Tilted Plane

Joined on Mar 17, 2012

Comments

Total: 70, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

I know dpreview isn't a "news" site, but I would still hope something of this importance would try to show balance. We only get one side of this story--compelling, of course, from one perspective only. Ultimately irresponsible, in my view.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 19:12 UTC as 21st comment | 3 replies

All the comments so far are right--but no one is asking why dpreview thinks this is a valid kind of opinion piece. The camera, and it's method of funding, needs a few inches of type somewhere, but this borrowed rant isn't really useful, is it?

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 17:26 UTC as 179th comment

Good to read. Thanks.

But gotta add--I've been teaching Photo I for years, and $200 is a huge difference for a freshman on a budget. A deal-breaker for most of them.

I'm sure others have already posted same.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 17:21 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

maxnimo: 1.43:1 ratio for 70mm IMAX running horizontally? Is this a joke? Who came up with this? Whenever I saw genuine 70mm IMAX, which ran horizontally, it always had a ratio close to 2:1.

Not so...they vary, and the Nolan IMAX films have had the more square format. If you see them in their film versions in the theater. The digital versions are already cropped down, even in an IMAX (digital) projection.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 02:28 UTC

I've seen Nolan IMAX films in a theater in the past (non-digital, the real thing in the New York area) and there is NO question that it is astonishing for its detail, and for its visual effect. To suggest otherwise sounds like someone hasn't actually seen it first hand. Whether it's worth it is totally opinion, but in my view, it's great. Stunning. Can't wait to see Dunkirk in its expansive glory. (And a note to people wondering about the format--he mixes normal format shooting with full 65mm IMAX and the format of the IMAX stuff is roughly the old academy ratio--4:3. So it feels big and almost square (but not quite). The jolt from wide screen to really tall (big!) 4:3 is part of the whole thrill.) And one last point (after reading other posts): IMAX has both digital and film versions for projection. The real film versions you have to seek out. The digital versions are good, but they are a shadow (believe me) of the real thing. Google!!

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 02:19 UTC as 38th comment | 1 reply
On article Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II? (449 comments in total)

Great, clear, opinionated but well reasoned and backed up. I'm sure everyone has their own opinions, but these are sharply defined starting points. Super helpful and a model of a good commentary (non-review) article.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 14:05 UTC as 108th comment
In reply to:

KerryBE: So what makes a cinema lens so special?

But the gearing possibilities, and the consistency of focus travel and size from lens to lens, seems like small potatoes compared to the huge price increase. I also wonder like KerryBE...what really makes these so expensive?

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 14:26 UTC

Does copper mean brass?

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 18:13 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)

I'm a film era guy, and it seems that "sharpness" beyond the pixel count (or film sharpness) is always an issue of the lens and its focus, along with any interfering layers you might add like an anti-aliasing filter or a translucent mirror. Isn't that still true? I mean, there have to be exceptions (the Bayer array etc., or a shaky camera) but overall, if it's soft, isn't it lens based? And if it's the lens, or the use of the lens, isn't it easy to fix? Would love a tech article on this if I am just wrong.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 17:11 UTC as 102nd comment
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)

You might need to check your text below the studio scene shots because it still talks about the A9 softness...

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 16:45 UTC as 115th comment

Totally fun and fun to think about, and offering lots of points to cheerfully debate. (24mm equiv. is better, of course.)

Well done. And my 16mm Sony is rather good, even in the corners, and it's a pancake. On a NEX-5N, anyway--back when the Sony APS-C (NEX) cameras were actually small. Thanks!

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 15:01 UTC as 143rd comment | 1 reply

Great nuts and bolts reality article. Love the no nonsense attempt to be real world about it. Let people quibble...it's a good piece. And it points out the obvious--the A9 is a game changer, short term or long term. Thanks!

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 12:59 UTC as 202nd comment

Cool.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 17:45 UTC as 38th comment
On article The Leica Summaron 28mm F5.6 is old-fashioned fun (191 comments in total)

Great opinion article. Gives some quick insight without having a full blown review. Appreciate these on all kinds of equipment, and appreciate the frankness. (I appreciate reviews, too, for sure.)

It all sounds about right, from what I can see, so thanks!

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 10:11 UTC as 62nd comment
In reply to:

Tilted Plane: $900 for entry level DSLR? Whew.

One last note: I teach college level Photo I, and the specs and abilities of the Rebel series and the D3000 series (like the D3400) are amazingly similar. Over the last decade, students have steadily shifted from Canon to Nikon largely because of price. And dpreview would probably agree that the Nikon sensors at this level are slightly better (made by Sony) in several, small, measurable ways (like low light performance). But, enough on this. Cheers.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 13:41 UTC
In reply to:

Tilted Plane: $900 for entry level DSLR? Whew.

Not compared to Nikon's similar and cameras. Isn't a D3400 about $500 with a lens?

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 15:49 UTC

$900 for entry level DSLR? Whew.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 13:49 UTC as 5th comment | 4 replies

great!

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 10:41 UTC as 82nd comment
On article Sony FE 50mm F2.8 Macro Sample Gallery (84 comments in total)

This lens is super sharp once you stop down a couple stops, equal to the fantastic Sony 28 f/2. But beware, the autofocus (on an A7r) is horrific. Basically unusable for many situations. If you don't need the short working distance (which I do, for copy work), and you have the money (which I don't), consider the Sony 90mm macro instead.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 12:51 UTC as 21st comment | 17 replies
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art Lens Review (275 comments in total)

Great, sharply worded review.

I am probably not the only one with a Nikon 14-24mm that wonders about how the Sigma compares there, at least down to 14mm.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 14:47 UTC as 48th comment | 1 reply
Total: 70, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »