Tilted Plane

Joined on Mar 17, 2012


Total: 97, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

A shame. Sympathies don't help, but you have ours.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2019 at 17:22 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Dr_Love: I just don't get it. He just described the Fujifilm XPRO. I have a Sony A6500 with 55/1.8, 24/1.8 and 12/2 for when I need a small kit and then break out the A7Rii and the big lenses when they are needed. All my lenses fit both cameras. obviously the aps-c specific lenses only work in crop mode on the FF but they work just fine. Isn't this exactly what is being asked for? I fail to see anything new here. What am I missing other than the brand name of Canon?

full frame?????

Link | Posted on May 22, 2018 at 16:00 UTC

You've sure generated a lot of comments! Success! And mine: I'm with you totally that an affordable digital FF Leica (or Contax) is what I want. Small body, small prime lenses, superb full frame quality. But I agree with many others that we are not typical. Maybe Sony will finally come out with a full frame SMALL camera that doesn't do everything, but takes great pictures. I will buy two. I don't think Nikon or Canon need or want to do that at all to survive. Your dreamy essay had made a lot of us dream, too, but in different directions.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2018 at 15:59 UTC as 315th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

(unknown member): Nah, I don't want to carry around two independent and incompatible camera systems just to preserve the supposed benefits of DSLRs. As far as I can see the mirrorless paradigm is better in every way except for the lack of an OVF, which is a personal preference. Two camera bodies on one system? OK sure, I can see that. Two entire systems? No.

Even if Canon and Nikon keep making and updating their DSLRs, which I'm sure they will for a while, the mirrorless paradigm seems like it's clearly the way of the future. Even mechanical shutters will eventually go away. It's not that DSLRs don't work well, it's just that mirrorless cameras have a lot of still-untapped potential to unlock new photographic capabilities, while also doing everything that DSLRs are so good at.

Yeah, I agree...and will say that if you want a second camera with its own range of lenses, who cares what brand it is?

Link | Posted on May 22, 2018 at 15:54 UTC
On article Crystal clear: Inside Nikon's Hikari Glass factory (94 comments in total)

Amazing. Thanks for the tour.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2018 at 16:22 UTC as 37th comment
In reply to:

stratplaya: I wonder if DPR will get around to review this lens, even though they never tested Nikon's version?

I think anyone reviewing this or the Tamron 15-30mm is almost required to do a comparable review/test of the Nikon. It's the reference.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2018 at 17:28 UTC

All cool beans stuff..., sure. But Tamron already has the 15-30mm f/2.8 which I once owned and thought was sweet but not quite as "right" as the Nikon, which I had for years until last month. (Moving on.) Sigma is on a roll--truly impressive lenses--but the Tamron is even cheaper than the Sigma and a great deal for that realm. The whole filter problem persists--the single reason I bought, of all things, the Venus 15mm, which I tested and found as sharp as the 14-24mm Nikon at 15mm.

I have a feeling I haven't said anything here. Except I love all these new lenses and their proclaimed sharpness.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2018 at 17:26 UTC as 30th comment

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 24th 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 185th 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 6th 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 39th comment | 1 reply
On article Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II? (447 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 109th 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 9th 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 144th 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


Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 17:45 UTC as 39th comment
Total: 97, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »