CFynn

Lives in Bhutan Thimphu, Bhutan
Works as a IT
Joined on Jan 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 547, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Zeiss unveils super-wide Batis 18mm F2.8 (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: In the specs it says its max format size is APSC/DX and lens mount Sony E (NEX). Hmmm...

Yes the article says that it is a full frame lens but, as you point out, the specs below say it’s an APSC lens. But if it were only for APSC the 18mm focal length would hardly qualify as "ultra wide"

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 21:58 UTC
In reply to:

madeinlisboa: Time to separate good photographers from Photoshopers...

What's the big deal? Pre-digital photographers had no problem shooting transparencies instead of negative film.

With transparencies you also had to get WB and exposure correct in the camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2015 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

SKPhoto12: It is simple; FF lenses can not be small unless they are MF. Then Leica size lenses are possible, but otherwise, the present FF lense size is what you will get for the Sony A7 line. That is why there is no F1.4 lenses available so far. The faster, the bigger.
The option is to use MF lenses like the Nikon or Minolta AI lenses or the Canon FE. If you want really small lenses on a small body, then go MFT. I did and I print 40x60 cm quality prints no problem.

@ Mirrorlessplease
If you want to use zeiss manual lenses on the A7 cameras you can always use Zeiss M mount lenses or old Contax-Zeiss lenses with an adapter.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2015 at 17:34 UTC
In reply to:

vkphoto: I would love to see Nikon taking similar approach by developing "no-frills" digital camera with no LCD, no AF, split screen, raw-only FM2.

They might if they thought they could sell them for $20K - somehow Leica are the only ones who seem to be able to pull that off.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

gbvalli: It is not "The Essence of Photography": only "The Essence of Luxury", and, to me, fairly aimless .

I think cameras like this have a collector base - not a user base.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 16:09 UTC
In reply to:

joyclick: why not put in a film cartridge and film transport levers and .....revive film photography a la fashion industry cycle?

The MA has a flash sync speed of between 1/30 and 1/60s - but they do throw in a couple of rolls of Tri-X

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 16:07 UTC
In reply to:

Anadrol: The worst is that Leica employees are currently laughing about the idiots that will pay 20K for that, well I don't have pity either for snobs that like to burn their money... they should rather give it to charities though, if they don't know what to do with it.

Charities?

I suspect the people who waste their money buying expensive European fashion accessories like special edition Leicas have about as much real concern for the poor and suffering as Marie Antoinette.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 15:52 UTC

WTF is "anthracite leather"?

Only ever heard of coal named anthracite, never a beast - and if it doesn't come from an animal it isn't really leather.

Is it just some expensive kind of Naugahyde?

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 15:47 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

pdelux: Only Leica could remove essential features (LCD) and have people applaud their Bravery. Whats next, lets remove the shutter button and just have a monocular.

Take your current leicas and turn off the LCD, and you simulate the same experience of being very annoyed that you cant review your images, just like in the film days.

Since most "special edition" Leica's like this will be bought by wealthy collectors who will hardly ever, or never, use them the LCD is certainly not essential.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 15:35 UTC
In reply to:

1elementin7groups: Ha, hype about a new lens? Look at how many people already own it or had it! Looks like it has been around a while! ;>)

Yes, DPR should disable the "I own it" until a product is actually shipping - and the "I had it" until a few weeks later.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 09:52 UTC
In reply to:

Thiom: Not that much smaller or more lightweight than the equally spec'd DSLR competition by Canikon. It eventually turns out as I always suspected: lenses for FF mirrorless are not going to be that much smaller than SLR designs as they have to deliver the same amount of light to the sensor.

The A7s are nice cameras for sure, but for traveling really light and compact regarding the entire kit as possible with APS-C mirrorless or MFT shooters have to confine themselves to relatively slow primes. If one's happy with that, OK. But when fast (zoom) glass is desired brace yourself for DSLR-like bulk and weight of the kit bag.

With zoom lenses they are unlikely to be able to reduce much size and weight from an equivalent FF DSLR lens.

With some wide angle primes they may not have to use retrofocal designs which should make them smaller and lighter.

But the body size does count too

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 16:32 UTC
In reply to:

Jose Ernesto Passos: First:
Copyright is retained by the author of the work of art. Not the owner of the equipment.

Second this picture became famous because it was a monkey's selfie.

If the owner of the camera says he took the picture, the picture will loose it is main reason for its popularity. Saying the truth, that is, the picture was taken by the monkey... The conclusion is ... wikipedia is in the right track.

That black macaque is making a monkey out of everyone.

Anyway Slater is getting a lot of free publicity and lawyers will probably be debating this for years.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2014 at 09:25 UTC
On article Leica M Monochrom now available in grayscale (sort of) (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevez: B&W is traditional and so are chrome cameras. It should have been made this way at the onset.

So they could sell both versions to rich collectors?

Link | Posted on May 26, 2014 at 11:40 UTC
On article Leica M Monochrom now available in grayscale (sort of) (136 comments in total)

I'm sure I'd love to use such a camera - but one look at their prices kills any lust.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2014 at 11:39 UTC as 35th comment
On article Leica M Monochrom now available in grayscale (sort of) (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

VikingPhotographer: Back in the good old days of celloidfilm cameras nearly all the cameras of all brands was in "chrome" with black "leather", the black models came fx in Hasselblad because of small faults in the chrome, so in a way the were never first choice at the time. Then the black versions became popular for some press photographers and black became more popular, but it was still chrome versions that was first choice. At the time where plastic became more and more the most used material for camera bodies, then black became the norme, not because they were more popular, no because chrome was to diffucult to look nice in plastic ! I must admit that chrome plastic looks very cheap compared to real metal chrome ! But take a look at a Hasselblad chrome, it just look so nice ! The new - still much too expensive - Leica in chrome look cheap and depressed. At the price of a Leica, I would rather but a Fuji X-serie plus a Canon 5D, plus a Sony, plus a...

And if you want to shoot nice B&W, a good used silver Hasselblad 500 CM is a lot cheaper than a Monochrom Leica.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2014 at 11:31 UTC
On article Leica M Monochrom now available in grayscale (sort of) (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

disraeli demon: It's a simple way for them to generate a small extra product line I guess, so fair enough.

A Monochrom sensor in a Typ-240 body though… that would be something.

I wonder what type of sensor that will have.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2014 at 11:26 UTC
On article Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures (164 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter CS: Here is the irony - they are offering only $2000 for ownership, yet are willing to pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions in legal fees to litigate and intimidate? If this is not an all out assault on copyright ownership, then what else could it be? Maybe it is an exercise to see, if absurd amounts of inherited wealth can change/overthrow existing laws, buy false justice, and provide a ticket to our polarized/political Supreme Court, that has a huge pro- corporate agenda?
Time will tell...

Legal fees? I suspect the Walton's are already paying a raft of lawyers who work for them full time. Maybe they thought those lawyers weren't working hard enough for their money so they got them to file this ridiculous suit.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 17:38 UTC
On article Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures (164 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Liberal trash, it is the Waltons suing Bob’s Studio, not Walmart. If you read the source, the Waltons offered $2000 for those boxes of negatives of themselves but Bob’s Huff think she can cash them for more now that the Waltons are rich and famous.

Unless the Waltons were hired as models by Bob's, Huff shouldn't have the right to cash in by selling Waltons' studio photos to tabloids.

Why not? Where any business has grown as much as Walmart a certain amount of luck is inevitably involved. Mrs. Huff has also got lucky in that some of the pictures her late husband took in the course of his work were of people that later became very rich and famous.

If you were a professional photographer who was lucky enough to take pictures of some ordinary person who later became very rich and famous - wouldn't you, or your children, want to sell those photographs for as much as they became worth?

Not "Liberal trash" - Mrs Huff is being entrepreneurial and trying to get maximum return from the property (copyright) she inherited and is entitled to - just like the Walton's are certainly taking advantage of all the wealth they were fortunate to inherit.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 04:37 UTC
On article Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures (164 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wubslin: I'm with Walmart on this one. No-one has the 'right' to take pictures of people.

Presumably, since the photographs were taken by a studio, the photographer was asked to take the pictures - so, anyway you look at it, he did have a 'right'.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 04:23 UTC
On article Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures (164 comments in total)

Helen Huff has every bit as much right to take advantage of the copyright she inherited as the Waltons have to take advantage of all the money they inherited. At least those photographs taken at Bob’s Studio didn't come at the cost of thousands of American jobs exported to the People's Republic of China.

I'll bet the late Mr Huff paid all his taxes and treated his employees decently- unlike the Waltons who apparently use every loophole available to avoid paying taxes and have pay wages so low that a large percentage of their employees need to rely on food stamps and federal benefits.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 04:05 UTC as 29th comment
Total: 547, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »