PatMann

PatMann

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 11, 2009

Comments

Total: 171, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

My D810 is 64. Nothing for that?

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2018 at 01:26 UTC as 47th comment | 1 reply
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm GFX 50R first look (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

pshummer: It looks to be an excellent camera but......the maximum flash synch speed is 1/125 ? Did I hear it right? Will you be able to do high speed synch flash with this cam?

Just needs a leaf-shutter lens. Then I might be a customer.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2018 at 01:29 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm GFX 50R first look (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

LDunn1: As lenses tend to have circular cross sections, why doesn’t someone produce a mirrorless camera with a square sensor & have (customisable) electronic guide lines for different format types (35mm 3:2, 6x4.5,6x7, 6x9, 6x17, 10x8, A4 1.414:1, 1080p 16:9, imax 1.43:1, cinema 2.35:1, golden ratio 1.618:1, widescreen 1.6667:1, 4K 1.9:1, computer monitors 21:9) that the user could choose between, or of course shoot ‘full frame, 1:1 aspect ratio. The guidelines should be further customisable so user can choose to ‘Black out’ the region not used by the selected aspect ratio, or just have a guide line so they can still monitor what is just out of shot. User should also still be able to select to see centre lines &/or rule of 2/3 or golden ratio lines etc for the selected aspect ratio.

While a square can get more of the image circle in square format, it generally gets fewer useful pixels and a narrower angle of view than a rectangular sensor using the same diagonal if most of your photos are ultimately rectangular. I love the square format for certain finished work, but was usually cropping a lot out of the Hasselblad frame. And that 56 x 56 frame was 3.6 times as large as 24 x 36. The quality was very different. This one is only 1.67 times as large. Full frame to this is not as much difference as going from APS-C to full frame.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2018 at 01:20 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm GFX 50R first look (119 comments in total)

Will be nice when this is in writing.
I really, really, really want Fujifilm to produce at least a one normal lens with shutter for this system for use with flash. A basic trio would be even better.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2018 at 00:55 UTC as 6th comment
On article Nikon Z7 Review (4450 comments in total)

Very useful and interesting comparison. Thanks!

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2018 at 19:02 UTC as 442nd comment

Arca QR mount version? I have L-brackets on everything.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2018 at 17:07 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply

The major dealers are using a "bait-and-switch" ad with a photo showing the 70-300 VR lens, but the kit being sold under the photo is NOT the VR version. These ads should be taken down until a photo of the actual kit is included.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2018 at 00:01 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply

It means International Organization for Standardization.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2018 at 03:41 UTC as 92nd comment

I find the four eye highlights in diamond pattern quite distracting.

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2018 at 00:44 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on with Zeiss Milvus 25mm F1.4 (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: The steady stream of giant f1.4 two pound hunks of glass continues unabated. How many one eye in focus portraits are going to be taken with a 25mm lens?

@T3 - if you are using the best of the modern lenses designed for high resolution across the frame at their maximum potential on a current high megapixel sensor, depth of field at the pixel level at portrait distances is about 1/4 that of a standard depth-of-field chart based on 8 x 10 prints based on my testing. And if you are seeking maximum resolution on a flat field (I have one ongoing project - not portraits - that requires this), you probably will need to go to f/4 or so to get the entire flat field in sharpest focus, because at larger apertures the sharpest point of focus won't be on the same flat plane across the field.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2017 at 03:34 UTC
In reply to:

lukaszj: The photos don't load... :/ I assume 1 minute should be enough.

i gave up after one took more than 10 minutes.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 23:52 UTC
On article First shots from new Nikon 28mm F1.4E ED (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

mxx: For those who wondered why people use 28 mm lenses:

"According to Marinkovic, he favors 28mm because it offers a wide field of view without being unnatural - allowing him 'to fit things into a frame without overflowing it or distorting the corner elements'. "

@HP1999 28mm takes in about 56% more image area at a given distance than 35mm. It's a pretty significant difference. 24mm more than double the image area of 35mm.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 16:55 UTC
On article First shots from new Nikon 28mm F1.4E ED (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Pics look cooked. The guy is a Nikon Ambassador. So of course he is positive about the lens. I think I would prefer 35mm for most of these shots. We won't know the true quality of this lens until people start posting their cat pics and garden flowers.

With the D820. Can't tell anything with such a low resolution camera. Of course, you'll probably have to use f/2 or even f/2.8 with the 820to get enough DOF to get the entire eyelash in focus.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 16:41 UTC

Based on Nikon's MTF curves, they've substantially improved since the 24 and 35 f/1.4s in minimizing astigmatism and upping across-the-field resolution. Looks like a winner to me.

Now if they would just take on the 50 one more time, they could have a winner there as well.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 05:33 UTC as 34th comment | 6 replies

Looks like landscape mode to me.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 01:04 UTC as 8th comment
On article Nikon D7500 vs Nikon D500: Which is better for you? (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

avicenanw: Nikon did some serious twists and contortions to come up with this model by skipping the D7300 and D7400

ditto D400. This is the Nikon generation 5.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 21:48 UTC
On article Nikon D7500 vs Nikon D500: Which is better for you? (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: Impossible to choose: The D500 finally, finally! has reasonable focus point coverage across the frame, while the D7500 offers the essential-for-me magical Nikon CLS. Can't afford both, may have to just drown myself in the Chattahoochee

CLS works fine on the D500, you just need a commander. I use the SU800, but one of the Nikon flashes with commander mode will also work. If you have or are going to the radio-controlled flash system, the D500 will be compatible with the remote adapter which also frees up your flash from the camera.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 21:46 UTC

One month of data does not a year make, but Nikon does need to get on the ball.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 03:30 UTC as 77th comment | 9 replies
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (917 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: "Image quality compared to full frame"???
What, are the Fuji images cropped? They're not full frame? Does language mean anything any more?
You guys have drunk the marketing Kool-Aid: 35mm is not "full frame". Any image that's not cropped AFTER capture is "full frame". Duh.
The section should be titled "Image quality compared to 35mm." Sheesh.

I know what it means. Most other people on DPR know what it means. It means what it's meant since Olympus popularized the term "half frame" with the Pen cameras, and 24 x 36 thereafter became widely known and referred to as full frame. While the Pen cameras were first termed "single frame," that didn't last, and "half frame" stuck. No reason to stop using that term now - it's still a useful reference point for sensor sizes, crop factors, etc.

Now if you really want to attack a term that's confusing and misleading, why not take on "1-inch" sensors?

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 04:50 UTC
In reply to:

xmeda: I like my Sig 100-300/4

100-400/5-6.3 is not worth existence. 60-300/4-5.6 FF lens would be more interesting both for APS-C and FF users.

At 1/3 stop slower, f/6.3 isn't a huge compromise with f/5.6 lenses provided the camera can AF at f/6.3. The size/weight advantages over an 80-400 f/5.6 are pretty significant here - I can see why someone would pick this if the image quality is good and the AF works well. Based on Sigma rep for C lenses, S version might be much better for AF if they bring one out, should still be more compact and less expensive than OEM 80-400s.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 01:23 UTC
Total: 171, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »