 13:29 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: I went to the linked site looking for a direct comparison to the excellent Canon 11-24 but came away inconclusive. MTF charts only tell part of the story. Guess we'll need to wait for real world samples. The Canon 11-24 does a terrific job of keeping vertical lines vertical. The Sony's price and size/weight look nice, though. And if Roger Cicala is impressed, I'll take his word at face value.

@arc, sorry I wasn't clear the first time around. Usually these super-wides exhibit some sort of curvature on the outside edges. Judging from your comments, you have never used a 11-24. If you had, you will know what I'm talking about. If you point this lens at the interiors of a house, the walls on the edges of the frame don't become curved at 11mm; they stay perfectly vertical. You're over-analyzing my comments with your "incline the camera a bit less."

Usually wide lenses keep the horizontal lines much straighter than the vertical ones, only the best keep the vertical ones vertical. Try a 11-24 and you'll see what I mean.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2017 at 09:51 UTC
Total: 726, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »