ksgant

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 31, 2006

Comments

Total: 111, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

nelsonal: GIMP might actually be ready to absorb all the disgruntled adobe users now.

Um...yeah. It's not. At least not for me. Never could get used to the interface. I can take slight changes over the evolution of Photoshop, but switching totally to GIMP I just couldn't ever get the hang of it. Others can though, and that's great.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2012 at 20:28 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 preview extended (279 comments in total)
In reply to:

Najinsky: They lost me. Focus peaking's raison d'etre is quickly judging manual focus within your composition. If you have to go to magnified view, it's near pointless.

The most likely reason is there are too many megapixels for the processor to deal with in real time, perhaps a consequence of the small size and underpowered battery.

With a large sensor and wide aperture, focus is critical, and I just don't see how to quickly focus different parts of the frame from shot to shot, without FP. So it will be centre point for focus, recompose and fire (with the errors that brings), or manually set the focus area for each shot, which is slow (by comparison).

I'll guess I'll have to wait for some real world shooting feedback, but the development is a big dissapointment and moves me from buy to wait.

This may be the case, but I can't believe that a brand new camera would with current processors would have a problem with keeping up with focus peaking.

I mean, the 3rd-party firmware MagicLantern that you can hack various Canon SLR's with has a focus peaking mode, and it keeps up with a 4 year old 5DmkII rather well.

Also, their explanation for this kind of makes sense: "the VGA screen on the RX1 doesn't allow precise enough rendering of focus peaking to ensure accurate focus with the F2 lens' shallow depth-of-field, so focus peaking is only available in magnified focus."

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2012 at 08:04 UTC
On article The iPad Workflow (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

BruceBorowski: No I would never buy on on principle - slave labor

Then you shouldn't buy any computing device...or any electronic device at all. The places that Apple uses for it's hardware build devices for a myriad of other companies. So while I applaud your convictions, you should stop using all computers and electronic devices immediately, else you'd be labeled a hypocrite.

I suggest using a company like Gazelle to sell all your computers and devices, then take the money and donate it to a human-rights charity. I'm sure you'll do fine without the Internet or cell phones. The world got along just fine without them for a long time. Take care and have fun "off the grid"!

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2012 at 23:09 UTC
On article The iPad Workflow (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kabe Luna: Longtime Apple user here. The cost of an iPad, given it's usefulness/functionality (or lack thereof) is just silly. Which is why I don't own one and can't foresee doing so in the near future. And why in the world would anyone interject an iPad into their workflow as an intermediate device when there are tools less expensive and more capable that can accommodate a photographer's workflow start to finish? I don't get it.

For me, I simply use the iPad as a tool when visiting with a client. It's not part of my workflow at all and everything I do is with Photoshop and Lightroom. I used to use a laptop with clients, but have found it much easier with the iPad to show work. Talk about rates, talk about what they want printed etc etc. I treat it as a presentation device only with clients. In that regard, it works very well.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2012 at 14:38 UTC
On article iPhone 5 vs. iPhone 4S: Image comparison (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prestidigitator: The camera on this crApple iFruitcake is not worth an article here in DPR. Write an article when the hypePhone finally manages to reach the level of the Nokia N82, Samsung Innov8 or Nokia N8. We can of course forget about it even reaching the level of the mighty Nokia PureView 808 given a decade. Why the iSheep would even line up in front of a store to get this model is really one of the greatest mysteries in the world. Are they too intellectually-challenged to order it online?

Prestidigitator, your comment couldn't be directed at me, as I'm a great admirer of your writings. You should really think about doing a podcast!

I like the "hypePhoto" and "iSheep" too. LOL, where do you come up with that! That's just genius.

And I agree jedics, those iPhonies cost thousands and thousands of dollars and they're no better than the n82. Like most people, I buy a phone (and also, i wouldn't spend over $200 for one, unlike the "hypePhone" which costs like $10,000 or whatever) for it's camera and its camera only. That's why I haven't bought one of those mobile phones at all because they're cameras aren't good enough yet. I mean, why else would you want a phone except for a camera? I don't get it.

You guys are the best! Thanks for brightening my day.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2012 at 11:25 UTC
On article iPhone 5 vs. iPhone 4S: Image comparison (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prestidigitator: The camera on this crApple iFruitcake is not worth an article here in DPR. Write an article when the hypePhone finally manages to reach the level of the Nokia N82, Samsung Innov8 or Nokia N8. We can of course forget about it even reaching the level of the mighty Nokia PureView 808 given a decade. Why the iSheep would even line up in front of a store to get this model is really one of the greatest mysteries in the world. Are they too intellectually-challenged to order it online?

Prestidigitator, you're really cool! Do you have a newsletter or blog we can subscribe to?

I like how you use "iSheep" and "hypePhone"! You're totally original and creative. Seriously, I'd like to see what else you write and you're amazing photos (I mean, I can just tell you're a world class photographer and blogger).

Looking forward to your insightful and compelling views on todays technology. I think you can become the next Ken Rockwell!

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2012 at 12:49 UTC

Before I start, I think it's great that Fuji is still working on their products like this.

But what I don't understand why they can't implement focus peeking (or peaking...not sure which) into the camera for easier manual focusing.

They could do this with a firmware update. They MUST be able to do this. Why am I certain they could? Take a look at the "firmware hack" that's called Magic Lantern for Canon cameras. That's a hack, not made by Canon at all, yet it allows my 3 year old 5DMkII to have focus peeking via live view...which I use all the time now for certain shots...not to mention a ton of other enhancements and software for the Canon line.

Imagine what Fugi could do since they KNOW the intertal programming specs for the Xpro-1. So wouldn't it be logical to assume that they could implement focus peeking for this camera for more precise manual focusing?

Check out Magic Lantern here:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/releasenotes

I don't know, am I way off base here?

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2012 at 14:06 UTC as 14th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

MattiD80: D800 85%
D800E 84%

5d mIII 80%

That's how i see it after reading tons of reviews. Funny to see Dpreview thinks the opposite way. Money not important to DPR so 5d gets status quo. A very very very tiny sharpness increase give 2% extra, without getting price penalty XD I disagree again.

D800 (non e) is by far the best purchase at the moment, of an enthousiast who want fullframe but doenst have endless amounts of money.

Agreed. I know I can't enjoy the camera I have unless I bash the competition. That's what's important, not the way you use your camera or your skills as a photographer.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2012 at 07:16 UTC
In reply to:

jtan163: For all the "it's more expensive than a wintel" ppl, do the math, compare the numbers on a, like quality wintel laptop - slower CPU, 1/2 the mem, and 1/4 the SSD and less pixels.

http://shopap.lenovo.com/au/en/products/laptops/thinkpad/w-series/
http://shopap.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/auweb/LenovoPortal/en_AU/builder.workflow:Enter?sb=%3A000000AD%3A000003E6%3A&smid=6B705CA322AC4DC9BA438330B16F57E7
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC976LL/A?

High End Default Lenovo W 520
CPU: i7 2.4Ghz
Memory: 4G
Solid State Drive: 128G
Screen Size: 15.6"
Screen Res: 1600x900
Video: NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (2Gb)
720p Camera: No
Ethernet Port: Yes
DVD Writer: Yes
Bluetooth: no
Cost: $2869

High End Default MacBookPro
CPU: i7 2.5G
Memory: 8G
Solid State Drive: 512G
Screen Size:
Screen Res: 2200x1600
Video: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M (1G) + Intel 4000
720p Camera: yes
Ethernet Port: no
DVD Writer: no
Bluetooth: yes
Cost: $2799
DVD and ethernet for the Mac cost $108.

I have to say though, when I was watching the description of the new MacBook, I was saying to myself "there's no way this is going to be under $3K". I was shocked to see it at "only" $2200.

But then again, even if it was $200 bucks I still couldn't afford it.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2012 at 05:58 UTC
In reply to:

NancyP: Good grief! Is anyone wondering how they will read their email, program buttons and boxes, and so on? 1650 x 1080 native is already hard to read , font size can be very small. If I want to pixel peep within Lightroom , I can do so easily in my mid-2010 MBP 15", and if I want to do color-critical work and printing, I do it on my calibrated NEC PA monitor.

but that's not how this is working. Everything doesn't get smaller, it stays the same size, it's just that everything is "resolved" at a higher res.

It's like watching a 480p res movie on your 50" plasma. Even though the res of the plasma is 1080p, the movie still plays full screen and not as a tiny box in the middle. But then you put the same movie in with 1080p res and everything is resolved with a higher res.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2012 at 05:55 UTC
In reply to:

LaFonte: good thing: - sharp fonts and sharp images, crisp display
bad thing: now it takes twice as much power and the battery also has to be nearly twice larger to keep with last year MBP - and nothing inside is now user replaceable or upgradeable, everything is soldered.

I see this retina craziness really counterproductive with the much increased energy consumption..
The ipad 2 has 25w/h battery for 10 hr run, the ipad 3 needed 45w/h battery to drive the power hungry retina so it can still get 10 hours.
Now an ipad 3 with non retina display would easily run 18 hours.
If I have choice I would choose 18hr run time over retina display any time.

Same for MBP, yes retina is nice to look at but now we need to run the devices with twice as much power!

I have an iPad (3), my wife has an iPad 2. I read and surf the web and do various apps on my iPad and think to myself "meh, I could have stuck with an iPad 2...that is until I pick up my wife's and use it and it's like night and day. I swear, it's like I thought something was wrong with her iPad for a second because everything was just so different.

There's no way I could go back to that lower res screen now.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2012 at 05:49 UTC
In reply to:

Provia_fan: I am shocked at he amount of "wisdom" in this comment thread.

1.The Fujifilm is a rangefinder-like camera, the Sony R1 is and SLR- like bridge camera, totally different tools in the way they work.

2. Fujinon lenses are among the most highly acclaimed and have been so for decades (this one is for you so called photographers that only picked up a camera yesterday and never even handled a roll of film and think they are veterans)

3. Fujifilm is right to offer a 28mm converter, why should they jump straight to 24mm? Who told you they are not making a 24mm adapter anyway?

4.The viewfinder on it it is also highly acclaimed and agreed to be very innovative among real photographers who use it in the real world. It's not an alternative, it has been built into it along with that high quality expensive optic. Innovation and quality have a price.

5. As pointed by others the converter is all glass is not a cheap crap plastic converter like the one that Olympus has made for macro for example. 'Great lens too bad about the cheap plastic crap in front of it'

6. The lens on the R1 is a great lens, but it's a zoom lens, zoom lenses even today, will suffer from a level of pincushion and barrel distortion and softness in the corners that prime lenses simply don't, so so much for that comparison in what concerns optical quality. More versatile maybe, but I prefer to go into the action to take my shots so zoom for me is not a priority.

7. The DP1....nice camera indeed, but where's the finder and where's the low light performance? Ditto NX series?

....I could go on, but it would be a waste of time. The X100 is not a perfect camera but it is still an excellent camera and one for those who understand what it is and how to use it. If you never used a rangefinder before or don't like rangefinders, forget it. If you wanna learn how to use a rangefinder, get a film one, learn it, fall in love with how it works and then get the X100 or the X-Pro 1. If rangefinders are not for you look somewhere else.

Seems to me that a lot of people and not only in this forum, don't understand the fundamental differences between different camera types and have little knowledge or experience and make huge statements based on their narrow view of things.

But, it's not a rangefinder because of the very fact that it isn't a rangefinder nor does it act like a rangefinder in the way it focuses. The reason rangefinder camera's are called rangefinders is BECAUSE of the rangefinder mechanism on them.

Yes, it may look like one, but it's not one. No, it's not because it has autofocus. I'm not trying to be a purist here, nor do I use Leica's (I did use an M3 about 20-25 years ago for a while). I'd like to have it as an autofocus camera with a better system, but let it also have a good manual focus ability. While I couldn't hope for a rangefinder mechanism on it as that would significantly add to the cost (calibrating one is a pain), I'd like to have something like focus-peeking (peaking?) to show manual focusing.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2012 at 22:30 UTC
In reply to:

Provia_fan: I am shocked at he amount of "wisdom" in this comment thread.

1.The Fujifilm is a rangefinder-like camera, the Sony R1 is and SLR- like bridge camera, totally different tools in the way they work.

2. Fujinon lenses are among the most highly acclaimed and have been so for decades (this one is for you so called photographers that only picked up a camera yesterday and never even handled a roll of film and think they are veterans)

3. Fujifilm is right to offer a 28mm converter, why should they jump straight to 24mm? Who told you they are not making a 24mm adapter anyway?

4.The viewfinder on it it is also highly acclaimed and agreed to be very innovative among real photographers who use it in the real world. It's not an alternative, it has been built into it along with that high quality expensive optic. Innovation and quality have a price.

5. As pointed by others the converter is all glass is not a cheap crap plastic converter like the one that Olympus has made for macro for example. 'Great lens too bad about the cheap plastic crap in front of it'

6. The lens on the R1 is a great lens, but it's a zoom lens, zoom lenses even today, will suffer from a level of pincushion and barrel distortion and softness in the corners that prime lenses simply don't, so so much for that comparison in what concerns optical quality. More versatile maybe, but I prefer to go into the action to take my shots so zoom for me is not a priority.

7. The DP1....nice camera indeed, but where's the finder and where's the low light performance? Ditto NX series?

....I could go on, but it would be a waste of time. The X100 is not a perfect camera but it is still an excellent camera and one for those who understand what it is and how to use it. If you never used a rangefinder before or don't like rangefinders, forget it. If you wanna learn how to use a rangefinder, get a film one, learn it, fall in love with how it works and then get the X100 or the X-Pro 1. If rangefinders are not for you look somewhere else.

Seems to me that a lot of people and not only in this forum, don't understand the fundamental differences between different camera types and have little knowledge or experience and make huge statements based on their narrow view of things.

The X100 isn't a rangefinder. It doesn't work like a rangefinder. I wish it DID act like a rangefinder. But you're at the mercy of the very slow and very imprecise auto-focus. The image quality is top-notch, I'll give you that. But just because it looks like a rangefinder doesn't mean it IS a rangefinder. Ever try to manually focus this? It can be done I suppose, but if you're thinking you're going to go out and shoot manually and be the next Henri Cartier-Bresson, you're going to have a bad time.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2012 at 15:04 UTC
In reply to:

Dougbm_2: Seems pointless. Might as well buy an X-Pro-1. Only 28mm?? Fuji got this one wrong. It should either be 24mm or a 3 x tele or preferably a 28-112mm.
Anyway the whole point of the original camera appears to have been forgotten - by it's creators. A simple and light weight form with fixed lens that is the digital equivalent of film rangefinder style cameras (with the added bonuses newer technology brings). Won't be buying this for my X100.

Thanks mhike, I had no idea what he was saying. It was all gibberish until you explained it. I copied and pasted his post into a text editor, took away that one little apostrophe, then the entire post was readable!

Bravo! I wouldn't have understood his post without doing that. You're a genuine asset to the community.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2012 at 14:54 UTC
On article Adobe announces Photoshop CS6 and CS6 Extended (71 comments in total)
In reply to:

MisterNo: I have used Photoshop since 1998 when Photoshop 5 was released. It look beautiful, although was a challenge for machine. In pentium III era it was fast. I stop tracing versions after Photoshop 6 and I have no idea what is going on with CS series and how all that "evolved". I'm using CS5 currently and I don't care about upgrades, when menus now look more complicated, and constantly modified with tons of sub-options added.
I had known in Photoshop 5 almost every icon, menu, keyboard shortcut and was pretty fast in image processing. Now in CS5 it takes me even more time to do a basic things and everything seems sluggish and slower. I have Quad core Raid machine with 8GB of RAM.
Who really needs all those options in CS5 and what is the purpose of upgrade other than reselling something in a new package with hint of a new spice. I always needed something else than a cascade or free floating windows, some better organization of all open files and I still don't see that!

CS6 is worth the upgrade though with a lot of good interface features. At least, for me personally, no one can speak for everyone. I just stick with the regular Photoshop and not the "extended" version.

Work with what works for you. If the version you have works fine for you, no need to upgrade. Some of us have to stay current so that if we have a customer that has the very latest version and we're swapping assemblies around, they match up pretty well. There are ways around this of course, just less hassle.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2012 at 17:00 UTC
On article Adobe announces Photoshop CS6 and CS6 Extended (71 comments in total)

I lucked out. I didn't have any license of Photoshop for quite a while. Always just used the Photoshop seats that whatever pre-press house I was working at had.

Two months ago, Amazon sent me a great deal on Photoshop CS5 for only $221...$400 bucks off the regular price. Now, I can upgrade to CS6 for $199 and still be under the full retail price.

I also got lucky with Amazon again when they sent me a message saying I could buy Lightroom 3 for $50. The very next week, Adobe released Lightroom 4. So I sent them a copy of the Amazon receipt and two weeks later a package shows up from Adobe with the Lightroom 4 upgrade for free!

Now I'm sure the rest of my year will be filled with nothing but bad luck...

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2012 at 16:54 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ksgant: While I'm a Canon shooter at the moment, I have to say that it seems easy for Canon to announce all these cameras if they don't ever ship them. They announced the 1Dx months ago...before the 5DmkIII....and that hasn't even shipped yet. Now they announce this.

I wasn't commenting on the 5DmkIII not shipping, I know that's shipping. I was referring to the 1Dx, which was announced months before the 5DmkIII, and the 1Dx has been delayed again and again. And now, before they even start shipping the 1Dx, they announce this "special edition" of the camera. How about they concentrate on getting the 1Dx out before making more and more announcements?

Just saying...

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2012 at 22:34 UTC

While I'm a Canon shooter at the moment, I have to say that it seems easy for Canon to announce all these cameras if they don't ever ship them. They announced the 1Dx months ago...before the 5DmkIII....and that hasn't even shipped yet. Now they announce this.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2012 at 15:03 UTC as 27th comment | 7 replies
Total: 111, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »