Aur

Joined on Feb 25, 2015

Comments

Total: 63, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

who cares, way more interested in what CMOSIS is doing

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 19:32 UTC as 19th comment
In reply to:

Aur: I can't believe the amount of **** Nikon users have to put up with sometimes. The oil and dust problems on the D600, the flare issues on the D750, now their lenses have bugged software. People had to threaten them with lawsuits before they budged. They recalled 200,000 batteries due to fire hazard just 2 years ago.

Do they even have a QA department over at Nikon? Seriously.

thanks

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 21:55 UTC
In reply to:

Niko Tod: I got my copy today with a SN starting with 202... and I don't have any issues on D4s at any shutter speed. But I'm curious - what could be so specific with the 8 series circuitry?!

it's not circuitry I think, since a firmware fixes his, it means it's a software issue

I think the way pentax does it, building the VR into the camera, is a better solution.

I mean, even wide angle lenses are coming with VR now, why do we need VR on the lens still, build it into the body, so ppl don't have these problems to begin with.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 21:14 UTC

I can't believe the amount of **** Nikon users have to put up with sometimes. The oil and dust problems on the D600, the flare issues on the D750, now their lenses have bugged software. People had to threaten them with lawsuits before they budged. They recalled 200,000 batteries due to fire hazard just 2 years ago.

Do they even have a QA department over at Nikon? Seriously.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 20:57 UTC as 27th comment | 5 replies
On article Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers (227 comments in total)

Fujifilm makes some of the best low to medium budget wide angle lenses right now imo, they have far less distortion than canon / nikon equivalents.

Saw some pictures of this lens, again, super controlled low amounts of distortion, just like their excellent 14mm f/2.8. Probably one of the best wide angle lenses I have seen for architecture.

Canon and especially Nikon doesn't seem to give a damn if wide angle crop lenses make architecture look totally deformed.

They don't even get their 35mm lenses right, let alone super wides. The amount of distortion on that Nikon 35mm 1.8G is a disgrace of epic proportions.

Fujifilm makes far better small size lenses.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 10:31 UTC as 28th comment | 11 replies
On article Video: Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD Field Test (100 comments in total)

I like we are finally getting IS / VR / VC on wide angle lenses.

I remember people saying it wasn't needed, yet when you take video with a wide angle with good IS, it looks like it's being shot on a tripod.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 08:49 UTC as 40th comment

why would you publish a picture of ppl that don't want to be on the picture, that's messed up

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 22:28 UTC as 14th comment
On article Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 (167 comments in total)
In reply to:

J Parker: I was a Lensbaby skeptic for years -- and then I actually used one and was hooked. In particular, check out their tilt shift adapter which turns any Nikon lens into a tilt shift lens. If you have not shot with one then you should try their line before being judgmental (of course no lens is for everyone). There really is a genuine aesthetic that these lens give that's beyond what photoshop will do. Sometimes the lensbaby stays mounted for weeks at a time. Combine a Lensbaby with the art modes on most of today's cameras and your camera becomes an even more versatile creative tool.

thank you for your comment Lensbaby employee

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 07:54 UTC
On article Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 (167 comments in total)

$599.95 lol

this company has never produced a good lens, and instead of calling their lens "crap", they call it "velvet" and people buy it

lensbaby knows how to play consumers, it's a borderline scam company

when are they releasing their $800 pinhole lens in hipster white?

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 07:46 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Esquilo: First of all, all telephoto lenses with focal lengths over 55 mm will always be FX lenses (the 85 mm macro being the notable exception). There is simply no benefit to make DX lenses for longer focal lengths. When going shorter than about 60 mm there is some size and weight to be gained fror small aperture lenses like the 55-200 and 55-300, but the biggest gain (for Nikon that is) with those lenses are that they are not professional and are made to sub-professional standards. For large aperture lenses the gains are smaller. That's why we'll probably never se any other fast prime for DX than the 35 mm f/1,8 (which is "almost" a FX lens anyway). The reason the FX variant of the 35 mm f/1,8 is more expensive compared to the other lenses in the f/1,8 series is simply that it can not be sold to DX-users which is the majority of Nikon users.

"all telephoto lenses with focal lengths over 55 mm will always be FX lenses. There is simply no benefit to make DX lenses for longer focal lengths. "

what? Canon has a DX tele 55-250, it has a massive benefit, it's like 300 grams, an FX equivalent is like 600 grams or more

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 10:04 UTC

Don't get why people need to always push Canon and Nikon on mirrorless. There are enough mirorrless OEM.

The benefit like Nikon says of DSLR is the viewfinder.

Crop DSLR's weight is close to mirrorless. The only thing I agree with is that they should focus on crop DSLR more, crop can compete both in weight and size with mirrorless.

But that Nikon should suddenly do a 180 and start releasing mirrorless, no, the advantage of mirrorless in terms of size and weight is minor compared to crop DSLR, and mirrorless have plenty of disadvantages, like viewfinder issues in low light, AF issues, battery that lasts less long, I don't get this obsession with mirrorless.

When you put a tele on a mirrorless it looks ridiculous, because it's suddenly unbalanced weight wise, the slightly smaller form factor isn't really an advantage.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 09:56 UTC as 84th comment | 2 replies
On article Sony FE 28mm F2 samples gallery posted (100 comments in total)

man, all the pics have so much barrel distoriton

check it out:

http://oi58.tinypic.com/2ziqwoz.jpg

that's a lot

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2015 at 07:39 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon D5500 Review (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aur: The Nikon D5500, a revolutionary camera, everything you know and love, in the same body. We heard your suggestions, and we changed absolutely nothing.

-Nikon

Actually, I'm not even factually correct, they bumped the number to 5500.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 02:00 UTC
On article Nikon D5500 Review (415 comments in total)

The Nikon D5500, a revolutionary camera, everything you know and love, in the same body. We heard your suggestions, and we changed absolutely nothing.

-Nikon

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 01:56 UTC as 87th comment | 9 replies
On article Manfrotto launches miniature Lumie LED lights (50 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fazal Majid: The 92 CRI rating suggests these use Nichia 219 LEDs, which have more accurate color rendition than the more common and powerful CREE LEDs.

I hope they don't use PWM regulation circuits to do the dimming, otherwise the resulting flicker would render them useless for high-speed applications at anything but full output.

CRI is a terrible way to measure color accuracy

that's why the Color Quality Scale exists, it in response to the criticism of CRI, CQS has it's own host of problems, but at least it's not as bad as CRI

that's on top of the fact that many lights with high CRI tend to be the very unpleasing lights in tests, especially LED with high CRI (some of the those philips with >90 CRI have really offensive lighting)

if someone recommends you a light based on CRI, run out the store and never come back

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2015 at 01:03 UTC
In reply to:

AlexisH: One more thing you don't need with a mirrorless camera. Although I guess they could still finely tune auto focus to account for focus shifting.

My first post was that most people (I said nobody, and even though it was a figure of speech, it was still wrong for me to say that) won't be able to appreciate this because very few shoot with such shallow depth of field that it would cause problems.

The kits lenses are too slow, the most sold Nikon primes are all those 1.8G, the most sold Canon primes are those 2.8 pancakes.

By the time you get to L lenses and the Sigma Art lenses, you're down to a small fraction of DSLR users.

Of that same group, there will be a tiny group that knows how to use the Reikan software, I find it convoluted and I don't use it anymore.

The argument that this offers a solution, is what I take issues with I think. Yes it offers a solution to a few people, but the fact many of these lenses have these issues is also because lens OEM have increased their yields by allowing "dud" lenses to make it through (there are no "dud" zeiss planar from the 60s). And the patent issues compound the problems.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2015 at 00:36 UTC
In reply to:

AlexisH: One more thing you don't need with a mirrorless camera. Although I guess they could still finely tune auto focus to account for focus shifting.

It is a crutch, it doesn't fix the underlying patent problem, which is the cause of the Sigma lenses having AF problems. It doesn't address Zeiss their complaint either, which is why they refuse to even support AF for Nikon or Canon bodies, because it would tarnish their reputation.

This program doesn't fix the protectionist way of doing business of Canon and Nikon. They don't want anyone to touch their honey pot, and they refuse access to their AF patents.

And YES, Sigma lenses have MORE problems with autofocus than Canon and Nikon lenses, so it IS a bigger problem for Sigma than Nikon and Canon, just because of what I said prior.

But I have no illustion about this program, it doesn't fix the underlying problem, and it doesn't address the average user's AF issues with Sigma, of which there are plent,y a simple search online will show you.

When a Sigma lens doesn't focus properly, people don't buy Sigma again, this program doesn't change that.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 23:30 UTC
In reply to:

AlexisH: One more thing you don't need with a mirrorless camera. Although I guess they could still finely tune auto focus to account for focus shifting.

"As is evidenced, in this case, by the thousands of reports of focus problems readily available around the 'net.'"

I do see many many complaints about Sigma lenses, all the negative Amazon reviews from the latest Art lenses are about front and backfocus problems, and either people need to microadjust or people come home and realise half their shots are out of focus.

But that doesn't seem to be a callibration issue, that seems to stem from the problem of the Canon and Nikon AF patents they refuse to make public (that's why none of Zeiss their lenses autofocus)

If you take Sigma into account, especially their new fast Art primes with shallow DOV, I'm sure there are many AF issues. But I don't think that's fair, that has nothing to do with QA, it's simply an issue that can't easily be fixed until the AF patents are made public or expire.

This program also doesn't fix that, it's a crutch that doesn't solve the underlying problem.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 08:28 UTC
In reply to:

AlexisH: One more thing you don't need with a mirrorless camera. Although I guess they could still finely tune auto focus to account for focus shifting.

It just reminds me a bit of people who feel they need to calibrate every screen they get, even though every screen is callibrated in the factory, and most are quite close to optimal.

As long as people don't use super shallow depth of field and they know that the center AF point is the most accurate, I don't know why the average user should need this.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 08:13 UTC
In reply to:

AlexisH: One more thing you don't need with a mirrorless camera. Although I guess they could still finely tune auto focus to account for focus shifting.

no one really needs this, it's only for people who use extreme shallow depth of field shots, where a few millimeters offset results in their subject being out of focus

it's not like a "regular" DSLR user needs this to have good AF

the only problem I ever had with AF was with a Sigma lens, but Sigma lenses are known to not focus properly, and this isn't going to fix it, it's a software / patent problem

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 03:26 UTC
Total: 63, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »