Pat Cullinan Jr

Pat Cullinan Jr

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Sep 21, 2010

Comments

Total: 1020, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

"a to-the-eye shooting stance gives a much steadier grip for hand-held shooting than holding the camera at waist level"

Got that? "MUCH steadier."

Thank you.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 12:32 UTC as 32nd comment | 1 reply
On article Canon EF-M 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM gallery updated (25 comments in total)

More dog pix. Please.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 06:44 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Yxa: Panasonic writes:
"A 70-200mm* full-range F2.8"
No its an 70-200 5.6 eq

@Chris2210 "There's four times as much water in your 2" pot."

Yes. You've grasped the nut of the analogy.This dose of water has the same horticultural effect as the lesser amount of water has on the 1" pot. So more water doesn't mean more effect. Similarly, MORE LIGHT falling on a larger area doesn't have more photographic effect (because is must serve a larger area).

Honestly, it's awfully hard trying to inculcate the simplest principles of physics. As I have a bachelor's in physics, I'm appalled by the backwardness I come up against. A degree makes a world of difference. The dpreview staff are at sea, and they know it. And incidentally, my "avatar" image is over 50 years old.

All the best,
Pat

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 10:45 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Polytropia: To all the haters:

My grandfather shot Kodachrome Super 8 & also black and white movies of his kids. Those movies look as good today as they did when they were shot.

How good will all your digital videos look in 65 years from now? Will they even exist?

I can shoot some film and put it in an archival box with a projector, and know it will be viewable in 100 years as long as there is a source of electricity. I'm not sure you can say the same thing about any digital information formats.

And honestly how much more often do you really want to watch such videos? lol.

Also, protip: clouds evaporate.

When Kodachrome II came out over 50 years ago, it was a peak experience for me. Kodachrome X wrought the same effect.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 09:44 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Polytropia: To all the haters:

My grandfather shot Kodachrome Super 8 & also black and white movies of his kids. Those movies look as good today as they did when they were shot.

How good will all your digital videos look in 65 years from now? Will they even exist?

I can shoot some film and put it in an archival box with a projector, and know it will be viewable in 100 years as long as there is a source of electricity. I'm not sure you can say the same thing about any digital information formats.

And honestly how much more often do you really want to watch such videos? lol.

Also, protip: clouds evaporate.

>Nice to hear Kodak is looking at possibilities to restart Kodachrome.

This intrigues me. There's nothing like a Kodachrome slide projected on a 72-inch silver screen. It's difficult (read "costly") for digital to match this experience. Kodak used to manufacture 6x6 Kodachrome; this would make stupendous slides.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 09:39 UTC
In reply to:

Yxa: Panasonic writes:
"A 70-200mm* full-range F2.8"
No its an 70-200 5.6 eq

>you can't call an f2.8 lens and f5.6 because it messes up exposure settings

Right on the money.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 09:19 UTC
In reply to:

Dragonrider: To all those fussing over whether the JPEGs are corrected, DPR gave you the RAWs, so download them and check for yourself. I do agree that more shots at the long end of the lens are needed for a decent evaluation. Also, to those fussing about color, I am willing to bet at least half don't have a monitor that is even capable of SRGB, much less Adobe RGB or wider. Without the former, you can't evaluate the JPEGs and without the latter, you can't evaluate the RAWs. This summer, you should be able to buy a really good monitor for a sensible prices as QD is finally hitting the monitor market. The colors from this camera look very good on a QD monitor.

Good heads-up there.

Check out

CES 2017: Samsung presents new QD monitors
December 29, 2016

http://fixmibug.com/ces-2017-samsung-presents-new-qd-monitors.html

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 08:20 UTC

Have the dpreview staff any comments to offer in evaluation of this lens?

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 08:06 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

LarryK: Hey, thanks Panasonic for obsoleting three of my lenses.

Fortunately, I had already moved on to Olympus's superior counterparts, glad I did.

Around here, it's important to keep your sense of humor.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 07:23 UTC
In reply to:

Yxa: Panasonic writes:
"A 70-200mm* full-range F2.8"
No its an 70-200 5.6 eq

I guess I'll prepare a presentation of the analogy about a gardener watering his plants. It's exciting.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 07:18 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)

Erh.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 06:54 UTC as 78th comment
In reply to:

LarryK: Hey, thanks Panasonic for obsoleting three of my lenses.

Fortunately, I had already moved on to Olympus's superior counterparts, glad I did.

Biff, bam, pow.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 06:54 UTC
In reply to:

Yxa: Panasonic writes:
"A 70-200mm* full-range F2.8"
No its an 70-200 5.6 eq

>but the sensor being 25% of the surface area of 35mm format, it's also [using the inverse square rule] collecting 2 stops less light -

It's intensity that determines exposure.

Imagine a 50mm f/2.8 lens illuminating a full-frame sensor. Suppose you replace that sensor with a 645 sensor. Does that change the intensity? No. That's why f/2.8 is f/2.8, as regards light.

So changing the size of the target doesn't change intensity.

If you like, I can give you an analogy about a gardener watering plants, which may be more illuminating.

All the best,

Pat

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 06:52 UTC
In reply to:

Yxa: Panasonic writes:
"A 70-200mm* full-range F2.8"
No its an 70-200 5.6 eq

How do you derive 5.6?

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 09:12 UTC
In reply to:

dark goob: But with 50x zoom, you can still see inside US

From my front room window, I can see Mount Fuji.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 03:08 UTC
In reply to:

daddyo: I think much more important considerations would be things like the number of megapickles, death of feel, and dynamite range.
Full format isn't that big a deal, a crap sensor camera does well too, sense you can carry six of them at once.

>manga-pickles never hurt anyone

Neither dird lermon pirckle or tarmarind churtney [sic], mmm (Homer Simpson voice).

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 03:04 UTC
On article Happy Holidays from DPReview (149 comments in total)

Merry Christmas and a blest New Year, gang!

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2016 at 12:39 UTC as 126th comment
On article New 20mm F2 4.5x macro lens released by Mitakon (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

NEWSTREAM: Instead of getting the MFT-mount for a MFT-body, maybe Its worth getting the Nikon or Canon version, coupled with the Metabones Speedbooster for that extra stop of light?

Thanks, Mike.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 18:41 UTC
On article New 20mm F2 4.5x macro lens released by Mitakon (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

NEWSTREAM: Instead of getting the MFT-mount for a MFT-body, maybe Its worth getting the Nikon or Canon version, coupled with the Metabones Speedbooster for that extra stop of light?

>my optics program

What program is that?

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 06:09 UTC

I don't feel so bad now about being an animal.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2016 at 10:23 UTC as 15th comment
Total: 1020, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »