sh10453

sh10453

Lives in United States Michigan, United States
Works as a Electrical & Computer Engineer
Joined on May 2, 2010
About me:

My large collection of Canon FD lenses is back to life. Thanks to mirrorless cameras and adapters. I particularly love the FD 35-105mm w/macro, f/3.5, which is well known for its clarity and sharpness, and the FD 50mm, 1.2, L.

Comments

Total: 1338, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

Wow!!! That's a big WOW!!!
Impressive.
Put it in the a6000 with a firmware upgrade!

Link | Posted on May 12, 2017 at 18:07 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

Reactive: Movie Maker started off many, many, years ago as a useful little app for quick, basic, video editing under Windows XP. It was utterly destroyed with the introduction of Windows Vista, and it became a completely useless, dumb-downed turd of a clip sorter. I still have no idea why Microsoft jumped backwards and sabotaged their own app. Watching this cloying promo video, it looks like they've just polished the Vista turd - there is no evidence of a multi-track timeline. If you're over 10 years old and actually want to *edit* video, download almost anything else like DaVinci Resolve (free). If you want 3D objects integrated with your video, then download the industrial strength Blender (also free, www.blender.org), which includes a video editor.

I use Movie Maker for quick and easy things on Windows 7 as well as Windows 10.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2017 at 16:59 UTC

They are also introducing Remix 3D and Paint 3D with the Wondows 10 Creators Update.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2017 at 16:58 UTC as 1st comment

I'd take the Porsche in a heartbeat, and would never pay even a 100th of this amount for a B&W back. Duh!!!
What were they thinking???
Get the Fuji or Pentax MF and convert the color images to B&W if so desired.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2017 at 16:31 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies

Can someone help me out???
I'm banging my head against the wall.
What is it in #2 that allowed it even to enter a contest, let alone to win big time?
I fail to see it.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2017 at 15:37 UTC as 8th comment | 3 replies
On article Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM sample gallery (142 comments in total)

Very nice images!!!
No tripod collar? ... That's absolutely a deal breaker for me.
What a disappointment!!

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 21:54 UTC as 22nd comment
On article Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

CaPi: Do assit me here friends:
I need al long lenses for a safari with my nikon aps-c body. The trip features a lot of traveling..
Is this a lense to get.. the lense?

I own an Fuji X-T10 I use for street btw. Is that another option?

Your link takes the Flickr user to his/her own Camera Roll page.
By the way, I visited YOUR gallery too.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 21:51 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF gallery and first impressions (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vit Adamek: How does it compare to my old Canon FD 100m F2.8? :-D

I have a large collection of FD lenses, many are L lenses, and I use them with my Sony a6000.
I love those lenses. REAL GLASS, and heavy.
Even the FD 50mm f/1.2 L is heavier than the camera!!!

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 02:33 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF gallery and first impressions (316 comments in total)

I like this lens. I'm not a fan of bokeh circles. Nice subject isolation.
Thanks Rishi.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 16:14 UTC as 51st comment | 7 replies
On article Is it time to adopt DaVinci Resolve for video editing? (32 comments in total)
In reply to:

StevenE: I use Creative Cloud and it's a great suite but its also buggy and it's a never ending monthly subscription. If Davinci is stable, fast and full service, I'd switch. In fact at $300 I may try it concurrently with Premiere etc.

Scroll down to near the end of the page to see the comparison table:

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/compare

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 16:08 UTC
On article Updated: Sony a9 samples with Raw support (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: It's way past time to stop pushing Adobe Camera Raw processing as any kind of reference standard.

The only standard it represents is that of lowest common denominator.

To achieve that it ignores tons of metadata that the camera supplied software understands and that can be used to produce a much better rendering using the manufacturer supplied raw processor.

I understand it respresents a tricky challenge, but hat doesn't mean it's a challenge that should be shirked.

I absolutely agree.
There are lots of other RAW processing programs, and many of them are free.
I wish that DPR would review / compare some of these programs, especially that plenty of people do not care for any of Adobe's products.
RawTherapee, Silkypix, Aftershot Pro, Affinity, On-1 RAW 2017, and Zoner are just a few examples.
I really get an upset stomach whenever I see ACR mentioned.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 13:36 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Nice article. Good to know some actual and practical use of this monster lens in the field, as well as the problem with filters.
I use my 16-35mm L quite a bit, and it has always come to the rescue in tight places. The ability to use 77mm filters on it is very convenient.

A question on the 1st image. It looks blue on my monitor (which is a 24", hi-res Samsung).
Is this the actual color of the cave, or is it "toned" to your liking?

Thank you, both, and yes, I meant the 2nd image.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2017 at 14:18 UTC

Nice article. Good to know some actual and practical use of this monster lens in the field, as well as the problem with filters.
I use my 16-35mm L quite a bit, and it has always come to the rescue in tight places. The ability to use 77mm filters on it is very convenient.

A question on the 1st image. It looks blue on my monitor (which is a 24", hi-res Samsung).
Is this the actual color of the cave, or is it "toned" to your liking?

Link | Posted on May 6, 2017 at 13:04 UTC as 82nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: So if you can’t use Sony then what should you use for Astrophotography? Canon has been said to have poor dynamic range and poor noise performance. Nikon doesn’t have the software support that Canon does. So what is left Olympus and Panasonic? Fuji? CCD with all of its cost?

Thanks again. Good to know.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 23:51 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: So if you can’t use Sony then what should you use for Astrophotography? Canon has been said to have poor dynamic range and poor noise performance. Nikon doesn’t have the software support that Canon does. So what is left Olympus and Panasonic? Fuji? CCD with all of its cost?

Thanks Toselli,
No I don't. I never owned a Pentax product.
How does the tracking work? By shifting the image accordingly?

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 22:37 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 (552 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: To DPR staff,
Thanks for the useful comparison.

QUESTION to staff:
I have seen, many times, statements like "poor dynamic range", "good dynamic range", "wide dynamic range", ..., etc.
Obviously these are subjective statements, unless they were substantiated.
My question is: How do you measure dynamic range at DPR to make these statements, and is there any plan to quantify such statements?
If not, should the reader assume that such statements are based solely on manufacturers' specs?

Thank you.

Thanks!

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 19:40 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: So if you can’t use Sony then what should you use for Astrophotography? Canon has been said to have poor dynamic range and poor noise performance. Nikon doesn’t have the software support that Canon does. So what is left Olympus and Panasonic? Fuji? CCD with all of its cost?

Thanks for clarifying. My comment was based on seeing it more than once.
You have a good point.
Cheers.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 19:04 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 (552 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: To DPR staff,
Thanks for the useful comparison.

QUESTION to staff:
I have seen, many times, statements like "poor dynamic range", "good dynamic range", "wide dynamic range", ..., etc.
Obviously these are subjective statements, unless they were substantiated.
My question is: How do you measure dynamic range at DPR to make these statements, and is there any plan to quantify such statements?
If not, should the reader assume that such statements are based solely on manufacturers' specs?

Thank you.

Thank you cale, but I don't know if they still use that method or not (that article is 17 years old).
Whether they do or not, the DR statements I'm talking about are not accompanied by any measures to quantify them (that 2000 article talks about 5 "quantitative measures", but we don't see them here).
Let's hope that we'll hear from the staff.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: So if you can’t use Sony then what should you use for Astrophotography? Canon has been said to have poor dynamic range and poor noise performance. Nikon doesn’t have the software support that Canon does. So what is left Olympus and Panasonic? Fuji? CCD with all of its cost?

@JensR
How many times do you have to tell the world that you have the Pentax K-1??

@mpgxsvcd
Some useful information and recommendations here:

http://soggyastronomer.com/the-best-dslr-cameras-for-astrophotography/

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 14:56 UTC
On article $138,000 unboxing video! (25 comments in total)

Quite a filthy mouth he has.
He should remember that families and youngsters watch his videos.
Not impressed by this bad-mouth character.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 14:39 UTC as 4th comment
Total: 1338, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »