dash2k8

Joined on May 13, 2010

Comments

Total: 439, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

The lines along the edges are very straight. If the price is reasonable, I'm sure to get one.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 09:52 UTC as 10th comment

I'm very intrigued in this camera but it's really going to cost the house to buy the body and a few lenses. Might rent first.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 11:16 UTC as 3rd comment

How much for this body?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 11:15 UTC as 40th comment | 1 reply
On article Leica SL Review (875 comments in total)
In reply to:

dash2k8: If we did a blind test with professionals and took away the red dot, then told the testers that this camera costs $6600USD, I wonder how many would say they want to buy one?

I know Leica produces amazing lenses, but my point is how would this specific body pass a blind test. The reviewer went out of his way to mention the bad ergonomics several times in his article, even saying it causes pain. I'm just saying, put it through a blind test and we'll see if people will really love it for what it is, not the red dot it has.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 23:03 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (875 comments in total)

If we did a blind test with professionals and took away the red dot, then told the testers that this camera costs $6600USD, I wonder how many would say they want to buy one?

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 03:47 UTC as 77th comment | 6 replies
On article Leica SL Review (875 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shlomo Goldwasser: The conclusion about Leica cameras is always the same; you pay the Ferrari price for Chevrolet performance.

@HowaboutRAW The problem here is the body isn't worth the money. Sure you get superb lenses but it's not comfortable to shoot with. So you have great lens and average body, that means it's still overpriced. For this cost, I would expect better ergonomics, not an uncomfy brick.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 03:34 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (875 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Leica — thumbs up. All others — big thumbs down.
This is a lovely camera. And this how things are done: Leica comes one time, and delivers superb FF mirrorless products — when compared to Sony and Fuji and Olympus, all who take several iterations and many years of procrastination and milking of user's money to get somewhere nearby of a contraption, which somewhat deserves to be called 'a mirrorless system camera'.
Even now, not a single mirrorless camera from those manufacturers — or from any other manufacturer — compares to the sophistication, quality and effort put into the SL, or Leica Q (fixed lens mirrorless).

@Perar The SL's price makes it a bad buy. It's not remotely worth the price tag. This review pointed out several bad things about the camera, including bad ergonomics that make using it uncomfortable. The author of the article specifically mentioned "the SL is too uncomfortable in the hand due to its minimalist aesthetics." Is this "how things are done"? Companies should make cameras uncomfortable to hold? What about the ugly JPEG colors? Or is the SL only supposed to shoot RAW? Basically this camera is an overpriced, unbalanced entry into a crowded sector of the market, not the highlight that you make it out to be.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 03:30 UTC

Sigma has been producing great lenses for a while now that it won't surprise me at all if these all turn out excellent. What will surprise me is if one of these were duds. The 14mm and 135mm both are very attractive to me (depending on price, which I expect/hope to be reasonable).

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 02:38 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply

All the luck to them in this endeavor. I personally think film will be a very niche market but if they can make money in this sector, good for them.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 02:32 UTC as 10th comment

11mm f/4 at this price is a steal. If this lens' sharpness is even above average, I'm going to get a Firefly for sure. (The Blackstone version's' caveats aren't worth the extra $225 to me.) 3.13% can be corrected in post so it's not a big issue to me.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 00:42 UTC as 15th comment
On article Extremely dramatic video touts Canon's CMOS technology (196 comments in total)
In reply to:

tangbunna: a7s2 quietly laughing loud

I have a a7s2 and no way can it do this.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 02:59 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: No comparisons with Canon's 85/1.2L or Nikon's 85/1.4G? Granted, if this lens is even sharper than the Otus, then I don't see why it can't beat Canon/Nikon's best 85mm's, but I would still love to see a side-by-side comp like with the Sony.

I'm not questioning how the Sigma will stack up. I want to see a comparison, that's all.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2017 at 22:05 UTC

No comparisons with Canon's 85/1.2L or Nikon's 85/1.4G? Granted, if this lens is even sharper than the Otus, then I don't see why it can't beat Canon/Nikon's best 85mm's, but I would still love to see a side-by-side comp like with the Sony.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 03:41 UTC as 33rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

dash2k8: All of these could easily have been taken with a really, really tall ladder...

@surlezi Got it! :)

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 23:25 UTC
In reply to:

mezastel: Would not mind an 85/1.2, since Canon seem to have one. And I'd rather they would work out the kinks and release a7R III first, without overheating and with more sensible menus.

The "old" Canon 85/1.2 did NOT have mediocre image quality. It's excellent just like the Nikon 85/1.4G. You'll be hard pressed to find a Canon 85/1.2 owner who complains about its IQ. The AF, on the other hand, really IS slow.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 06:52 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: All of these could easily have been taken with a really, really tall ladder...

I actually do think a jet pack will eventually become a reality, then photography and videography will really reach "new heights."

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 22:26 UTC
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: I hate all of these except that very last one which looks more natural like it could have been taken from a higher hill.

The rest seem like weird abstracts; bad photographs showing a rare view because we do not fly does not make them good photographs. They're just angles we normally do not see, but they're still bad pictures.

Drone noise actually shouldn't be a problem because drones aren't supposed to fly so low that you can hear them. I've been flying them ever since the Phantom 1 and rarely do I hear people complain about the noise. If the noise becomes bothersome, then maybe the operator is just flying way too low. There's really not that many angles for a drone to shoot that low.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 09:25 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: All of these could easily have been taken with a really, really tall ladder...

@surlezi, I don't know about a rope, unless you mean to dangle it from underneath a plane... A super long pole perhaps?

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 09:22 UTC

All of these could easily have been taken with a really, really tall ladder...

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 03:32 UTC as 17th comment | 8 replies

The video felt very natural and easy-going. I personally like the handheld look over the tripod look. The stills were IMHO a mixed bag. Some were very nice, some... might not have made my first cut. Obviously it's subjective so I can't say they're ugly, they're just not my style of travel photo. Having done projects like this before, I can appreciate the effort and energy devoted into getting all the footage. The video above is 16 minutes, but I'm going to guess the unedited sources were several hours long. Bravo for a job well done.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 03:45 UTC as 31st comment
Total: 439, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »