Clint Dunn

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

Comments

Total: 636, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: 'Newly developed 24mp sensor'....yeah right. How about Leica Q/SL sensor with customized microlenses for the M. In other words....nothing new here.

Yes...that is an improvement for sure. That said, I've rarely (once) ran into banding issues with my M240.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 15:56 UTC
In reply to:

Charles2: Leica makes great lenses, and fortunately, you can get and use them in a reasonable wide-angle to short-telephoto range of focal lengths on the APS-C Fuji X-Pro 2. Thanks to the buyers of Leica cameras who provide funds so the company can develop its lenses.

If you think your Leica lenses are good on your X-Pro then you are missing half the experience and/or easily impressed. For starters it's not a FF sensor....but more importantly rangefinder glass does not perform as well on Sony or Fuji mirrorless cameras.

Only Leica has customized microlenses on the sensor to perform properly with M mount lenses....and even Leica's own SL does not perform as well as the M cameras with M mount glass. Google it.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 00:06 UTC

'Newly developed 24mp sensor'....yeah right. How about Leica Q/SL sensor with customized microlenses for the M. In other words....nothing new here.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 00:01 UTC as 160th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mick232: What is the Leica effect? Expensive camera so the picture must be good?

Jokes like yours are a dime a dozen. Actually I used to be just like you and made many of the same jokes...and then I bought a Leica M8. I'm now using an M240 but all i can say is the build quality, fit and finish and amazing rangefinder glass make for an amazing experience. I've owned all kinds of DSLR's including 1 series from Canon and there's just something about a Leica!

All that said....the M10 is overpriced. We're in a new era now that Fuji is releasing the medium format GFX for $6500. My personal opinion is the M10 should be no more then $5k.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 23:56 UTC
In reply to:

Nick Brundle - Photography: Absolute madness that this costs $6.595.00

@Poweruser - A medium format Fuji GFX is $6500.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

Loro Husk: Well, i guess my Sony A7 gives me everything (and more) this Leica could give me, at 1/7th of the price. But yeah, it's not a Leica.

Nice review though ;)

I don't expect anything but excellence from the Fuji lenses for the GFX. They are designed specifically with the sensor in mind and Fuji has a long history of making great lenses including lenses for others like Hasselblad.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 23:51 UTC
In reply to:

Loro Husk: Well, i guess my Sony A7 gives me everything (and more) this Leica could give me, at 1/7th of the price. But yeah, it's not a Leica.

Nice review though ;)

Yeah agreed....but as you know lossy RAW was rectified on the newer A7II/A7Rii and as you already stated the Batis/Loxia are excellent lenses. Still, I love the build quality and craftsmanship of my M240.

That said I doubt I will buy another M unless Leica either really drops the price or innovates. $6600 for an M10 makes zero sense when you can buy a Fuji GFX for the same amount of money. Different types of camera I know but identical release dates and price make the two an obvious comparison....especially when the Fuji will be superior in every way as it refers to image quality.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

Loro Husk: Well, i guess my Sony A7 gives me everything (and more) this Leica could give me, at 1/7th of the price. But yeah, it's not a Leica.

Nice review though ;)

The Sony is a plastic, cheap toy of a camera in comparison. Where it counts (image quality) you're right though....you're not losing anything.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 21:29 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: What a terrible idea. It's bad enough that everybody already shoots the same old spots without encouraging it even further. How many pics of mesa arch and lone tree of Lake Wanaka do we really need?? Just another reason to never geotag my photos....

@Renault5 - Of course everyone is free to take photos of whatever they like...and flood flickr/500px with a few more million Lake Wanaka photos...fill your boots.

@AustinMN - 'A tool is just a tool' - And a cliche is just a cliche but thanks for that profound bit of wisdom.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 02:12 UTC

Oh look...something else for next year's landfill.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 02:08 UTC as 55th comment

What a terrible idea. It's bad enough that everybody already shoots the same old spots without encouraging it even further. How many pics of mesa arch and lone tree of Lake Wanaka do we really need?? Just another reason to never geotag my photos....

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 20:03 UTC as 28th comment | 5 replies
On article 2017 Oskar Barnack award offers €80,000 prize fund (55 comments in total)

I wonder if she would have won if she hadn't titled the photo, 'The Unbearable, the Sadness and the Rest'.

Step one - Take average photo
Step two - Create artsy, fartsie title to try and give meaning to said photo.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 22:07 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
On article 2017 Oskar Barnack award offers €80,000 prize fund (55 comments in total)
In reply to:

bakhtyar kurdi: attention behind such judgement is forcing photographers to think stupid and kill there talents, as choosing an ugly girl as miss where and where, how many of you see misswhere ugly but you are afraid to say it loudly? and think with yourself (there is something wrong with me) , so we all get sick and wait someone to decide for us who is beautiful who is ugly, which nation are evil and has oil or poppy, it is just some brainwashing exercise .
with respect to the cute girl in the picture and the photographer also that probably has no role in what happened.

I don't understand a single thing you just said.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 22:05 UTC

I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised about the amount of money in this lawsuit. Firstly, it's the USA which has got to be the most litigious country in the world. Secondly, as any practicing lawyer can tell you they don't start a lawsuit asking for what's 'reasonable', they start at the very top and negotiate from there. In this case 'the very top' is asking for 100% of Chipotle's earnings the last 10 years. In reality maybe she gets a few hundred thousand, or maybe she gets a lifetime of burritos who knows.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 21:47 UTC as 105th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

CharlottePhotog: I'm thinking she's in public, so fair game. Photographer should have put a blanket release statement on the door stating if you entered the premises you were ok with being photographed. However it sounds like the image was altered. Can the photog claim that the image taken, that she didn't approve of, wasn't the one that was used and he has created a new artistic interpretation piece that was similar, but not an exact copy of the original therefore she may or may not look like the girl in the image.

You obviously have zero knowledge about how this all works...but please tell us more.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

Adam Sharp: Joke what a stupid amount of money .. couple of hundred should do it and free lunch .. greedy cow

OK...let's change things. Instead of it being a model release issue let's say Chipotle stole your photo and used it for the advertising for a 10 year span, are you still happy with 'a couple hundred and a free lunch'??

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 21:36 UTC
On article 2016 DPReview Readers' Best Shots: Things (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

FuhTeng: I think I'd prefer 5 as a monochrome. The ugly red hampers the lovely symmetry to me. I really like #7, reminds me of my home state.

Yes, I agree...would be much better as a B&W

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 17:35 UTC

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
Total: 636, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »