Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 14, 2010


Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18
In reply to:

Light Pilgrim: Pretty much EVERY lens that Sigma releases is a NO GO for be due to the size and the weight. I just do not get it. I loved when Canon release the 16-35 F/4 IS as it is lighter than the f/2.8 version and is insanely sharp too, it has IS. I am using it solely for Landscape purposes. 135 and 85 are the portrait lenses for me and I am very tired carrying all the heavy and bulky gear with me all the time. I am not even looking into it. I hope that Canon releases something to replace their 85 and 135 mm that will be suited for high MP cameras and that it will not be big and heavy.

Body weight fluctuates 2-4 lbs daily, so carrying an extra 500g is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 15:31 UTC
In reply to:

Simon Zeev: Every time I see a new item I ask myself: "Do I really need this?"
Most of the time the answer is "NO"
The people that want to make an item have to ask themselves "How many people need the item and at what price?"
Sorry for them.

Unless you are professional then you don't even need a camera.....

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 21:53 UTC
On article Action-packed: Sony a6500 review (1147 comments in total)
In reply to:

josovicmi: Dear all
go to Studio Scene Comparison Tool. And compare picture quality of Sony A6500 against the other APS-C cameras. Particularly by high ISO from 1600 up.
I always prefare the quality of picture in a camera. This is the reason the camera is determined for.
Then I can not understand why any Olympus Four third camera or any of Canon APS-C products can have better evaluation than Sony A6500. Is there any interest of this Web to suppress Sony against other producers?
Everything else is for me not relevant.

Looking at the RAWS from 1600 up it ain't all that and a bag of chips......

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 22:52 UTC
On article LensRentals tests the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 FL ED (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

VadymA: I wish Nikon also upgraded their AF-D fast lenses as a less expensive alternative to these price monsters. I am sure if they take VR out and one or two fancy glass elements they could come up with a very sharp and fast (AF) 2.8 lens for about $1,000.

It's not about the cost it's about the market.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 00:41 UTC
In reply to:

Sezano: Not exactly street photography material. I might get attacked. For everything else, an amazing lens.

If your attempt to take a secret picture is noticed when you pull out a big lens?

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2016 at 17:41 UTC
On article Field Test: Shooting action with the Nikon D5 (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

VEK: Why D-Lighting? It is only for jpg. I presume he works in Raw.

A lot of D5 shooters shoot jpg.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Can we have one on NPS?

It doesn't fit the agenda.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2016 at 19:11 UTC

The VC is great all the way down to 1/60 in the test samples....WTG. Hand held at 1/60?? Amazing.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 13:56 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
On article Benchmark performance: Nikon D810 in-depth review (253 comments in total)

Just slightly ahead of the d7100 and way behind the d750. I'm sure some d810 owners will disagree with the rating.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 20:31 UTC as 66th comment
In reply to:

Bill Ferris: To my eye, the D5 at ISO 51200 is very usable. It's amazing to me that digital imaging has progressed so incredibly far in the last 10 years. A decade ago, ISO 51200 would have been pure marketing hype. Today, it's a usable shot.

Comparing the D5 to the D4s and 1DX at ISO 51200, the D5 image is both sharper and cleaner. In many regards, Is rate the D5 image at ISO 51200 as good as the 1DX image at ISO 25600. The edge isn't as significant in comparison to the D4s.

When you consider that Nikon achieved improved low light performance while increasing both resolution and frame rate, it's very impressive. I'm quite interested to see in-depth testing of the D5's AF performance. If it's able to focus more quickly, with greater accuracy and in lower light, that will be a real achievement. Give a wildlife photographer another 15 minutes of shoot time before sunrise or a couple more chances at capturing "the moment" in a short burst, and you give that photographer the world.

Blasphemy with today's 2 stop improvement or not worth it crowd.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

W5JCK: To be honest, beyond ISO 25600 in RAW it is NOT going to be very useful. You might salvage a RAW image at ISO 51200 with a lot of post processing, but at a high cost to IQ. JPEG is JPEG, meaning it is not really worth shooting in for pros or enthusiasts with an ounce of talent. So why even bother to add the totally BS ISO 3276800 setting in the menu, or for that matter, anything beyond ISO 51200. Just because you add it to the menu does NOT mean it is usable at all.

Professional sports shooter us JPEG and would probably take offense by judging talent only by jpeg or raw.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 17:30 UTC
On article Key features explained: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

bmwzimmer: Amazing High ISO Images taken with the 1DXii. The Blacks are so clean!!

That had more work done to it than Joan Rivers face.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 23:01 UTC
In reply to:

Eric Peltzer: Probably worth noting that not all DSLRs by any means make very good pro sports/wildlife bodies. That is a specialty even within DSLRs.

Agreed. Both Older and newer non-entry level Nikons would do a better job.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2015 at 22:19 UTC

The IQ and noise are terrible not to mention the colors. Also a pocket full of batteries?? No thanks.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2015 at 01:03 UTC as 73rd comment | 5 replies
On article Adobe expands Photoshop and Lightroom offer (628 comments in total)
In reply to:

ABM Barry: I don't think the Adobians will ever wake up to the fact that most of us would prefer to own our software.

I expect that they will continue to push the Cloud business model simply because it is very cost effective for them and they can change the rules at any time, as they do!

I predict that in the mean time, the competitors will eventually catch up and offer their wares at a market acceptance price point.

Like the Hunt Brothers and all other greedy companies that seek to monopolize a market, history tells us it's their very undoing.

The very reason that most of us use PS is the fact we know the program quite well and we are reluctant to change, .. True?

Adobe are by their actions are forcing lots of us to look elsewhere for our editing solutions.

When we find a good alternative, ... learn the key-strokes and workflow, we get the results we expected, guess what?, .. we stop thinking about Adobe.

Once freed of our Chains we wont want to return to prison.

Barry M Australia

Lighten up Francis....

This not a Patrick Henry moment.....

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 23:14 UTC
On article Adobe expands Photoshop and Lightroom offer (628 comments in total)
In reply to:

pumeco: Every time I see people whining about Adobe pricing they remind me of me before I wised-up and decided to ignore the greed altogether. I switched from a Windows/Corel setup to a Linux/RawTherapee/GIMP setup and have no reason to look back - none whatsoever.

Not only do I have a free setup, I also have an operating system that doesn't invade my privacy, I'm in control over what it does.

The only reason Adobe are the industry standard is because purchasers of their products put them there - they keep 'feeding' them. The alternatives are often more powerful and in a lot of cases (such as the setup specified above) free!

Spend your money on your wife, your kids, yourself even. Leave Adobe to their own devices and with a bit of luck they'll fold without you even knowing about it. If everyone used the GIMP and RawTherapee, those would eventually become the industry standard and Adobe would be no more.

It's simple really: stop whining, stop feeding them, and make that free switch!

If you use it to make money as a pro, it's drop in the bucket. If you are not a pro and it will make or break spending money on your wife and kids...give up the hobby all together.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 19:55 UTC

Call the wambulance....

Link | Posted on May 17, 2013 at 18:18 UTC as 22nd comment

the program doesn't reside in the cloud it resides on your computer. I just signed up under teacher/student (legitimate) for $19.99/month and it's every adobe program under the sun. I have CS6 and LR4 on my machine and have added my plugins and actions. I probably won't use the cloud space for files.

You also get 2 computers mac or windows. Now I can install the mac version on my daughter's macbook, which before I couldn't do with stand alone CS5.

I can see the pitchforks and torches for adobe and agree with folks, vote with your feet.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 18:49 UTC as 179th comment
Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18