Photomonkey

Lives in United States CA, United States
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Oct 28, 2002

Comments

Total: 806, showing: 201 – 220
« First‹ Previous910111213Next ›Last »
On article A lot to like: Real-world Leica Q gallery posted (346 comments in total)
In reply to:

DFPanno: Perhaps the IQ differential is greater when one directly views the file but I don't see anything here that I can't generate with my RX1.

As a single focal length camera I also prefer 35mm.

Incidently - People complain that the RX1's EVF is not built in but I love the fact that it swivels upward 90 degrees. I use it all the time in that position.

That said this will be a nice camera for those interested in what it offers.

Considering that the vast bulk of images will be viewed either on the web or phones, the notion of enjoying IQ is a solitary affair on ones computer with images zoomed 200% in PS.
The real joy for me would be to use a great tool while acquiring those images.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 14:41 UTC
On article Bang for the Buck: Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Review (721 comments in total)

Does this mean we will be seeing the Canon 5DkIV review shortly? ;)

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2015 at 15:50 UTC as 141st comment | 1 reply
On article Under the hood: A closer look at the Sony a7R II (600 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: The journalists on this site must die a little, inside, when they read some of these comments.

If they haven't gone blind looking at ANYTHING on the net.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2015 at 18:52 UTC
On article Under the hood: A closer look at the Sony a7R II (600 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chris Noble: This is not a "closer look" by DPR; it is an extensive advertisement entirely written by Sony.

If this seems like an awesome camera to you, how did you get that info? If it was written on the internet it seems you would leap upon it as pap delivered by Sony.
I think careful reading of the article would let you know that it was actually a fair amount of independent reasearch with some universally available tech info.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2015 at 18:48 UTC
On article Under the hood: A closer look at the Sony a7R II (600 comments in total)
In reply to:

HFLM: The eye AF game changing ability remains to be seen in dim light and AF-C. If that is really holding up its promise (I doubt but hope for it), I buy one, too, because this is the most important feature I strive for. On the A7ii it is pretty useless in dim light at weddings according to my experience. T. Northrups test of a person approaching him within a room and the 70-200/4 was not convincing, unfortunately. But I have confidence in Rishi testing this thoroughly. Better low-light AFC and two card slots and I would be even more excited.

FWIW my Canon 5DmkIIIs are pretty useless at most dark wedding venues. I found the EVFs on my Panasonic allowed me to actually get focus when the Canons did not.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2015 at 18:45 UTC
On article Opinion - Erez Marom: Whatever it Doesn't Take (191 comments in total)

I agree that the photographer does not need to travel to an exotic locale to take a great photo but the premise is a bit flawed when backed up by a series of images from exotic places.

By definition the exotic is appealing because it displays a dramatic landscape unfamiliar to the viewer. The Grand Canyon is spectacular but almost no one lives there so by default it becomes exotic. Bolivia is exotic because people with cameras and internet do not live there in any numbers. Same goes for Iceland (the current darling as judged by the countless images in portfolios and camera ads) Africa, New Zealand, India, The Himalayas etc. The fact is you traveled there with big wallet, harvested your photos and came back and uploaded them.

In the end people do not want the familiar, they want the exotic and love to show off.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 23:51 UTC as 38th comment | 1 reply
On article Fujifilm X-T10 Review (514 comments in total)
In reply to:

picnut: I have an X-E1 and X-T1 plus several Fuji lenses. I love them all, but I more often shoot with my Sony a6000 simply because the lenses are so much smaller and lighter for walk-around and travel purposes. I don't understand why Fuji's lenses are so much larger when both cameras are mirrorless and have APS-C sensors.

Chasing the cheap buyers is a loser's game. The volumes Fuji produces are far smaller than others and they see themselves positioned against Canon and Nikon. Thus , by comparison their prices are fair. Panasonic is trying to buy market share and in truth their lenses ARE cheaper to make.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 00:21 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T10 Review (514 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fabio Amodeo: I find suprising that in the review RAW quality is judged only by the Adobe support of it. If so many people are too lazy to test some other RAW developers, mainly Capture One or Iridient, is not a position DPR should support. Lightroom is not the standard of industry. Photoshop was, but now is endangered by the crazy subscription policy. In the past Adobe has been an essential building force for the whole digital photography movement. But now I find it erratic in decisions, just as if they had lost vision.

LR is not the standard of the industry?
What data can you point to? C1 is popular but I doubt it exceeds installs over LR.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 00:02 UTC
In reply to:

ChuckTa: The Canon ultrawide lens doesn't seem to work too well with the Sony sensor. Maybe need some strong lens correction profile.

They say as much in their notes. The adapter issue will become the new topic of debate IMO. Edging out the DR, bokeh and other past issues dujour.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

brownie314: Is Nikon not aware of the current situation in the camera market? Why throw more uber high priced lenses at a market where people are willing to spend less money?

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about the number of pros out there actually making a decent (but quiet) living. The fact that you don't bump into them all the time is because they do their work where you aren't. Just like I know there are a lot of electrical workers but I never see them because I am not in their environment.
WRT pricey lenses, Nikon Canon et al. have made millions selling them to hobbyists these many years and those purchases have spurred the development of more great (but expensive ) lenses. As the politicians say, "When you subsidize something, you get more of it".

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2015 at 17:42 UTC

I note that my FZ-1000 does not lag too far behind and the camera comes with a lens!

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 20:09 UTC as 41st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: Great to see Nikon do what it does best: innovative optics and mechanics.

However, I sold my AF-S 24-70 mm f/2.8G ED because it was like carrying around a millstone. My example weighed 915.9 g naked or 1035.8 g with caps and hood. In its case it was a staggering 1216 g.

This new lens supposedly weighs 1070 g naked, or a lot more in bag-ready form. Bonkers!

The new lens is also 154.5 mm long. The Canon is 113 mm long. Ah, but the Nikkor is a slim, easily packed torpedo! Not any more. They’re now the same width.

A very impressive lens on paper, but an awful lot of these will be eBayed after a year for size and weight reasons.

Everybody screams for maximum IQ, robust build, and VR/IS yet when the lens is delivered the whining begins.

Size! Weight! Cost! Quack quack quack.
Welcome to the realities of physics and economics.

Of course we may all be stupid here and some poster here will come out with their 21-200 f1.4 VR zoom that is 2.5 inches long and weighs 240g and covers FF with tack sharp goodness from wide open at all FLs.

Oh yes, it will sell for $199 and come with a 20 year warranty.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 17:11 UTC
In reply to:

saeba77: 24-70 isn't a bit too expensive?
the tamron cost 1/3 (with VC) and the nikkor non VR cost 1/2

the 200-500 maybe is a must with a Nikon 1 system:)...1350mm

Amortize the cost over the life of the lens.
Nikon and Canon will probably last 15+ years and still have repair facilities and parts for them. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina may have service but I am less confident about their lifespan.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 17:09 UTC
In reply to:

WACONimages: 24-70mm $2399 In what world is Nikon living, on Mars maybe ;-)

"Clients however, don't care about gear! They want a good result. And ofter there are good alternatives to give such good results.

It is us photographers who want to show off with the latest and greatest. In reality for 90% of your assignments or private family pics you don't need it."

Too true.

I wonder about pros who obsess over gear. I can only imagine that they don't have enough jobs to keep them focused on making great images.
For the hobbyist I get it. For the pro it is a tool that makes money or not. One should always buy the best tools for ones trade but that also means that one buys the tool once and keeps it until the work demands a change.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

Antony John: Lots of negative comments but:
1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).
2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)
3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.
It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.

Why are you talking sense here? ;)

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 17:00 UTC
In reply to:

R N: Hey, Canon shooter here: that 200-500 looks pretty awesome, especially at the price. Hard to understand some of the caterwauling and griping.

Price trumps the argument for many.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 16:59 UTC
In reply to:

backayonder: So the new 24-70 is what in Aussie dollars around $3400?
Makes the secondhand version that I am about to buy tomorrow for $1300 including UV filter a bargain.

"When I compare it to my vintage 35-70 f/2.8, petite by compare, I have to ask myself, why this 24-70 is so gigantic."

Because the lens formula is entirely different.
Note the similarity in size to the Canon. This formula has been found to yield the best performance. In addition they added VR.
Note that the Zeiss Otus and Sigma 50 Art lenses are both large compared to classic designs. That is because they have determined that that configuration is the optimum for IQ.
The manufacturers have heard the public demanding ever better lenses and they are delivering. They don't necessarily result in small packages.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

brownie314: Is Nikon not aware of the current situation in the camera market? Why throw more uber high priced lenses at a market where people are willing to spend less money?

I don't know if you have been following camera news for a while but the demand for fast, high quality zooms with VR seems to be quite high. The Canon owners are STILL whining about the lack of IS on their 24-70 L II.
I would suspect that Nikon saw a great opportunity to make some good money on a new, must-have lens for serious photographers and maybe pushing a few others to jump to Nikon.
Great move in segment that is still throwing off profit.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 16:52 UTC
On article Sony reportedly shifting focus to full-frame cameras (447 comments in total)
In reply to:

FuhTeng: I'm curious just how big the market is for people to buy a $1000 a7 and then a whole bunch of $1000+ lenses.

There's the kit zoom and used/grey marketZony f4 standard zoom, the 28 mm + adapters, the slow (and tiny) 35 mm f2.8, and then used/grey market 55. That's it for less than $1000 lenses.

Is their goal to have a high profit margin in ILCs? Sure, the a7 family will give them that. Largest market-share? I'm skeptical. They need more <$1000 lenses to keep their impressive market share if they're going to completely abandon the APS-C line.

If they're going after well-to-do enthusaists "pro" market, and they're happy with high margins, sure, keep the $1000+ line coming - MF Loxia, AF Batis, G Macro, 70-200 f4, Zony 16-35.

@ttran88. I think your comment is inaccurate. However in the push and shove of business if the demand is there, make money by filling it.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 22:21 UTC
On article Sony reportedly shifting focus to full-frame cameras (447 comments in total)
In reply to:

FuhTeng: I'm curious just how big the market is for people to buy a $1000 a7 and then a whole bunch of $1000+ lenses.

There's the kit zoom and used/grey marketZony f4 standard zoom, the 28 mm + adapters, the slow (and tiny) 35 mm f2.8, and then used/grey market 55. That's it for less than $1000 lenses.

Is their goal to have a high profit margin in ILCs? Sure, the a7 family will give them that. Largest market-share? I'm skeptical. They need more <$1000 lenses to keep their impressive market share if they're going to completely abandon the APS-C line.

If they're going after well-to-do enthusaists "pro" market, and they're happy with high margins, sure, keep the $1000+ line coming - MF Loxia, AF Batis, G Macro, 70-200 f4, Zony 16-35.

The market is huge if you get a bunch of Canonikon customers.
As Sony is still small, they can take share. Canonikon has to protect share. The defensive position is the weaker one.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 20:55 UTC
Total: 806, showing: 201 – 220
« First‹ Previous910111213Next ›Last »