nathantw

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

Comments

Total: 211, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

This is all for show to help make it look like their lenses are meticulously and lovingly made by hand. Sort of like how Rolex does that in their videos. In reality and behind the scenes machines are cranking these suckers out with machine like precision at a rate of 100 every minute. LOL. Yeah, I'm just kidding...at least in the case of Canon. Thanks for showing us the background on the lenses. It's always fascinating to see these things.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 15:06 UTC as 91st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

EdnaBambrick: STOP WASTING OUR TIME NIKON WITH YOUR LEICA'ESQE 'YEAR OF THE TORTOISE' SPECIAL EDITIONS.

What we want is for you to stay ahead and at the top of the sensor IQ game.

More dynamic range, more resolution, better all around top of the prosumer line camera. The 'wish lists' have all been published since the release of the D810.

Time to deliver.

Nikon had always made commemorative editions. So this is nothing new.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 19:28 UTC

Apparently the problem with the Keymission was the software. I wanted the 360 but when I started reading about how horrible the software was I stopped wanting it.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 19:27 UTC as 44th comment
In reply to:

Dragonrider: When a company starts spending too much time talking about their hallowed past, it is usually a sign of the beginning of the end. Atari did it all in record time and the retrospective internal employee motto was "Wonder, Thunder, Blunder, Plunder, and Under"

When the band Van Halen had Sammy Hagar as the lead vocalist they were a commercial success. The manager of the band or someone wanted to bring out a compilation and Sammy Hagar said exactly what you said. That was the beginning of the end for Sammy Hagar and the band. So you're right.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

munchaussen: LEICA SO SEXYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

You sound like Kai! Lol!

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 03:19 UTC
In reply to:

DVT80111: At least one photography related death each year in Grand Canyon.

When I was at the Grand Canyon I couldn't believe the amount of people that sat with their feet dangling at the very edge of a shear cliff that dropped hundreds of feet straight down. Then the kids who run around being chased by another as they approached the edges. I had to turn away a few times watching this all take place at a distance.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 22:14 UTC
In reply to:

nathantw: But I thought lava was okay to walk on? I mean, just look at the Star Wars movie where Anakin and Ben were fighting. They made it look okay.

OMG! That's just beyond my comprehension, faterikcartman! It would be cool and all, especially feeling the lava under the feet, but oh man, that takes guts!

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 22:09 UTC

Cool places and photos!

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2017 at 20:54 UTC as 35th comment
In reply to:

vscd: Just throw the ring into the lava...

NO! My precious!

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2017 at 20:53 UTC

But I thought lava was okay to walk on? I mean, just look at the Star Wars movie where Anakin and Ben were fighting. They made it look okay.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2017 at 20:52 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

nathantw: I was wondering if we were going to see a photo of a homeless man that was taken with a $10000 camera/lens combo. I wasn't not disappointed.

The camera looks good. I was wondering if it had the little film advance lever to make it easier to hold that I saw some other reviewer had. After seeing this review, I guess it doesn't contain that.

HowaboutRAW, what are you talking about? I think we have a mix-up on what we're discussing here. I'm discussing this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Metal-Camera-Thumb-Thumbs-Up-Grip-Hot-Shoe-Protector-For-Leica-Camera-Black-/371098359851 and you're discussing the merits of the sound the camera makes when you press the shutter and advance the "film."

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2017 at 01:10 UTC
In reply to:

nathantw: I was wondering if we were going to see a photo of a homeless man that was taken with a $10000 camera/lens combo. I wasn't not disappointed.

The camera looks good. I was wondering if it had the little film advance lever to make it easier to hold that I saw some other reviewer had. After seeing this review, I guess it doesn't contain that.

But why in the world would anyone want a film advance lever on a digital camera? That's just so unnecessary. A film advance lever is to do just that, advance film through the camera. However, those particular "grips" look to be useful.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 03:34 UTC
In reply to:

nathantw: I was wondering if we were going to see a photo of a homeless man that was taken with a $10000 camera/lens combo. I wasn't not disappointed.

The camera looks good. I was wondering if it had the little film advance lever to make it easier to hold that I saw some other reviewer had. After seeing this review, I guess it doesn't contain that.

darngooddesign got it right, HowaboutRAW. Check out this page. It's a size comparison of the cameras but you'll see the "grip" there. http://leicarumors.com/2017/01/23/leica-m10-vs-m-vs-m9-vs-m6-vs-q-vs-sl-size-comparison.aspx/

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 06:06 UTC
In reply to:

AZPhotog86: $6,500 is way too much for any camera--including Leicas.

That's correct T3. In the 1980s the M4-p was the camera to have and that was about $2500, which after inflation, is over $5000 today.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 20:23 UTC

I was wondering if we were going to see a photo of a homeless man that was taken with a $10000 camera/lens combo. I wasn't not disappointed.

The camera looks good. I was wondering if it had the little film advance lever to make it easier to hold that I saw some other reviewer had. After seeing this review, I guess it doesn't contain that.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 20:19 UTC as 45th comment | 7 replies

Back in the 1980s the Leica M4-p was about $2500. In 2016 dollars that comes out to about $5500. So it appears that the Leica M really hadn't gone up THAT much after you factor in inflation.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 07:38 UTC as 70th comment
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: AgatePassPhoto praised the old HP B9180.
I also had an HP B9180 printer and I agree with his opinions. A real workhorse that produced excellent prints. How much is a new print head for any quality printer? Well let me say this; when my 9180 died and needed a new print head, the price quoted could have bought me a new HP B9180 printer if they were still available. HP no longer made the 9180 and never replaced it with a new model. So I bought an Epson R3000.

In general, printer prices are loss leaders to get you into the ink purchases. Because printers are loss leaders, you can expect that the replacement print heads are going to be prohibitively expensive.
The Epson print quality is no better than was the older HP 9180 and the Epson inks are more expensive. Such is progress.

BTW, the HP B9180 also had a built it print media scanner to correct ink output which assured consistent color tones for job to job.

Jim Evidon, I used 13x19 photo advanced paper and it banded. Brand new print heads too. Go figure.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 07:31 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: AgatePassPhoto praised the old HP B9180.
I also had an HP B9180 printer and I agree with his opinions. A real workhorse that produced excellent prints. How much is a new print head for any quality printer? Well let me say this; when my 9180 died and needed a new print head, the price quoted could have bought me a new HP B9180 printer if they were still available. HP no longer made the 9180 and never replaced it with a new model. So I bought an Epson R3000.

In general, printer prices are loss leaders to get you into the ink purchases. Because printers are loss leaders, you can expect that the replacement print heads are going to be prohibitively expensive.
The Epson print quality is no better than was the older HP 9180 and the Epson inks are more expensive. Such is progress.

BTW, the HP B9180 also had a built it print media scanner to correct ink output which assured consistent color tones for job to job.

I'm still using the B9180. I bought new print heads when they went out. The printer is consistent but it does have a huge problem with gradations where it would band. This is when a newer printer is probably much, much better.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 07:38 UTC
In reply to:

nathantw: Can you imagine a person who hadn't stopped hearing how good Kodachrome was throughout the person's photographic life and if Kodachrome actually came out how their slides would turn out? They buy a film camera, excitedly buys a roll of Kodachrome, figures out how to load the camera correctly, shoots 36 exposures, sends it out, waits impatiently for it to come back, gets the box of slides back in the mail, nervously opens the box up and underexposed/overexposed pictures. The person never learned the fine art of how to take exposure readings and and how to compensate for the lack of film latitude. So they give it all up and go back to digital where they can see right away if the photo is over/under exposed.

My whole point was that if the person doesn't get "perfect" Kodachrome slides then they'll abandon it right away and Kodak loses sales. Then if that same person starts bad mouthing the film on social media saying it was horrible or it was a terrible experience (as people tend to do even if it's their fault) then that's more lost sales from people that listen to them.

As a couple people have correctly pointed out there are cameras with automation that should help. That's true, but many times the built-in light meter is based on 18% gray and some are even center-weighted metering only and not matrix metering where the camera compares 100,000 images to get the perfect exposure. That will lead to under/over exposures in slides with no way of recovering.

So, if it's not perfect out of the box will that new Kodachrome user see their mistake and try to learn again or take the easy way out and say "ah, forget this" and turn to their phone or digital?

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 23:01 UTC

Can you imagine a person who hadn't stopped hearing how good Kodachrome was throughout the person's photographic life and if Kodachrome actually came out how their slides would turn out? They buy a film camera, excitedly buys a roll of Kodachrome, figures out how to load the camera correctly, shoots 36 exposures, sends it out, waits impatiently for it to come back, gets the box of slides back in the mail, nervously opens the box up and underexposed/overexposed pictures. The person never learned the fine art of how to take exposure readings and and how to compensate for the lack of film latitude. So they give it all up and go back to digital where they can see right away if the photo is over/under exposed.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 15:28 UTC as 47th comment | 6 replies
Total: 211, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »