jkokich

Joined on Jan 25, 2012

Comments

Total: 222, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (590 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: "in any situation where you need to maintain a certain depth-of-field, it can outperform the Sony" which is the situation most professional video used to be shot under. Huge depth of field minimizes the viewers displacement from adjusting their own focusing on different elements in the frame at different depths. Bokeh in a movie can be jarring.

I'm not saying video should be shot at 6x FF crop (1/3") all the time because the lens aperture is rarely available (it'd be really small f-numbers) for a desired focal length. I'm saying you really don't lose much going to 2x crop because an f2.8 lens is still probably too shallow for most shots at most focal lengths.

It's also notable to get the lower MP sensor here to shave off diffraction that creeps in from dropping information in sloppy downsampling due to limited processing capability at 60fps high res.

Sometimes I find bokeh really distracting, which is the opposite of what it’s supposed to be.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2018 at 19:26 UTC
In reply to:

jkokich: Sony A7R!

just how fast do you need your af?

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 18:47 UTC

So, bitcoin says Kodak’s plan is a scam? Hmmm...

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 18:16 UTC as 63rd comment | 1 reply

Sony A7R!

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2017 at 08:15 UTC as 36th comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon D850 vs Sony a7R III: Which is best? (1096 comments in total)
In reply to:

jackspra: The smaller size is definitely a positive.

I don’t understand the whole unbalanced thing. I rarely hold a camera with one hand, I usually hold the lens, if it’s big and heavy, and on a tripod, why would you just let the rig sit there, without making sure it’s stable?

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 21:29 UTC
On article Nikon D850 vs Sony a7R III: Which is best? (1096 comments in total)
In reply to:

bkellyusa: The size argument between the mirrorless and the DSLR is getting old. When Sony started on their mirrorless climb I think they thought that the smaller the better and it certainly got everyone's attention as to how much camera technology they could pack into a tiny box. Since that time Sony has increased both the size and egnomics of their cameras significantly.

The weight advantage issue with mirrorless cameras has also been been obscured by the misleading criticism that both cameras types get heavy when using telephoto lenses. That is only true if you are using long telephoto lenses. In the real world most people are using much shorter lenses and with that the mirroress wins hands down.

As to the future of DSLR's I think that the mirroless manufacturers have made it clear that the mirror itself is not a necessary part of modern camera design. In the future I just can't see anyone being willing to pay the additional cost of having a feature that you don't need.

I agree with you. A mechanical, flipping mirror, is simply not necessary, anymore.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 21:26 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: If you buy this, the only people who will think you are cool are people you should avoid at all costs.

Deep for the win.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 17:20 UTC

I’ll bet that many who are criticizing this, are the same ones who say people don’t understand the Leica experience.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 17:19 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Felts: Reading any thread about Leica cameras on DPReview is a hilarious sport.

When will the detractors realise that if you have to ask how much, it's probably not the camera for you?

It seems that the major reason to buy a Leica is to say, “I bought a Leica.”

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2017 at 22:11 UTC
On article Cinematic 4K footage shot with the Apple iPhone X (310 comments in total)

I don’t even need a firm place on which to stand.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 05:31 UTC as 11th comment
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

monked: The FF focal length equivalent is 2.1 for apsc. Gotta multiply it by crop factor too.

Ah! Thanks, Jack!

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 17:58 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

monked: The FF focal length equivalent is 2.1 for apsc. Gotta multiply it by crop factor too.

Isn’t a 16mm lens, 16mm in FF? I thought there was no crop factor for FF.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 21:15 UTC

Wow, who peed in your Cheerios?

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 18:00 UTC as 175th comment | 1 reply

Unless you look at the videos side by side, you won’t notice the difference. If you are a techie, yes, you might be able to say, that should look like this, etc., but if you are watching a movie/web series/commercial and you aren’t engrossed by the story, the problem isn’t the camera or the lens.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 20:24 UTC as 4th comment

Interesting... I only picked the Canon once...

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 16:07 UTC as 120th comment

This has got to be the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Even with protective lenses, looking at an eclipse can blind you. What morons.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 14:39 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

jkokich: How about a $500 Sony? I'll bet you could shoot a damn good movie with that.

Toss in another $300 and let's have another test!

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 15:52 UTC

How about a $500 Sony? I'll bet you could shoot a damn good movie with that.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 17:42 UTC as 44th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

M Chambers: "I'm shocked. Shocked to find gambling here." Professionals used professional equipment and professional lighting to create the iPhone ads.

While this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone here it probably does amaze the general public.

Always has been. Remember pet rocks?

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 17:57 UTC

The quality of iPhone videos, even without the ridiculous gear attached to them, is fantastic. It's state of the art of a few years ago for high level gear, so if that state was perfectly acceptable, so is this. You really could shoot commercials, or features, on your iPhone if you actually relied on your abilities as a videographer, and not on the gear.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 17:55 UTC as 8th comment
Total: 222, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »