Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 1, 2010


Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3
On article Roger Cicala compares three 24-70mm F2.8 lenses (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

PatrickP: the resolution of the said lenses seem to correlate with age more than anything. for premium lenses, the newer ones always resolve more.

Canon had a 24-70/2.8L for quite a while before the Nikon 24-70 shows up. Nikon 24-70 was crowed as the best out of the best for the past 5 years, until the Canon MkII shows up and claimed the throne.

I am sure once a Mark II from Nikon (hopefully with VR) shows up it would be the best again, so would be the Mark III from Canon. it's always a leap-frog between the two.

You know that "Zeiss" ZA lenses are manufactured by Sony, right? Zeiss is nothing more than a marketing gimmick when it comes to A-mount lenses.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2013 at 20:47 UTC
On article Best Camera of 2012: And the Winner is... (1413 comments in total)
In reply to:

thomas2279f: Don't Agree with no 1 at all , No 2 and no 3 yes would shift them up one place followed by the Sony Nex 6N, Nikon D600 and Canon 6D and Sony A99.

> so much so that processing their RAW's is almost pointless.

Yeh, I don't think you really understand the point of postprocessing or the advantages of using RAW.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2013 at 02:04 UTC
In reply to:

Buzzzman: A 45 mm lens is not a portrait lens. A 45 mm lens is just a cropped 45mm image-nothing more The reason Longer lenses are used in portraiture, are flatten out facial features.- a 45mm on any small sensor won't do that. So- if it was produced only to emulate a portrait lens-- it is a complete failure.
Max headroom- you shouldn't tell others they don 't know what they are talking about,, when obviously, you don't know what you are talking about. .Believing 45 mm lens is the same as 90- on that small sensor is is just flat out wrong... This is one of the most misunderstood terms in Digital Photography.
Hey- i believed a 50 mm lens on my Nikon DSLR was equivalent to a 75m (1.5x)for several years, before I realized I was wrong...
If you don't believe me -just google "crop factor.

It always amuses me when the ones who yell the loudest are those who are the most incorrect.

Compression of facial features has absolutely nothing to do with focal length. The only thing that determines it is distance to the subject. A basic understanding of geometry is all that is required to understand why this is the case.

Your understanding of how crop factor affects an image seems to be limited and you're probably just parroting something you heard someone else say.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2011 at 20:21 UTC
Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3