ChapelThrill23

Joined on Dec 7, 2011

Comments

Total: 97, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Good. Anyone given the level of power that police officers have needs to be held accountable and in too many jurisdictions they aren't and citizens are abused as a result. I'm all for increasing training, pay, and accountability for police officers. In my experience most officers are responsible public servants but I know a lot of people who were mediocre bullies who spent a lot of time in trouble who ended up becoming cops or deputies because a field that gives someone so much power over other people with what is often limited accountability is incredibly attractive to people with that type of personality. The more ways we have to weed out the bad apples the better.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 23:07 UTC as 8th comment
On article Review: Nikon D7500, speed and capability (449 comments in total)
In reply to:

jrobbie3: What?? Why, Spend your money wisely; buy a used D700 or D3 if you can afford it. Why spend your good money on point and shoot cameras that normally end up in the beyond repair bin in short order. If you are a Canon shooter try a 5D Mk III. Everything else is "upgraded bells and whistles".

Absurd. A D700 is a decade old at this point.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 03:32 UTC
In reply to:

Fotoni: Weird focal length range. I would prefer 43-135mm zoom which include both normal and portrait range . Wide views can be done with panorama and it looks more natural, if not too much motion between shots. You also get tons of resolution.

I don't think the focal range is weird but I would love a 50-150 again. I'd prefer it to my 70-200.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2017 at 18:50 UTC
On article Shooting experience: how the Nikon D7500 won me over (194 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joed700: It's nice to see that Nikon has put so much effort into their APS-C sensors and bodies. I wish they would have done the same thing with their FF systems. The only reason I'm not getting the D500 or alike is that there are not too many good dedicated lenses for APS-C from Nikon. Sigma have some good ones, but they are not , as always, consistent with AF performance...

To be fair a big part of the reason that Nikon doesn't offer more APS-C primes is that many of the full frame primes translate well to APSC. What would be the point of an APS-C 50mm when Nikon already has some good full frame ones and something like the 1.8G isn't expensive? Why come out with an APSC 85mm when the 85mm 1.8G is a winner? The area that Nikon could do better with is wide APS-C primes.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2017 at 20:03 UTC
On article Shooting experience: how the Nikon D7500 won me over (194 comments in total)

Modern SLRs tend to be evolutionary and a lot of people on here hate on them because they are rarely groundbreaking but the fact is that a good modern DSLR is a phenomenally capable camera. Even the entry level ones are capable of producing fantastic images in most situations and can match or exceed much more expensive cameras from just a few years ago.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2017 at 20:01 UTC as 25th comment | 17 replies
In reply to:

elee1967: The 50 mm is not mentioned, because it doesn't have a gold ring?

"The 58mm is _supposedly_ the more upmarket version of 50mm f/1.4; yet it had mixed reviews at best, and was simply crushed by the Sigma 50A."

Perhaps in terms of sharpness but sharpness at 100 crops is overrated for a lot of applications. Rendering matters far more to me in terms of how pleasing an image is and the 58G is fantastic in terms of how it renders out of focus areas .

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 15:40 UTC
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: 28mm and 50mm are the two most useless prime lenses for me.

If someone gave me even the f1.8 versions for free, I'd turn around and sell it.

To each his own. Personally I find a 28mm prime to be extremely useful indoors in tight quarters.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 15:38 UTC
In reply to:

Leonp: I think fast lenses are overrated. First, since digital went over 1000 ISO with great quality, there's no need for lenses be fast anymore. Remember the days when you just had to shoot with 100 ISO?
Then shallow depth of field. Yes, big lenses are the only way to achive this properly. But: shallow DOF is in fact only one of the many many things you can do to make a great photo. If you really need it, great and so be it. But I think it overrated for most people to spend half their budget on lenses being fast and carry around double the weight all the time. And do you use it or dit you try once and conclude that accurate (portrait) focussing was hardly possible not because of your equipment but because of the shallow DOF itself?

I would like to see more F4 series lenses of great quality.

I'm with you. I think the sweet spot for a lens like this is 2.8 and not 4. I'd love a 135 2.8. Used to have a Minolta one and it was 365 grams. Wonderful size for a prime lens.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 18:06 UTC

Honestly what I'd love is a 135 2.8. I used to have a Minolta 135 2.8. 365 grams and 55mm filters. I love small, unobtrusive, and light primes and thats a big reason why I've never had much interest in Sigma's massive, though very good, bricks. Were I a pixel peeper I'm sure I'd worship them but for me the extra speed just isn't worth the weight and conspicuousness.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 18:04 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

ottonis: Apple lowering prices of the new iPad means that iPad sales must be in serious trouble.
Moreover, why are they using a CPU from yesteryear?

I disagree with the suggestion earlier in this thread that tablet demand is down because they are useless. The issue is that the market is saturated and there really isn't that compelling a reason for a lot of tablet users to upgrade to newer versions. I use my iPad to stream video and to do web browsing and so do many people. Mine is several years old now but easily can handle those tasks so I have very little incentive to upgrade despite the fact that I find the tablet to be tremendously useful.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 17:36 UTC
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: You guys are missing a huge opportunity by not mounting this lens on a Merrill....who knows how the elves in the Sigma lab have synergized the interaction between their amazing foveon sensor and the wonderousness of this lens? Who knows? Nobody, that's who because no other review site has the courage to dare try such a combo. Go for it!

It would be interesting to see if they could spur sales of their bodies and grow the mount by selling this for the Sigma mount at cost. A lot of people would potentially be interested in getting a lens lineup that was nothing but art lenses at a discounted price.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 17:03 UTC
In reply to:

Petroglyph: Nikon D750 = 1800$ => in round up. Pentax K1 = 1900$ => not in round up.

Nikon D750 would not use for pro landscape work.

Pentax K1 probably one of the best pro landscape cameras around.

?

That is just silly. People have used far lesser bodies than a d750 for professional landscape work. Plus Nikon has a much better collection of lenses for the landscape photographer.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2016 at 00:15 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Nikon D40 (176 comments in total)

These are still capable of producing great images. The best person in my local photography group still uses one. She is a college student who can't afford any better. Other people might come in with sharper images, with better dynamic range, and less noise but nobody comes in with images as compelling as she does. Her understanding of composition and ability to think outside the box allows her to make images more compelling than those with $10,000 worth of equipment in their bag. My point is that in the right hands a D40 with a kit lens can be used in creating amazing images that easily better someone without as much talent with a D810 and a top flight lens. I count myself among those with much nicer gear but nowhere near the imagination.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 15:39 UTC as 8th comment

I don't get it. The photographer, who is actually extremely good, at my son's pre-school took two dozen better portraits last week.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 02:08 UTC as 72nd comment | 3 replies

Incredible work!

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 11:58 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Khairil: Why waste money on apple? Asus, Acer, HP and even Microsoft have far better high-end / flagship laptops..

Tell me which one of those runs OSX? I wouldn't touch a Windows laptop. Windows 10 is awful.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 11:44 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (766 comments in total)

My first digital was an Olympus C3030. Bought it in around 2000. I'm not even positive what the first film camera I used was but first I bought was a Minolta 7000.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2016 at 00:52 UTC as 138th comment
In reply to:

Zakzoezie: Of course stock will be low, only diehard A-mount users who heavily invested in A-mount lenses will buy it. Looking at the price of this beast, the other part of the remaining A-mount users will simply continue to switch to other systems, no matter how good this camera is. That is a logical consequence of the superintelligent Sony strategy to abandon its former A-mount customers by introducing a completely new & different FF mount system in parallel. It almost looks like a suicide fairy tail ...

Minolta does have some good legacy glass (for instance the 85 1.4 is my favorite lens ever) but at this point a lot of that is very long in the tooth. The Minolta 70-210/4 for instance is very good for the money but can strugle on modern sensors and doesn't have great AF. It does have awesome colors though.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2016 at 13:24 UTC
In reply to:

Zakzoezie: Of course stock will be low, only diehard A-mount users who heavily invested in A-mount lenses will buy it. Looking at the price of this beast, the other part of the remaining A-mount users will simply continue to switch to other systems, no matter how good this camera is. That is a logical consequence of the superintelligent Sony strategy to abandon its former A-mount customers by introducing a completely new & different FF mount system in parallel. It almost looks like a suicide fairy tail ...

A big thing Sony is missing is more moderately priced glass. For instance Nikon has a fantastic 1.8G line that includes a 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm. Each is $800 or less and all are very good with some being exceptional. Sony can't match that. They have a slower 85mm prime and a reasonably priced 50 but can't match most of that. Nor do they have a sub $1000 wide angle. The 16-35 is good but $2250! Nikon has a fantastic 18-35G for $750. The Sony 70-300G is also laughably priced. I used to own it. It is a solid lens but not a $1150 lens.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2016 at 12:30 UTC
In reply to:

kobakokh: this is very good camera, but in this price its will be difficult for switch for Canon and Nikon users, but for rich beginners will be great...

With a system switch for a high end user the biggest investment is often the lenses. That $3100 is just the tip of the iceberg of what it would cost for me to go to Sony. It'd be a minimum of $10,000. Of course I'd make money selling my Nikon gear but wouldn't get what I paid for things.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2016 at 10:48 UTC
Total: 97, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »