Ken Aisin

Joined on Jun 8, 2011

Comments

Total: 136, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Nikon D7500 vs Nikon D500: Which is better for you? (399 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Who the hell needs a battery grip?

Well, I know I do. Because none of my cameras came with a square sensor. Lol.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 02:47 UTC
On article Nikon D7500 vs Nikon D500: Which is better for you? (399 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: Easy! The D7500 is unbuyable. I think most will either stay with the D7200 or get the D500.

I hope the reviews of the D7500 would proof me wrong. But spec-wise, it is really unbuyable for $1249 USD.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 12:26 UTC
On article Nikon D7500 vs Nikon D500: Which is better for you? (399 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maoby: Don’t forget that the Nikon D500 is a ENJOYMENT to use! :)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/sets/72157627624479529

I totally agree. D500 is an enjoyment to use. I shot an event with my friend's D500 and Sigma 50-100/1.8 combo. Totally fell in love with them.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 12:20 UTC
On article Nikon D7500 vs Nikon D500: Which is better for you? (399 comments in total)

If I were to spend my own money on a new DX body, and had to pick between a D500 and a D7500, I would definitely spend more on the D500 for the best ever phase detect AF system that I've ever tried.

The D7500 is not worth $1249 USD in my opinion. Higher price but seems to have even fewer features than the good old D7200 :(

May I suggest a more interesting article title? "New vs Old, Nikon D7500 vs Nikon D7200: Which is better for you?"

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 12:15 UTC as 105th comment | 3 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Nikon D70 (220 comments in total)

The D70s was my first digital SLR, and I loved it to bits. Loved the x-sync speed at 1/500 sec and the max shutter speed at 1/8000 sec. Overall, a very fabulous camera for the price at the time.

If I really had to nit pick, I didn't like the base ISO at 200 and the not so wide dynamic range.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 18:34 UTC as 63rd comment
In reply to:

Light Pilgrim: I would inmediately purchase 135 mm but I will not do it because of AF reliabity and consistency. Sigma is a fantastic company and what they do it amazing, but my experience showed me that nothing I can rely 100% other than my Canon lenses. So I will just wait for Canon new versions of 85 and 135.
14 mm is anotger story. You do not need AF there, so this is cool. But 12 mm would be nicer:-)

I'm a Nikon shooter, and the new Sigma Art lenses are very reliable and consistent when it comes to AF. I spoke with a Sigma technician, and he said they generally have quite a lot more AF issues with Canon than with Nikon.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 05:34 UTC
In reply to:

pkcpga: Interesting to see how the 24-70 turns out since it's decently smaller than the Nikon and would be a nice travel alternative.

It seems to be much shorter than the Nikon 24-70/2.8 VR.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 05:18 UTC

Can't wait to see reviews of the 24-70/2.8 OS Art. 82mm filter thread is a real bummer though as all my filters are 77mm. But if reviews are good and the price is reasonable, I will buy it with a few 82mm ND filters and a 82mm circular polariser.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 05:16 UTC as 105th comment

I have been using Lightroom since version 1.0 to 6.8 now. Thinking that Adobe probably won't release a standalone 7.0, I have tried several alternatives. Unlike Capture One, I find RawTherapee really easy to use. I pretty much got the hang of it within minutes. And unlike DXO, it is not sluggish at all. I find it very snappy on my PC. So far, I don't know what's not to like. Best of all, it's free of charge!! Really want to thank the developers.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 02:47 UTC as 23rd comment | 7 replies
On article DJI reportedly takes majority stake in Hasselblad (191 comments in total)

Sad news....

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 04:44 UTC as 38th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Eric Peltzer: Great alternative to the Surface Studio, which has fairly anemic specs and no upgrade possibility. What if you have a real workstation with beefy graphics card and a 4K monitor or two you want to leave upright? Also the SS as elegant as it is, is quite expensive and the graphics card is weak. You could have said graphics workstation with multiple monitors and add the Canvas 27 for nearly the same price as just the SS, and have a much beefier setup. Also, if Wacom styli work on this then it must be actual Wacom tech? I have heard that the SS stylus is not as good as a Wacom. Finally, this might encourage SS and Cintiq prices to come down a bit. Yes it's expensive but for a target market of graphic artist it makes sense.
I do think SS v2 could be much improved. MS should use Wacom or something exactly as good. And upgradable specs or at least an Nvidia 1060. It's a lot of money for mobile grade silicon.

I totally agree. The Surfaces' specs are pretty anemic except for the one with i7, 32GB ram, and GTX 980M. It makes more sense to build your own desktop and add a Canvas 27 plus vertical displays behind it.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

Ken Aisin: Impressive!! $1799 sounds reasonable too.

I've always wanted a Cintiq 27, but the Cintiq 27's MSRP is $2799 I believe. If the Dell Canvas 27 is as good as the Cintiq based on reviews, $1799 MSRP sounds reasonable for me.

By the way, there're differences in quality when it comes to IPS panels. There are reasons why people are paying more than $2K for an Eizo monitor. For the price, I would expect the viewing quality of the Canvas 27 to be better than a $173 monitor. We'll find out when the reviews come out. And I will make my purchase based on the reviews.

Also, so much editing time will be saved with the knob and the stylus. See this video demo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94XQPXftMYw). So, calling this a monitor with a glass touch screen worth $350 is a bit absurd.

Just my $0.02. Cheers.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 21:41 UTC
In reply to:

String: Looks great, especially for digital artists; I'm sure Intuos must be getting worried though.

The Cintiq 27 is just too expensive for what it is. Thanks Dell for the competition. By the way, I build my own desktop. The Canvas 27 suits me more than the Surface Studio too. If the Canvas 27's reviews are good, it will be on my shopping list.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 19:18 UTC

Impressive!! $1799 sounds reasonable too.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 19:06 UTC as 32nd comment | 4 replies

Would love to see how they perform on the Sony A7R II.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 04:21 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

alcaher: Can you AF using the sigma with the TC 1.4 and shooting at 600mm? At 600mm the sigma is f6.3 so with a TC it goes beyond F8 (around f8.9) just wondering

I'm wondering too. Maybe it would hunt more?

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 23:06 UTC
In reply to:

Ken Aisin: I don't get this. Whichever way you look at this, it is still a small light source. When your subject is a person standing 5 feet away, it is just not large enough to give you any soft light.

Don't even mention those tiny flash diffuser from Gary Fong, they are even worse than this.

Why do people insist on buying these useless gadgets for portraits?!

Anyone serious about flash photography wouldn't be using a Gary Fong "diffuser". Soft light has nothing to do with a tiny "diffuser". When you are inside a room, the soft light that you said you are getting is solely due to the large surface area of the ceiling or the wall that the light bounces off. Furthermore, when you are outdoor, the Gary Fong "diffuser" will never give you any soft light when your subject is a person.

If you think I'm bullsh!tting, feel free to post what I said in the "Studio and Lighting Technique" forum, and ask the people there for opinions.

I highly recommend "Master Lighting Guide for Portrait Photographers" by Christopher Grey if you are into flash photography.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 22:59 UTC

I don't get this. Whichever way you look at this, it is still a small light source. When your subject is a person standing 5 feet away, it is just not large enough to give you any soft light.

Don't even mention those tiny flash diffuser from Gary Fong, they are even worse than this.

Why do people insist on buying these useless gadgets for portraits?!

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 21:11 UTC as 14th comment | 10 replies

Thanks for the gallery. Though would love to see more pics showing the foregroumd and background bokeh. If creamy enough, should be aps-c owners' wet dream come true ;)

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 03:33 UTC as 56th comment

Another great lens for Sony camera owners ;)

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 18:08 UTC as 78th comment | 3 replies
Total: 136, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »