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


Total: 163, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: Looks interesting. Too bad it's not Arca-Swiss compatible.

Of course it's compatible. You just buy a Manfrotto plate and screw an Arca QR to it. I guess that's what they expect most of us to do.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

justinwonnacott: Wrong attachment system ... no sale.

@RedFox88 - So I'm supposed to put a Manfrotto QR plate on the bottom of my L-bracket that already fits the Arca QR on my ball head? I don't think so. What if I want to use the side? There's no threaded hole there for another Manfrotto plate.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 16:32 UTC

Best of luck to Fujifilm on addressing these issues. The lens lineup is stellar - no other APS-C system comes close. But AF and resolution do need to be addressed. If Nikon produces a pro APS-C camera to replace the D300s, they need to bring lenses with it to sell it. If they do, I will probably stay with Nikon. If not, Fujifilm is the first place I will look for my future primary camera system. I can't afford the $ or the overall system weight and bulk to go whole-hog full-frame.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2015 at 12:44 UTC as 78th comment | 7 replies

De gustibus non disputandum est.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 12:45 UTC as 106th comment | 1 reply
On article Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

wolfloid: This whole article is based on a very basic misunderstanding. The lenses are the 'equivalents of 70-200 f4 lenses. NOT f2.8 lenses. Depth of field on APS-C at f2.8 is 'equivalent to f4 on full frame. Any light gathering advantage of f2.8 on APS-C is mitigated by the larger sensor of FF, which, if the sensors are of the same quality, will have half the noise of APS-C.

So, the Canon 70-200IS f4 is actually the lens to compare these new lenses with, and that, of couse, is smaller and lighter.

This article understands my needs perfectly. The f/4 lens isn't equivalent to me because I can't shoot it at f/2.8. Most of the time either my APS-C or 24 x 36 camera will provide perfectly acceptable noise and dynamic range results to me on a modern 24 mp sensor. What's relevant to me in these conditions is what aperture and shutter speed produce acceptable motion blur of an action subject. It's rare that I'm trying to achieve a depth of field effect that's significantly different with a change of one stop. In my world, therefore, it would be very useful to me to have a smaller, lighter, more compact 50-135 f/2.8 zoom for my APS-C camera, a range I find much more useful than 70-200 on APS-C for event and street shooting, to go with my 17-55. I vote for a fully capable, lighter and more compact system. I've given up on Nikon providing one and hope that we see more of these efforts from others.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 01:56 UTC
On article Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

macky patalinghug: of apsc's, Canon had a very light very sharp very affordable offering: the ef-s 55-250 IS.

Not a fast lens in the same class being discussed here.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 01:09 UTC
In reply to:

Daniel Lauring: I hate having to wait till the end of 2015 for the 140-400mm. I could use this lens today. Until it is released I have to fall back on my m43 with 100-300 OIS Panasonic lens.

I hope Fuji concentrated on getting this lens the sharpest at 400mm. We've already got decent lenses out to 230mm.

I agree. Too many tele zooms are designed without attention to the long end, like my 70-300 Nikkor. It's stellar at 200, but then starts to fade away . . . If this lens proves wothy at 400, and the other promised lenses are as good as those out now, that makes the system complete as far as I'm concerned. Kudos to Fujifilm for knowing what makes sense in a full range of lenses for APS-C sensors.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 10:42 UTC
On article Ricoh surfs into action camera market with WG-M1 (108 comments in total)

This has to be the cutest camera ever made.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 17:36 UTC as 6th comment
On article Fast and full-frame: Nikon announces 24MP Nikon D750 (350 comments in total)

So there is still a hole to be filled for a rugged 24mp high-speed FX body without penny-pinching on things like eyepiece shutter and threaded eyepiece, lack of dedicated AF-On. As a 610 with really good AF and fold-out screen, fine, but how about something to get excited about - another camera of the year.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 16:54 UTC as 11th comment
On article Fast and full-frame: Nikon announces 24MP Nikon D750 (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

rollemr: It's nice that this camera has the fastest Nikon FX frame rate but what is the reported buffer capacity?

Slower than D3, D3s, D4, D4s, D700 with grip.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 16:39 UTC
On article Nikon announces AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED (67 comments in total)

I wish it had been 18mm - the 90-degree horizontal coverage makes that focal length ideal IMO, but I am impressed by the MTF curves posted for this lens - particularly considering that they are for f/1.8 - and will eventually get it to replace my 20 AF-s, which is exceedingly weak in the far corners.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 16:28 UTC as 6th comment
On article Nikon announces AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

brelip: interesting for sure, but a lens no one is asking for! They should have made this a DX and half the weight and cost!

@ Bamboojled - But DX cameras have a higher pixel density, so there's no advantage to using just the center of the lens. Better a DX-designed lens that has the resolution needed for DX. Particularly with wides, a DX-designed lens is needed. We have a 24mm f/1.4 (35mm equivalent), but it covers 2.4 x the necessary area, weighs over a pound and costs nearly $2000. 24mm f/1.8 or better yet 18mm designed for DX could be sold for much less than this 20mm, and would be smaller and lighter as suits the format and the rest of the lenses in my DX bag.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 16:21 UTC
On article Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Lab Test Review (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnimo: What I find funny is dishing out any money for a wide angle lens with soft and/or distorted corners. If your corners are soft and/or distorted then what's the point of even using wide angle? Now if you take a portrait of a single face then soft and/or distorted corners can be acceptable, but what idiot would use wide angle for a face shot? And for a group photo such a lens would only be acceptable if you hate the subjects on either side and want them to be soft and/or distorted on purpose. And for architecture and landscapes... don't even get me started.

Then get a view camera with a symmetrical lens. I'm not aware of a single modern wide prime for reflex cameras that doesn't have significant distortion. Sorry. There are some zooms that have a sweet spot for distortion in the middle of their focal range, but most have softer corners than the primes.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 01:55 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T1 Review (657 comments in total)
In reply to:

edwy: I'm not a big video shooter but why buy a camera with such disappointing video performance? I've owned Nikons since '78 (FE) and I've had problems but my 7100 is cheaper to buy and does a great job of taking fotos. Why pay more for the camera and invest in new lenses?

For one thing, you actually have lenses to "invest in" for the Fujifilm. Unless you want an 18-xx zoom or a giant expensive lens designed for full frame, there's not much from Nikon for APS-C. Where's the 24mm f/1.4 for the 7100? Oh, it costs $2000 and weighs over a pound and uses 77mm filters - is that the one you're getting? Is Nikon going to give you a 50-140 f/2.8 zoom? How about a 14mm f/2? 12mm f/2.8?

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 20:34 UTC
On article Orion DVC210 DLSR Crane Review (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Davis: For still shots, I'd rather use my Bogen/Manfrotto 3048 and a step ladder to get my camera to a height of 11 feet.

It's easier to shoot straight down with this, unless you can work your image between the tripod legs.

I also use a giant tripod for high shots, but the crane does go significantly higher.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2014 at 23:22 UTC
On article Review: Ona Lima camera strap (148 comments in total)

UPstrap. Black nylon with rubber pad. Doesn't slip. Huge adjustment. Captured ends. Simple.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2014 at 09:23 UTC as 59th comment | 1 reply

An interesting statement on something that is a national disgrace. This makes me want to see the prints, and I will watch for an opportunity.

These are horrifying for both their light pollution and their reminder of our seriously broken criminal justice system in this country. Putting these sites out in remote areas so we can forget about them, creating a powerful lobby of private prison vendors, municipalities that have these as their only economic base, and employee associations with an interest in sustaining them that make it even harder to reform the system.

Thanks to DPR for including some posts on the significant art and social commentary potential of photography to remind us why we use all this technology in the first place.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2014 at 13:47 UTC as 50th comment | 2 replies
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Review (517 comments in total)

24-120 equivalent f/4 at the long end with built-in finder and somebody's got my $ for a compact P&S zoom with 1-inch sensor. Getting close here.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 09:21 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
On article Am I missing something here? (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike FL: Sony RX100m2 is much better than this V3.

@Tapper123: Thanks for the reference. I see on Amazon that the Sony finder is $450, brings the total price up pretty close to that of the Nikon. I do hope Nikon brings out a good 5:1 f/4 or better zoom for this system - would bring the enthusiast user quotient up quite a bit. Starting at 28 equivalent isn't quite enough for me on the Sony - maybe next time.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2014 at 11:35 UTC
In reply to:

Kurt_K: The 70-300 is an interesting lens, but not at a thousand dollars.

A 190-810 mm full-frame equivalent at $1000 is pretty interesting to me, and to a number of other birders on budgets. We're facing the question of Nikon not upgrading their DX flagship, and abandoning the DX lens format. We have no DX camera to buy for birding, an 80-400 that costs $2700 after the rebate goes off, and this opportunity. It looks pretty good to me.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2014 at 23:19 UTC
Total: 163, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »