Pat Cullinan Jr

Pat Cullinan Jr

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

Comments

Total: 1067, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Fujifilm X100F pre-production sample gallery (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

OnCam: I absolutely love the lens, its not that soft when wide open (most lenses are) and crisp when stopped down. I've owned the tack sharp xf23 1.4 and i prefer the 23 f2 of the x100. It has its own character that is stunning let alone the size factor. If pure IQ is what your after then have fun lugging the 23 1.4 around on an Xpro2 as a street/travel camera.

"If you want better IQ considering both share the same sensor you can go with the X-T20 plus the 23mm f2." —by villagranvicent

Is this food for talk or what?

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 00:28 UTC
On article GIMP seeks funding for future advanced features (239 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alex Achucarro: Photoshop is like £8/month 😳

Dear Fuego,

Thanks for the considered reply.

Yes, TIFF files do contain layer information. My complaint is that if you don't keep making payments, the application goes dead.

You know, maybe I don't have that much of a problem about paying $10 a month. Still, I'd like to have a replacement option.

Kindest regards,

Pat

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 23:53 UTC
On article GIMP seeks funding for future advanced features (239 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alex Achucarro: Photoshop is like £8/month 😳

The fly in the Adobe ointment is price-gouging Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen.

Creative Suite cost $1,400 more in Australia than in the US. Read about it in "Adobe's CEO Completely Refuses to Answer Questions About Unfair Pricing."

The URL is http://gizmodo.com/5984191/adobes-ceo-completely-refuses-to-answer-questions-about-unfair-pricing

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 07:23 UTC
On article GIMP seeks funding for future advanced features (239 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alex Achucarro: Photoshop is like £8/month 😳

Go easy on calling people haters -- it's discourteous.

It rankles people that if you don't keep up with your monthly payments, you will not be allowed to access the files on which you spent some much of your life's time.

Moreover, Adobe dribbles added features to Photoshop at a snail's pace.

And just how beneficial is Context Sensitive Fill?

Years ago, when I was using Framemaker, I paid Adobe $125 for an upgrade. You know what I got? Japanese language support.

No, I do not like Adobe.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 06:53 UTC
On article GIMP seeks funding for future advanced features (239 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alex Achucarro: Photoshop is like £8/month 😳

...professional level software resented the world over...

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 08:30 UTC
On article Leica announces M10 with new sensor, slimmer design (114 comments in total)

How did I get here? I was just looking for a recipe for meatloaf.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 00:47 UTC as 13th comment

Will DPR be doing a review?

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 19:48 UTC as 15th comment

"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 37th comment | 1 reply
On article Canon EF-M 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM gallery updated (26 comments in total)

More dog pix. Please.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 06:44 UTC as 4th 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 (426 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 (426 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 (426 comments in total)

Erh.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 06:54 UTC as 83rd 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
Total: 1067, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »