Lives in United States United States
Joined on Nov 22, 2001


Total: 165, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I hate when they bring out new TS lenses, I can't resist the things.

And why is the one of the first things anybody complains about is "why can't I use a polarizer?" You can't, get over it.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 18:51 UTC as 7th comment | 7 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Fujifilm F10 (120 comments in total)

Still got mine somewhere, at the time it was pretty impressive.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2016 at 01:15 UTC as 36th comment
On article Nikon 105mm F1.4E ED sample images (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

angelo di candia: nikon lens, sigma look pictures.
sharpness, sharpness, sharpness - but ZERO character.

Think what you like. People who view photography strictly in terms of how many pixels they can put on a page are not professionals.

Gimmick or not, it doesn't work on your 6s, so why do you care?

I'm sure "Pros" everywhere are shaking in their boots.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2016 at 20:44 UTC
On article Nikon 105mm F1.4E ED sample images (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

angelo di candia: nikon lens, sigma look pictures.
sharpness, sharpness, sharpness - but ZERO character.

That's okay, I'm good with adding that myself.

Stick with an iPhone 7 and the phony depth of field gimmick.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2016 at 23:56 UTC
In reply to:

whakapu: It's amazing how Fuji has repositioned their brand. 10 years ago I associated Fujifilm with... Fuji film, and with cheap and slightly crappy superzooms producing smeary jpegs. Now, Fujifilm means premium quality.

It meant premium quality then, as well.

You just weren't looking being their low-end consumer products.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 21:28 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

NeilJones: I always laugh when they say it's also geared towards a working pro sports shooter. Yeah a pro sports shooter would use 4/3 when so many great full frame sports camera's!

Maybe they don't want to carry the extra 30LBs of gear.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 19:41 UTC
In reply to:

User6915810299: There is many cameras professional with full frame sensors. But questions is about professional settings or they use auto modes ?. For example for me I don't need any those professional settings because I always taking pictures in auto modes !. This war I mostly need, just big sensor with good auto modes, full articulated screen, high ISO, time lapse option, 4K video and that is almost it !. I don't even need GPS and I always turning GPS off to safe battery !. Also super zoom fixed lens will be great too but with full frame sensor or even bigger !. Camera makers putting a lot of stuff which majority users never using but all that extra stuff making cameras very expensive for nothing !. By the way FULL frame sensors also to much expensive and CPU is more sophisticated then sensors which is just with many pixels !. Not sensor it self is expensive but all that staff inside which many users never using !. Make new cameras without that stupid extra stuff and cameras with full frame sensors will much less expensive but if someone wants super dupoer staff then they will have options to do that ! By the way about those super expensive professional lenses ? Who can afford that and very heavy too ?!

I'm gonna go out on a limb, and say you may not be the target demographic.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 20:10 UTC

Two Focal lengths is not really a zoom is it?

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 21:03 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to: Well, that's a lot of gear, but image how much the thieves have amassed by now!

I wonder if the thieves have a Loaner Program?

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 23:36 UTC
In reply to:

Spectro: lovely, now that is different. my sigma 85 1,4 has focusing/af issues and minimal focusing distance is too far. Maybe this will drop the nikkor 85mm f1.4 down some for a replacement. Otherwise this 105 could be a poorman nikkor 200mm f2.

There are no poor men, or women, for that matter, buying either of these.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 08:02 UTC
In reply to:

nokinonacynos: At that price why would anyone buy this instead of the 85mm 1.4? Crop the 85mm to 105mm and you have equiv. f-stop of 1.7. Less than one third stop diff in DOF. With the current crop of high mp cams, a small crop like this would be nothing. The 85mm would be more flexible and with pretty much the same size and weight.

Some of us like 105mm better for portraits.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 07:59 UTC
In reply to:

nokinonacynos: Can't understand why they come out with this instead of a 135mm f/2 VR. This 105 is just a marketing gimmick to claim world's fastest 105.

Good thing we're not discussing it, that would play right into their scheme.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 07:57 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: 105mm and ... f/1.4? What a waste of glass.
Why not f/2 and make it more bijou and optically superior for digital?
But modern faux-Avedons and pretentious videographers wouldn't know what it means, so give them the f/1.4 because that is all they know.

They already make the excellent 105mm f2 DC Nikkor.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 07:55 UTC
In reply to:

BeaverTerror: What sets this apart from the other devices on the market?

Is it Unicorn recommended?

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 21:36 UTC

Sounds like utter BS to me

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 21:31 UTC as 4th comment

Duh, I'm pretty sure I said this a decade ago.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 19:55 UTC as 48th comment
In reply to:

Shake Reduction: Hey, another slow m4/3 zoom!

Just can't get enough of them for some reason.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 19:28 UTC
In reply to:

callaesthetics: 40-150 f2.8 + teleconverter = this lens?

That would be a 420 f5.6, so no, it wouldn't be the same thing.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2016 at 22:31 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Sharpest ever? M43 requires TWICE sharper lens for equivalent output. LOL

Considering how sharp their other pro lenses are, that statement, if true, would indicate very impressive performance.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 00:03 UTC
In reply to:

callaesthetics: 40-150 f2.8 + teleconverter = this lens?

The teleconverter is designed for only the 40-150 and the 300, and it is very good. It's very hard to discern any image quality loss when using it on the 40-150, I'll get back to you when I get a 300.

And, in theory, despite the greater magnification, the DOF should remain the same, giving the greater subject isolation everybody on this forum whines about incessantly.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 00:00 UTC
Total: 165, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »