ScottD1964

Lives in United States Anaheim, CA, United States
Joined on Jun 17, 2009

Comments

Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19
On article Pentax KP Review (658 comments in total)

Well built or not, that has to be one of the worst looking cameras I've ever seen. Not that looks of a camera matters if it performs well, but, with the 40mm pancake mounted it looks like the design team beat it with an ugly stick.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 03:05 UTC as 33rd comment | 8 replies
On article Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR sample gallery (284 comments in total)
In reply to:

photogeek: Fuji would have a real winner on its hands if X-T2 had effective IBIS. As it is today, I'll have to wait for X-T3.

You'll be waiting a lot longer than an X-T3 if you want IBIS in a Fuji. They have no intention on putting it in any of their cameras at any time. I don't see anyone complaining about lack of IBIS in any Leica, Canon or Nikon cameras but for Fuji it appears to be a deal breaker for many.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 21:24 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS Rebel T7i / EOS 800D (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

ScottD1964: Really Canon, an 18-55 f4-5.6 is an upgrade? You need to be looking at Fuji's all metal "kit lens" 18-55 f2.8-4 if you're thinking your new plastic lens is an upgrade.

Good grief.

They made it smaller by making it slower. It's still the same plastic piece of junk as the rest of them and costs the same $250 as the original STM version.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 23:16 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS Rebel T7i / EOS 800D (70 comments in total)

Really Canon, an 18-55 f4-5.6 is an upgrade? You need to be looking at Fuji's all metal "kit lens" 18-55 f2.8-4 if you're thinking your new plastic lens is an upgrade.

Good grief.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 19:42 UTC as 6th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

noflashplease: How about getting serious about photography and forgetting about this videocentric nonsense? Fujifilm really needs to dump X-Trans concept, stick with Bayer sensors and concentrate on making their RAW files compatible with Adobe applications. There's also that gaping hole between medium format and the stagnant APS-C market. Fujifilm is in the same awkward position as Pentax before the launch of the full frame K-1.

While they're at it, how about a serious Instax film camera with real glass optics, full control over exposure and maybe a hotshoe with TTL support?

Why should Fuji dump X-Trans to appease Adobe. They provide a perfectly usable program in Silkypix and Iredient seems to have knocked it out of the park. If Adobe can't be bothered to work their software to allow for optimum conversion of X-Trans based RAW files in an ever growing market share for Fuji then it's their loss. After all, if one guy working on his own pretty much can develop Iredient then the mighty and powerful Adobe should be able to come up with something usable after five years of trying.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 22:31 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: Loved Kodachrome, will never use it again. Don't get me wrong, it would be cool if they succeeded. But it's pure foolishness most likely. Kodak's flunky management from before somehow infected the thinking of these new guys.

Kodachrome is very expensive to make, process and support. It's also difficult to pass environmental standards. So the volume will have to be significant to make it go. What about today's depressed photography market makes Kodak think there is enough volume to support something that couldn't survive in a boom cycle?

One had hoped the new Kodak would have a clue.

It certainly couldn't be manufactured and processed in the US. Running a K-14 line requires skilled chemists. The US is an economy of Walmart employees and fast food workers now. We don't have the skilled, intelligent work force any longer to pull this off. When you dumb down your country like the US has things have to give at some point.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 23:11 UTC

I wonder how some of these newspapers would have handled this situation with their IPhone laden photo staffs? Chicago Sun-Times are you reading this.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2016 at 03:54 UTC as 51st comment | 1 reply
On article Fujifilm makes XF 90mm F2 R LM WR official (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

historianx: Can't even supply a hood. Pathetic, Fuji.

Actually a hood is supplied just alike all Fuji lenses. DPReview made an error in their text.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2015 at 18:40 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Review (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

lazy lightning: Hey where did my post go? I replied to a poster who had questioned the testing method of the X100S in relation to the Nikon A and Ricoh GR and thus the scoring between cameras reviewed.

My reply was something along the lines of; I noticed in the review that dpreview called the Nikon A and Ricoh GR "pretenders" and wondered if dpreview worked a sweet resellers deal with Fuji in order to sell the X100S in the dpreview GearShop.

I must have struck a nerve and considering the very real trust issues dpreview is having with members concerning the GearShop and it's relation to honest reviews going forward I shouldn't be surprised they chose to axe my post.

Hard to be objective, honest and transparent when chasing the almighty dollar.

I don't see how the new Gear Shop has anything to do with anything. You say that DPR can't be "honest and transparent chasing the almighty dollar" because of the Gear Shop? Funny thing is, DPR has been owned by Amazon since 2007. Guess they've just been fudging reviews to push sales there all along but no one ever noticed.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2013 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: Wow, a "120-30mm" lens? Really?

The 120-300 f2.8 is in it's 4th generation at this point and has been available for 7-8 years. Where you been? All kidding aside, I have the OS version prior to this one and for the money this lens is a true sleeper. Even the newest version is less than half the cost of a Canon 300 f2.8L IS MkII. Mine isn't as tack sharp as the Canon at f2.8 but the rest of the range it's stellar. For 90% of the IQ, half the cost and 120-299mm that the prime can't do it's a steal.

I've got a bunch of images using the lens with a Canon 7D posted in my gallery if you want to check some shots.

The new version is pretty much equal optically but adds a focus limiter and the ability to customize settings using the new USB dock.

Scott

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2013 at 14:52 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Review (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

David Hardaway: Unbelievable. This is the first time I have seen such a terrible review. All of the samples are random snaps most likely in auto or program mode and the results are not matching the conclusion. Another point is that the conclusion pros / cons are of little actual value to the reader. Jpegs are excellent? really. A $1,300 camera that is given a Gold Award no less says excellent jpgs. WOW. and that isn't even correct. I looked closely at every single sample image and they are terrible. Same old issue especially the mushiness. I am beside myself with disbelief that the reviewer has any real experience and knowledge in this field. I am sorry to say this because it's not "nice" but this has to be said.

Fuji has a great RAW processor for Xtans packaged with the camera. They gave all the needed algorithems to the other software manufacturers. You or anyone else choosing to use a subpar RAW processing program put out by another software company is Fuji's fault in what way?

People should try what is known to work correctly or quit complaining.

As far as video is concerned, Fuji ain't Canikon. They have obviously intended their cameras to be for still images with the option to shoot video. They aren't selling a $1300 camcorder. If I want to shoot video for personal use I'll buy an HD camcorder.

Leica just added video to the new "M" for the first time. How many Leica shooters do you think give two hoots about having video in that camera or said "Oh, I just bought a Leica M9 and I'm so upset because I can't shoot video".

Go play with your EOS-M or NEX for video and let the grown ups enjoy a "real" camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2013 at 00:56 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Review (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

David Hardaway: Unbelievable. This is the first time I have seen such a terrible review. All of the samples are random snaps most likely in auto or program mode and the results are not matching the conclusion. Another point is that the conclusion pros / cons are of little actual value to the reader. Jpegs are excellent? really. A $1,300 camera that is given a Gold Award no less says excellent jpgs. WOW. and that isn't even correct. I looked closely at every single sample image and they are terrible. Same old issue especially the mushiness. I am beside myself with disbelief that the reviewer has any real experience and knowledge in this field. I am sorry to say this because it's not "nice" but this has to be said.

Who's buying third party software for what? Really, for Xtrans results? How about everyone else that shoots RAW on any camera that has a Bayer or Foveon sensor too? Or did Canon/Nikon and all the other manufacturers purchase Adobe, Apple and all the other manufacturers of RAW processing software so they are no longer third party?

Other than Iredient for Mac (which from what I've read trumps just about everything else available for processing X trans files) I've had good results with Silkypix that comes with the camera from Fuji. Never really used the others so I'm not all that concerned with how much better workflow is with the other options. Silypix works fine for me.

Maybe if more people would actually use Silkypix for it's intended purpose rather than complaining about how the workflow isn't as smooth as what they do importing into one program, then working the image in another then complain that the images look muddy or plastic there wouldn't be all this issue.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2013 at 00:48 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Review (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

David Hardaway: I just reviewed the sample images that Barney took with the original x100. Night and day difference. The x100 images are very good and with good color and detail. X100s is clearly not an award winning camera so why is the dpreview gold being awarded to a jpg snapshot camera that is grossly overpriced?

All this negativity coming from someone who's back up camera is an EOS-M. The camera that's one of the biggest dogs of an ILC to come down the pike in years? The camera that Canon lowered the price to $299.00 with a lens? The camera that they're giving you the body for free when you buy the lens just to get it out of their inventory because it's so bad? That's what you use as your basis to slam the images and quality of the X100S? Really?

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2013 at 23:25 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Review (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

David Hardaway: Unbelievable. This is the first time I have seen such a terrible review. All of the samples are random snaps most likely in auto or program mode and the results are not matching the conclusion. Another point is that the conclusion pros / cons are of little actual value to the reader. Jpegs are excellent? really. A $1,300 camera that is given a Gold Award no less says excellent jpgs. WOW. and that isn't even correct. I looked closely at every single sample image and they are terrible. Same old issue especially the mushiness. I am beside myself with disbelief that the reviewer has any real experience and knowledge in this field. I am sorry to say this because it's not "nice" but this has to be said.

Are you just upset that the X100S is as good as it is and you are using an EOS-M or are you upset that you paid full price for your EOS-M before the bottom fell out on the price of a true "dog" of a camera. Sounds like equipment envy.

Anyone who has actually used an X100S at this point will know which portions of the review are acceptable as fact, which are nit picking issues and which (like using inferior RAW processors for your sample images) have no merit at all.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2013 at 23:18 UTC
In reply to:

jaygeephoto: Not big enough. Put a lens shade on that bad boy. Then we'll talk.

What a name. How about: OMG TL WAFT?
"Oh My 'Gosh' This Lens Weighs A 'Frickin' Ton"!

It will sell well especially since it will reportedly come with a bottle of ibuprofen and a discount coupon for a monopod.

Should be a seriously good lens for photographing a hockey game.

That lens can make your average elephant look small.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2013 at 12:50 UTC
In reply to:

ScottD1964: It's actually not an overly large lens. Bout the same size as a 300 f2.8 prime. 6lbs give or take. Not super heavy but not light enough that I wouldn't use a monopod. I have the current version and love it. This one should be even better.

Canon did an amazing job reducing the weight on the updates of the new super teles (300-600). That being said I completely agree with you Steve. I'm not one to play hero and hand hold a lens of this size for any significant period of time. No IS in the world can correct poor images due to arm fatigue. A monopod is worth every penny in these cases.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2013 at 12:47 UTC
In reply to:

Spectro: If this was under 2k, I would be all over this lens. Sigma has been really impressive, hope the qc improve. Got 2 sigma, got some af issues sometimes.

Currently B&H is listing the new lens at a Pre-order price of $3599 and the current version at $2799. I paid $3199 for mine. Less than half the cost of the canon 300 prime and I'd say about 90-95% as good IQ wise.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2013 at 12:43 UTC

Oh, and as far as shooting hockey. Not great at ice level. Holes in the boards are too small and the lens is too big (70-200 works much better) but worked great for me from above ice with a Canon 7D for the NHL shooting I did this season. FOV of a 192-480 on the APS-C sensor bodies.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2013 at 00:48 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply

It's actually not an overly large lens. Bout the same size as a 300 f2.8 prime. 6lbs give or take. Not super heavy but not light enough that I wouldn't use a monopod. I have the current version and love it. This one should be even better.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2013 at 00:45 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies
Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19