Lives in United States VA, United States
Works as a Scientist
Joined on Dec 13, 2011


Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17

Perhaps this is related to the large numbers of counterfeit Nikon batteries and battery grips that have been in the market.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2013 at 18:57 UTC as 55th comment

OK. So I just tested the Sigma 15mm f2.8 fisheye (one of the listed lenses) on the Nikon Df and it autofocuses just fine. What's going on here?

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2013 at 22:08 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

bossa: I'll think twice before updating my D800e's when the next firmware update comes out. It seems probable that Nikon is deliberately trying to make things difficult for Sigma and it's customers.

Agreed. Firmware updates should add functions to a camera, not remove them.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2013 at 22:18 UTC

I have the 15mm f2.8 fisheye and on the D800e I have found that manual focus is more consistently accurate than autofocus with this lens. I will probably use it the same way on the Df so I probably won't send it in.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2013 at 18:22 UTC as 19th comment

This is probably due to the D5300 being the first Nikon camera with the new EXPEED4 processor.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 21:52 UTC as 21st comment
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1391 comments in total)
In reply to:

molnarcs: The cynicism and negativity on this forum is disheartening. Where do all these Sony trolls come from?

It seems to be part of Sony's business plan. Every forum on this site has Sony trolls.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 20:12 UTC
On article Ten one-of-a-kind cameras from the 21st century (250 comments in total)

The yellow K-01 is my bad neighborhood camera. Even potential muggers have doubts about stealing it.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2013 at 11:16 UTC as 109th comment | 2 replies
On article DxO releases FilmPack 4, with 65 new creative effects (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

crsantin: The film sims are good, and can improve your digital images and save you time...they do NOT make your digital images look like film images. There is no way you are going to make that happen from a digital image. I've been using DxO film sims for a couple of years now. I like the product but don't have any illusions that these sims are a substitute for real film. For $40 I'll probably upgrade because there are a couple of sims that I really like and use regularly. If I want film images though, I use my film cameras.

I agree very much with this statement. To me the DXO film pack is a way to apply a desired photographic "look" in raw editing. I have a medium format film camera and scanner if I really want the film impression. I don't use it much anymore. To me the real film magic is between the negative and the wet darkroom print and I no longer have that capability. To this old-timer, the film "looks" from DXO, however, are much more appealing than the more instagram looking stuff applied as lightroom presets.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 00:31 UTC
On article DxO releases FilmPack 4, with 65 new creative effects (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jan H: i would like to buy dx0 as a successor for my CS5 but wonder if it also offers a feature like bridge. Ik don´t like the idea having al my photo´s (about 50.000) being imported in dx0 first.

DXO uses an image browser which works with folders on your hard drive. There is no need to import as in Lightroom. It is usually DAM functions which require import and DXO doesn't have any such functions.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2013 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

JJMacks: Actually I think Adobe may have made my life a little easier with this announcement.

Updating to the last few new releases of Photoshop has involved a lot of work on my part. There are un-fixed bugs in CS6 that effect me. CS6 still crashes regularly in Adobe module ScripUIFlex.dll there is nothing I can do the resolve that problem. If has been reported to Adobe.

While some of the new announced features in CC sound like they may be somewhat useful they are not compelling. No mention of better stability or bug fixes were announce.

It seems like the right time to regress to CS3 cut my losses and lighten my work load.

I have had similar issues with CS6 crashing my computer. I do still have CS5 on my computer so perhaps I should regress as well.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 22:45 UTC
In reply to:

Don Karner: Just went to adobe and B&h to try to buy an upgrade to CS6. Can't find it anywhere. I guess I waited to long.

My CS5 still works, but I wonder for how long......

If it's any consolation to you, none of the new features in CS6 from CS5 have ever worked when I try to access them on my computer. They completely crash the video card.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 14:40 UTC
In reply to:

milnor: My goodness what a whiny bunch. Photoshop isn't a birthright, and Adobe can sell it any way they like. If anything I expect that y'all should be thrilled at this, because some alternative products might actually get some new customers and those companies might possibly consider plowing some of that revenue into development (good luck with that). Personally I've been using Creative Suite Premium/Design Premium since the 1.1 release, but I signed up for Creative Cloud the minute it was available and haven't regretted it for a minute. No software is forever -- you tried running Photoshop 3.0 on modern hardware? And for anyone who said they wanted to go back to film, I suppose you're thinking of just pulling out that perpetual supply of Ektacolor chemistry that you bought back in 1987, right? Seriously, before I switched to digital I easily spent more than $50/month in film and developing costs.

I've worked in IT for over 30 years. You want to see usurious pricing, look to SAS Institute.

Also at the same time look at what has happened to usage of SAS internationally. I work with international researchers on a routine basis and fewer and fewer of them have ever heard of SAS.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:05 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Adobe should just cut staff, stop development and reduce marketing, that way, it could be much less expensive!

Oh wait, then everyone here would start whining about how there are no new features bla bla bla...

Pathetic bunch of whiners!

Most of the new features in Adobe photoshop haven't worked for some time. Every new feature in CS6 crashes my computer if I try to use it.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 02:10 UTC
In reply to:

Deano255: It sounds like a lot of people who are complaining the loudest are people who have pirated (i.e. stolen) the software and seem to feel they are entitled to it and upgrades forever. Do you steal your cameras too? Sorry, no sympathy here. Your piracy just drives up the costs for us who do pay. Adobe is a company selling intellectual property, not a welfare institution.

Do you have any idea how much money I have shelled out to Adobe over the years? It appears that Adobe's bootlickers are even more arrogant than they are. Why should I legally commit to paying Adobe for the foreseeable future without any guarantee of quality service? Does Adobe seem like a trustworthy partner to hitch your wagon to?

Link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 00:28 UTC

I've been considering looking at alternative RAW converters other than Adobe's. Now that it will be a necessity the question seems to be which ones to try. Meanwhile I will just use CS6 until Adobe comes to its senses or a solid alternative appears.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2013 at 19:06 UTC as 722nd comment | 4 replies

Suddenly everything else I was considering seems a lot more reasonable.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2012 at 16:07 UTC as 363rd comment

Looks like a rocket launcher. I wouldn't use it near any military bases.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2012 at 17:14 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17