Joined on Dec 23, 2011


Total: 274, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Two words: hiring freeze. They can interview and offer the job. But one cant start until the freeze is lifted.

And gs-9/11 in DC? Slave wage.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 04:03 UTC as 5th comment

All you rocket rangers going nuts over this lens for near field astrophotography need to cool your jets and wait until test shots come in re coma, which seems to be the major bugaboo for these lenses and this kind of photography.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 19:28 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: Am I the only one who noticed those photos are out of focus? That last one might not be OOF, but the others are for sure.

No, you're just too used to obnoxious levels of sharpness. Photojournalism has its own standard--get the picture at any cost--that 99.5% of DPR heads will not get.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 19:47 UTC

To the DPR editorial staff: Never begin a story with an acronym, and certainly NOT in the headline, because you can't assume that a reader that's not in the Pac NW will know what "PI" stands for. Headline should have read: "Behind the scenes with Seattle Post-Intellegencer Photographers." Then use the full title again in the lead paragraph, followed by PI. Good grief, Journalism 101, people.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 19:44 UTC as 21st comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

PhotoUniverse: I am not impressed at all. Lots of visible distortions and softness. And yes, I know it's a very wide angle lens.

I was hoping better than this. I would've got it for Astrophotography.

It's called "widefield astrophotography"

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 20:41 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Uh, too many distortions. And that is the problem with 3rd party lenses; nothing inside camera will react to the lens, and try to fix something that should have been sorted out in lens design.

A 14mm with no distortion? Are you people high??

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 20:40 UTC
In reply to:

Arkienkeli: There are several posts about "severe distortions" with this lens. As an old school photographer I find it quite disconcerting that these posters quite clearly do not understand the nature of rectilinear projection, but think that the edge/corner elongation is caused by a flaw in lens design or manufacture, while it is a mathematical fact which can not be avoided. The wider the picture angle, the worse it gets, and nothing can be done about it if we want straight lines to be represented by straight lines in the picture.

Still these "experts" have the audacity to post these uninformed opinions (alternative facts?) of theirs, highlighting their ignorance.

Agree 100% Asking for a distortion-free rectilinear 14mm UWA is like asking for a cheeseburger with no cheese.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 20:38 UTC
On article Fujifilm updates X-mount lens roadmap (56 comments in total)

what kind of UWA zoom would they put out? They already have a 10-24/4

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 18:54 UTC as 3rd comment | 2 replies

I wanna talk to the 14 people that had one and why they dumped it๐Ÿ™„

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 04:48 UTC as 56th comment | 1 reply

No DoF scale on the 14? Jeez Sigma!

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 17:27 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply

Zoom ring at the *front* of the 24-70/2.8? Rotary extending zoom?? Dust pumper. Fail.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 19:18 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies
On article iPhone 7 Plus survives 13 hours in icy Russian river (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

nfiertel: It is a strange fixation that some people have about Apple products which to me is inexplicable. I have used them since 1994 in its computer aspects and use an iPhone 6 Plus as well. I have had only one service issue in 2005 on a laptop which STILL works though long in the tooth. The iPhone is exceptional fast as can be, and more so the iMessage feature leaves any other smartphone in the dust completely and no small detail..none of the Apple equipment is likely to have malware as one cannot install without permissions being overwritten by the user. On the iPhone one cannot do that at all as it is sandboxed and one must go through the Applestore always unless you stupidly jailbreak the phone. Waterproofing the 7 is great for those that are stupid with their precision equipment and gilds the lily. It is a precisely built piece of kit. To smirk or otherwise denigrate a great industrial masterpiece makes no sense but is the sport of the anti Apple folk out there ..

Agreed. When something goes awry with my MBP-R or older iMac, I can usually find the problem and fix it on my own. Can't say the same about my former "blue screen of death" Windows products.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 21:59 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F pre-production sample gallery (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

villagranvicent: It is a shame Fuji didn't bother to do some improvements on this mediocre lens. As someone else already mention all the shots look soft even at closer apertures. I bet the X-T20 with the 23mm f2 will deliver better results, same sensor, better lens.

Disagree about the lens. Yes it is soft at F2, but stop it down, and it becomes very sharp. At least on the S.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 19:42 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F pre-production sample gallery (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

LackingCommonSensor: This is almost the perfect camera for me. I am thinking of selling off my DSLR and getting one. I know I could save $$ waiting for them to go on sale, but I could be dead by that time.

maxnimo Ive taken "portraits" (full body, H/S, head shots) at every focal length from 16mm to 300mm, and have used my X100S in the studio to do full and 3/4 body shots. Don't think in such restrictive terms.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 19:40 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F pre-production sample gallery (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: Richard Butler, Those indoor shots with the 35mm looked a little tight. Other times it looked like you had to get creative to get your shot with that wide a lens. Is 35mm your personal choice for a fixed prime? Prefer 28mm? 50mm?

Most experienced photographers do prefer 35mm as their go-to lens. When I worked in newspapers our editor would make us leave all our SLR gear at the paper once a week (unless it was a sporting event) and challenge us to shoot enterprise and spot news ONLY with a P&S and 35mm attached.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 19:37 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F pre-production sample gallery (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: Just to head off the stampede at an early stage:

1 Só much better (and more affordable!) than a Leica M10!

2 That lens is still a POS.

There; I've said it.

amateurs = obsessed with sharpness as the only measure of a lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 19:34 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (424 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarcMedios: I have an X20 as a "visual notebook" and like it a lot, especially the 4:1 zoom. I can't, for the life of me, seriously consider a $1,200 camera that does not have interchangeable lenses. Why would I want to limit myself to the focal length that some anonymous engineer decided for the camera?

typical hobbyist comment.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 04:45 UTC

Note to DPR Editors:

The I Own It/I Want it/I Had It tally is silly and juvenile. Drop it, for it serves no useful purpose whatsoever. 34 people had a camera that's not even been released yet?? Who dreams up this stuff?

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 16:29 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply

I can visualize the "chicken little" posts on the Nikon Lens forum about their new lenses rattling internally when not connected to the camera. OMG the sky is falling in, or man my lens, there's something wrong. Well, that's the electromagnetic diaphragm; Sigma uses them in some of their lenses, and yes they rattle when not powered up. Just a head's up.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 14:30 UTC as 48th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

elefteriadis alexandros: I look at 100% and the images is mediocre, no tack sharp and with lot of artifacts and unacceptable noise, maybe its from jpg compression?
I think with a good 50mp clean file and good resize you are very close to this.

Sharpness? How hobbyist a viewpoint.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 20:30 UTC
Total: 274, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »