Clint Dunn

Lives in Canada Vancouver, Canada
Joined on Dec 2, 2008

Comments

Total: 619, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

It will be pretty cool to see this in new Android phones. The camera support is nice but the big news here is 25% less power consumption....which should translate to much improved battery life.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 17:32 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Old Cameras: The fun thing about a Polaroid was watching the picture develop and you had that one physical copy of the image. If you can preview an image, not to mention edit and decide whether or not to print it at all, the spontaneity is gone. Few people print images anymore. They have them on their phones along with their virtual music and their virtual social lives.

Hey...don't be knocking 'virtual music'. I've got almost my entire music collection on hard drive now and much of it is hi-res format. Beats the heck out of thousands of CD's/Tapes/Records laying all over the place.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: I shudder to think about the image quality of that tiny 20MP sensor.

This is not instant film photography, like Fujifilm's Instax, but just a cheapo sub-smartphone digicam with a digital printer. As a concept, ZInk (Zero Ink) can't compete in terms of quality with even the lowest end inkjets, which is why it didn't find a widespread application before the liquidation of the "real" Polaroid.

Pretty sure the polaroid crowd isn't too focussed on quality...if they were they wouldn't shoot polaroid. So...given the target audience I think this thing is a good idea. Besides, it's only a 3x4 print even lowly cell phones do just fine at that size.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 17:25 UTC

I'm pretty sure that any bride who listens to this 'advice' doesn't know what a 'full format' camera is anyway.

Any bride with half a brain would just pick a photographer based on their portfolio and price.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2017 at 17:57 UTC as 36th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

sierranvin: I don't think Cartier-Bresson is going to be displaced soon...

So sick of everyone referencing Cartier-Bresson. First off, he wasn't a wedding photographer. Second of all....who cares....what's with you people worshipping the feet of this guy like he's some sort of deity. Was he a great photog?? Sure he was, but there are a lot of great photogs today and over time they will get their due. In fact, I would hazard to say that because of the dawn of digital there are more great photographers then ever before.

Digital was the great teacher...providing instant feedback and the ability to learn on your own. Worked for me.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2016 at 22:04 UTC
In reply to:

daddyo: Cool! It's great to see that someone photographed Sinbad's wedding! Or is just a scene from some recent movie remake?

Nice....you win ignorant post of the day award.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2016 at 21:59 UTC
On article Flickr reveals its top 25 photos of 2016 (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: Am I the only one here tired of seeing photos of the lone tree at Wanaka??? It's like everyone in the last few years have shifted from shooting Mesa Arch to lone tree at Wanaka or the same bloody waterfall in Iceland. It's hard to be original these days and I include myself in that statement.

@John M Roberts - Another Earth would be nice:) Actually what people need is an eye to see things differently instead of trying to re-create what has been done a million times before. I mean...I'm just as guilty I have a great shot of Oxbow Bend that I'm super happy with but even as I took the photo I was tripping over literally at least 30 other photogs.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 17:23 UTC
On article Flickr reveals its top 25 photos of 2016 (190 comments in total)

Am I the only one here tired of seeing photos of the lone tree at Wanaka??? It's like everyone in the last few years have shifted from shooting Mesa Arch to lone tree at Wanaka or the same bloody waterfall in Iceland. It's hard to be original these days and I include myself in that statement.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2016 at 19:22 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: 2012 I bought a top of the line MacBook Pro 13' with almost maxed out hardware (i7, 8GB Ram, but no SSD etc.) for what I remember to have been between €1,500 and €1,700. The recent 2016 MacBook Pro 13' configured to maximum specifications now runs €3,279.

Have they gone insane? A price increase of 100% over just four years?! Who is supposed to be able to still afford that stuff?!

iamatrix - I used to feel like you but my 2011 15" MBP will likely be my last. You can no longer upgrade your own RAM, hardrive etc now that Apple solders everything. Apple used to make sense but what they charge now for a modest (at best) 15" MBP is INSANE....not to mention it can never be upgraded.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 23:58 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: I am seeing the expected comments here.

I am awaiting comments from real users of Photoshop with a new MBP if they observe any increase in productivity using the touch bar.

Moreover, I wonder if Apple has any plans to sell an external keyboard or touch pad with a touch bar. After all, many pros use MBP in clamshell mode with external keyboard and monitors.

Agreed, I use my MBP in clamshell mode all the time.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 23:54 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: 'Best 35mm lens available' - Really??? Maybe if you're sticking to DSLR lenses. I would put my Zeiss 35mm 1.4 ZM against this Canon.

@Dan_168 - What were you shooting it on??
@Yake - I've sold off all my Canon gear...no need for me to rent a lens I will never buy
@Juck - Sounds like pure opinion to me...and pretty sure you've never used either lens.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 22:55 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: A very good, professional lens for sure - Photozone tested it already over a year ago, but not with a final statement here:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/964-canon35f14mk2?start=2

Photozone came to the conclusion: ..."The USM AF is silent and fast but the competition is pretty much on the same level nowadays. Speaking of the competition we are primarily talking about the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art."

So, whileas it's not exactly the same thing, one could be way happy with the Sigma 35/1.4 Art...for those, who really need it.

But for this amount of money, even whileas owning a way old 5D, i'd choose a classical MF, Zeiss 35/1.4 - why?! Because of the Zeiss Colors, Rendering & 3D Pop, therefore...i mean, *if* i would have that money, and really need that fast lens speed urgently.

Because i don't, i am way happy with the older C/Y 35/2.8 Lenses, and a fast Samyang 35/1.4 MF is good enough for my needs, as amateur.

@iamatrix - Do you even know what you are talking about?? There absolutely is a signature to lenses...you obviously just can't see it. For example the Zeiss M mount rangefinder lenses are known for producing warmer colours and good contrast. There are literally hundreds of comparisons online so it's not a subjective (placebo) thing.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 22:52 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: It should be a common practice for reviewers to test Canon lenses on the A7 series cameras. Thats the only way to truely get the best sensor + lens combination.

Why would you do that?? If you are testing a lens like this for it's performance then the Canon 5DSR is a higher resolution sensor....not to mention it's made to go on a Canon. I personally would prefer an A7R2 over a 5DSR but let's not get silly here...

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 22:42 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

progo: Very Canon-focused wording in the text. If other manufacturers and mounts are allowed, Leica Summilux 35 might be a sharper -- AND certainly more pricier -- 35 mm f/1.4 contender. ;)

@Yake - Having come from a Canon system I am amazed at the quality of some of the rangefinder glass. I haven't used the new Canon 35mm but I've shot with lots of other L glass over the years and this Zeiss is amazing. Mind you...at $2300 for a 35mm 1.4 lens it SHOULD be amazing.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 22:39 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

progo: Very Canon-focused wording in the text. If other manufacturers and mounts are allowed, Leica Summilux 35 might be a sharper -- AND certainly more pricier -- 35 mm f/1.4 contender. ;)

The Zeiss 35mm 1.4 ZM is actually sharper then the Summilux....and also cheaper...though at the cost of size/weight.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 18:13 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (336 comments in total)

'Best 35mm lens available' - Really??? Maybe if you're sticking to DSLR lenses. I would put my Zeiss 35mm 1.4 ZM against this Canon.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 18:12 UTC as 67th comment | 8 replies
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1375 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Could we come up with something more original than "price too high " troll attempts. It's getting played out guys.

@alolywu - You didn't show that Leica was worse then Sony, just the opposite. You showed me a lack of knowledge and that you don't understand the quality of rangefinder glass and how it doesn't perform on Sony bodies.

'Somehow saying M mount lens only work well with Leica bodies is beside the point'. Ah...no....it IS THE POINT. If you already own the glass then it is THE only point.

Anyway, I'm done arguing with you. You're one of these guys who likes to argue about things you know nothing of but can't take a picture to save your life...which is why you have a completely obscure profile with no links to your work...anywhere. Cheers.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2016 at 17:38 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1375 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Could we come up with something more original than "price too high " troll attempts. It's getting played out guys.

Alolyu - So as I suspected you couldn't answer my question...you couldn't name a camera that works properly with M mount glass besides the Leica. Something else you probably don't understand is that there is a lot more to image quality then just the sensor. The quality of glass in M mount from Leica, Zeiss and even some Voigtlander models is amazing.

My choice for choosing a Leica M240 was based on craftmanship, quality and size of the lenses. When you combine all three of those nothing compares. Is Leica overpriced?? Sure it is and I stated earlier I think they are going to have a tough time selling $7-$8k FF cameras once Fuji hits their stride with the GFX. But, as of today there is no alternative to the Leica M if you want to shoot M mount glass.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2016 at 16:10 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1375 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Could we come up with something more original than "price too high " troll attempts. It's getting played out guys.

@Alolywu - Still can't read eh...Name just one camera besides a Leica that works properly with M mount rangefinder glass. Trust me...if it was out there I likely would have bought it instead of the Leica.

I could actually give 2 $hits about the 'rangefinder experience' but many other do....so if you have M mount glass and want a rangefinder then there is literally no alternative.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 22:05 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1375 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Could we come up with something more original than "price too high " troll attempts. It's getting played out guys.

Alolywu / QuartertoDoom - If you could read you would know I already stated I bought the M240 because nobody but Leica makes a camera that works properly with M glass. If I didn't care about that I would have bought a Sony.

Olymore - If a 1" or 4/3 sensor is good enough for you then great...I actually agree with you most people buy cameras more capable then they are.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 20:53 UTC
Total: 619, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »