ecka84

ecka84

Lives in Lithuania Lithuania
Joined on Sep 18, 2009

Comments

Total: 794, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Htbaa: His Lightroom isn't slow as a turd? How's that even possible?

Did you try turning on the High Performance mode on your PC/laptop? It's somewhere in the Power Management tools.
My old i7/32GB(12GB-RAMdisk)/GTX670 is plenty fast for LR. Even for 50MP RAWs on 4K IPS panel.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 11:08 UTC
In reply to:

tom1234567: I don't wont trick I want Adobe LR to address and fix the Fuji X-T2 PROBLEMS

like the mushy green trees or the mushy whatever simple request

I don't want to use other programs like capture one,
on1,
irdent developer,
and other programs,
I want LR to get fixed ,
is that to hard for the LR programmer's,??

just my rant over and out

The mushiness doesn't really go away in non-Adobe editing softwares. That's a myth. You can get similar detail in Lightroom by tweaking image sharpening in a certain way. The difference is obvious only when comparing the default settings, which is a very silly way to compare things anyways. However, even the video footage from xTrans cameras got this same typical mush and artifacts, meaning that Fuji themselves cannot handle it, because xTrans is the problem.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 10:40 UTC
In reply to:

pmobil: Is Fuji gone completly nuts?
This lens is MUCH too expensive.
Coming from Canon a 100mm L IS still sits in my desktop (for sale).
This lens is nearly 500€ less (in Germany), lighter, weather sealed and for full frame cameras.
What in the world are they thinking?
I really wanted to buy this lens, because its a 1:1 macro.
But not at this price.
Fuji, check your prices! They have to be realistic.

"Is Fuji gone completely nuts?"
- Yes. Years ago.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2017 at 06:44 UTC
In reply to:

Herp Photos: To Fujifilm part 2 regarding pricing of the xf80 macro:
Dear Fuii, maybe your marketing team is confused by the high prices of the medium format lenses you have been putting out recently and has forgotten what pricing in the apsc and even full frame lens market looks like. Perhaps you are comparing yourself too directly to Leica instead of to the brands and market you are actually competing in. Perhaps you need to spend more time getting to know your enemy/ competition through research into lost sales and lost customers. IMHO Sony, Olympus and Panasonic are your direct competition and secondarily you have an opportunity to attract Nikon, Canon and Pentax users to Fuji as their first mirrorless camera system through proper marketing and attractive pricing of your sexy lens lineup. If you lose those converts over a 200-300 USD introductory pricing mishap, you are far less likey to get them to turn their heads and try you in the future. Best regards from a huge fujifan.

Huge FF Sigma 150/2.8 fan here :). In the APS-C world that lens is basically equivalent to a 100mm F1.8 1:1 macro.
How on Earth could I reasonably justify this 80/2.8 to cost $1200 and then extra $950 for the 90/2, while the 135/2L costs the same and acts like XF 90/1.3?
"... opportunity to attract Nikon, Canon and Pentax users ... sexy lens lineup" - What are you talking about ... :D? Fuji only attracts those, who can't see the difference between FF and crop, because even APS-C is most likely too much for them.
It is 2017 now. So, people, please, upgrade your screens first, get a nice 40"(ish) UHD IPS and then we'll talk about cameras.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2017 at 06:28 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoRotterdam: Can we already sum up the comments to "evert camera manufacturer is stupid, we know better?"

"Why is the Xt20 not mentioned?" - because it has USB 2.0? :)

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 10:16 UTC
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: "Venus Optics claims that it is 'the world's fastest 15mm rectilinear lens for full-frame.'"

While this might technically be true (no faster commercial 15mm FF lens exists), Sigma currently offers an even shorter and faster lens, the 14/1.8.

Having picked that nit, let it be said that the Laowa 15/2 looks like a genuinely good offering, and for a reasonable size and price, too.

Anyone could make, let's say, FF 14.5mm F2.9 and claim that it is the fastest 14.5mm FF lens in the universe. Until someone decides to make a faster 14.5mm FF lens :).

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2017 at 09:11 UTC
On article Canon unveils stabilized EF 85mm F1.4L lens (530 comments in total)
In reply to:

Benna78: 35L upgraded. 35f2 upgraded. 28 and 24 2.8. Upgraded. What about upgrading the ancient 50 1.4, the 50L, and the 20?

A new 20mm non-L prime would be a nice update. Preferably pancake :)

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 23:19 UTC
On article Canon unveils stabilized EF 85mm F1.4L lens (530 comments in total)
In reply to:

BokehFanatic: So "everyone" has a new 85mm released in this or previous year, except Nikon. Not that they should rush it, I'm using the 85/1.4G since its release in 2010 and absolutely love it. I can probably use it another 10 years. A little less chromatic aberrations and maybe faster focusing are the only things I would desire.

What I'm saying, is that if you are serious about portraiture and are a Canon user, you should definitely try (and buy) this lens! It will serve you many many years!

I think Nikon did beat everyone with their new 105mm F1.4 :D

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 20:06 UTC
On article Canon unveils stabilized EF 85mm F1.4L lens (530 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lassoni: Makes me wonder why nikon didn't do this before canon?

Must've been busy with the D850
:)

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 16:33 UTC
On article Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E ED VR sample gallery (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

digiart: Too much CA IMHO.

@digiart
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying that PF is a specific type of CA, which can be problematic even in lenses with otherwise low levels of CA. You shouldn't oversimplify it by calling everything the same name. It's like not being sick, but having a condition :).

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 23:15 UTC
On article Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E ED VR sample gallery (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

xslavic: My tamron 70-300 non VC adapted with la-ea3 to a7rii takes better pictures.

... or a monkey :)

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 18:23 UTC
On article Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E ED VR sample gallery (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

digiart: Too much CA IMHO.

@digiart
There are different kinds of CA. Basically, one is the dispersion of light focused on one focus plane, the other is the dispersion of light focused on different focus planes (not all colors are in focus simultaneously). One is easy to correct, the other is not. Some lenses may seem well corrected in terms of CA in general, but they still produce strong PF in specific circumstances. Which is why CA and fringing are separate problems in technical jargon.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 16:18 UTC
On article Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E ED VR sample gallery (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

digiart: Too much CA IMHO.

Just look at the image #16.
It's not an APO level, but it is definitely very decent.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 14:22 UTC
On article Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E ED VR sample gallery (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

digiart: Too much CA IMHO.

Not really.
The purple fringing perhaps.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 14:01 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Well, honestly, I'm not going to buy a $5000-$6000 camera to shoot default JPEGs.
Would you?

@MyReality
Of course I'm serious. Do your homework before commenting. Psychopathy isn't evil. It's a mental disorder. Not all psychopaths are bad people. Their moral balance is just a bit different than yours. They can be great leaders or scientists and they often are. Even the bad ones.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2017 at 15:59 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Nice camera.
The mirror-phobic comrades must be jealous :D

It's not my fault you mirrorless fans are so arrogant, ruthless and ignorant.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Nice camera.
The mirror-phobic comrades must be jealous :D

Your reaction proves that I'm right :). You simply can't ignore it, so you are making a fool of yourself instead. Unlike you, I don't have feelings for the tools I use. You are trying so hard just to tell me that "your dad is stronger than mine" (basically), but you've lost your mind in the process.
Yes, I am in the minority, unfortunately, because the majority doesn't need better cameras. They have no idea how it actually works, they don't care to learn anything and all they want is small, easy and cheap gadget for snapshots. Mirrorless might be the future, but we are not there yet. There are still too many design flaws. DSLR is a more refined and developed tool.
"What an arrogant individual" - Not really. I'm just mirroring your attitude back to you. So it is all your fault actually :)

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 16:36 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Nice camera.
The mirror-phobic comrades must be jealous :D

Then why are you here in the first place? You seem to be neither a professional, nor enthusiast. Why do you care what professionals and enthusiast prefer to use? You can keep your tiny little mirrorless camera and relax. Nobody is trying to take it from you. It's probably too much for you anyways. Mirrorless have their advantages. Just like DSLRs do. Why is that a problem for you people? Why are you always trying to argue that DSLR sux in every way even if it's not true (objectively and obviously)? It is very silly to assume that mirrorless are improving and evolving, while DSLRs are doing nothing. DSLRs can have both mirrored and mirrorless functions. Mirrorless can't. And the difference is only few hundred grams in the body. Optics weight the same. If you put a bigger lens on your camera (or vice versa), there is no considerable difference in size and weight. But the mirrorless will be much less comfortable to hold. And all those extra batteries and chargers add more trouble.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Well, honestly, I'm not going to buy a $5000-$6000 camera to shoot default JPEGs.
Would you?

@raymondg - Exactly.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 09:15 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Well, honestly, I'm not going to buy a $5000-$6000 camera to shoot default JPEGs.
Would you?

@yahoo2u
Life is too short for such a waste of time :)

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 09:14 UTC
Total: 794, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »