Jim Keye

Lives in Taiwan Taiwan
Joined on Feb 15, 2005

Comments

Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

thxbb12: If they had used a 1'' sensor and allowed RAW shooting it could have been very interesting. As it is, no thanks. What a waste of engineering resources unfortunately...

You can always spot the people who 1) aren't the intended target audience and 2) don't have the capacity to realize who the target audience is.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 16:07 UTC
In reply to:

proudfather: Things that strike me as peculiar:

1. Both photographers presumably took dozens if not more images and yet they coincidentally happened to choose the exact same image to edit and post.

2. We are told they are in different locations and would expect slight parallax to occur. And in fact the water angles do change. I would expect the lighthouse and mist angles to change as well, which they do not.

3. They both were shooting 600 mm lenses. OK, that's not so far-fetched and I'll give them that one.

4. The person who originally publicized this coincidence mysteriously removed her post/vanished.

5. Where's the other photographer? I want to see the fact that he, too, possesses a series of RAW files.

If both were shooting ultrawide angle lenses it might be more believable IMO. But at 600 mm, a change in even the slightest angle would have significant impact on composition. So, I don't know, call me pessimistic but I just ain't seeing it.

1) OP says not many turned out. Presumably, same is true for the other photog.

2) No, see 3

3) Quite the opposite: a wide angle, particularly with foreground or anything half-way close to the camera, would be almost impossible to duplicate. But a long lens taking a picture of something a long ways a way could require for more difference to be obvious.

4) If I had called someone a thief and then it turned out I was wrong, I'd probably pull my post down too.

5) Where is he? Follow the links and see.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2018 at 05:23 UTC
On article Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art sample gallery (111 comments in total)
In reply to:

muljao: Still hard to look past the tamron 15-30 with its vr unless the 15 to 14 difference really means that much to a person

Yes. What Nikon should have updated is the 17-35 (or a 16-35) and just done a 14mm prime. Sigma's 14-24 + 20-35 kinda misses it both ways, thought the 20-35 comes closer. Unfortunately it's nothing special as lenses go. I feel like Canon is now the one lens maker who has this spread done right.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2018 at 17:30 UTC

DPReview: you are well on your way to making your site a click-baity POS. Bravo!

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 17:42 UTC as 79th comment
In reply to:

semorg: No MTF charts? What's with that. We just have to wait for LensRentals to do a real proper testing to see how well this lens really works.

While I'd be curious to see how it compares in a Lensrental test, probably a good idea to keep in mind that they test at infinity, where this lens is least intended to be used.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 20:44 UTC

When can we start talking about how much 3D pop these water droplet lenses have?

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 19:14 UTC as 66th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

turvyT: It's kind of freudian slip that dpr writes announcing this lens: "And initial impressions of it our excellent." Nikon has always had a special place in dpr hearts.

That is hilarious.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 17:34 UTC
On article ESPN publishes iPhone 7 Plus photos from US Open (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Keye: For some reason the notion of "if it can be done, it should be done" continues to get paraded around as if its newsworthy or noteworthy. Yes, smartphone cameras have come a really long ways. And yes, most of those photos are rather unremarkable. Could be done? Check. Should be done? I don't feel any more connected to tennis or this event after looking at those photos. They mostly look like all the other snapshot hum-drum that fills my Facebook feed.

Scared? Of what? 3/4s of those look like snapshots taken by a 10 year old. They're just not good photos. The ONLY reason they're on DPReview's front page is because they're taken with an iPhone and ESPN published them. And my point is, that's a dumb reason to hold up mediocre stuff as "newsworthy."

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 23:07 UTC
On article ESPN publishes iPhone 7 Plus photos from US Open (340 comments in total)

For some reason the notion of "if it can be done, it should be done" continues to get paraded around as if its newsworthy or noteworthy. Yes, smartphone cameras have come a really long ways. And yes, most of those photos are rather unremarkable. Could be done? Check. Should be done? I don't feel any more connected to tennis or this event after looking at those photos. They mostly look like all the other snapshot hum-drum that fills my Facebook feed.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 15:52 UTC as 38th comment | 4 replies
On article Samyang introduces full-frame 20mm F1.8 ED AS UMC (160 comments in total)
In reply to:

FastGlassLover: We'll see how it compares with the stellar Nikon 20mm f/1.8. The price isn't that far off, and without AF. I normally am excited for third party manual lenses, but don't see how this one will be a good buy for Nikon users.

@FastGlassLover No lens is perfect at everything, and this includes the nikkor. If this lens is like the other samyangs of the last few years, it will beat the rest of them considerably when it comes to coma.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 21:55 UTC
On article Samyang introduces full-frame 20mm F1.8 ED AS UMC (160 comments in total)
In reply to:

FastGlassLover: We'll see how it compares with the stellar Nikon 20mm f/1.8. The price isn't that far off, and without AF. I normally am excited for third party manual lenses, but don't see how this one will be a good buy for Nikon users.

Samyang has been killing it with the astro photography crowd, and if the past lenses are any clue, it will be considerably better suited for this than the nikkor (at least for FX).

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: The high iso performance (noise) actually disappoints me. I thought it would be equal to a 4-6 year old full frame sensor but it is not.

"I am comparing the few years old D750 sensor which was used in the D600 that came out in 2012."

We're hitting a point where the sensor tech isn't making major advances. This has been going on for some time now. Not to mention you are comparing sensors with 2.25x the light gather capabilities, simply by virtue of size.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2016 at 21:12 UTC
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: Mirrorless shooters don't need no stinkin' AF adjustment.
Yea!

Yep. Of course, you're still waiting on the camera to find that focus, but that's another story. ;-)

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 19:05 UTC
In reply to:

Jerry Pruce: The more pixels the better. But why does it have to be so expensive? If it was around $3000 I'd buy it. And I wish they would make it smaller. Maybe in the next year or two, they'll come out with the 200mp version and the 100mp one will drop in price more to my liking. I think their shooting themselves in the foot by not offering the camera at an affordable price for the masses.

I haven't read anything this funny in a while.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2016 at 18:06 UTC
On article Samsung launches rugged Galaxy S6 Active (23 comments in total)

Exclusively with AT&T? Because nothing is better than getting the shot and not being able to share it...

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 16:38 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Horshack: Amazing how $1,800 lenses can have a decentered/tilted element. It's something you expect (and get) on a Samyang 14mm but not on a class of lens like the 14-24mm. Sadly it's a problem seen on many expensive optics. I've tried three different copies of a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and all have had significant tilting issues.

Horshack might be misreading/misinterpreting the results--as in, it's the Tamron's decenteredness cause the differences in right and left sides/corners, not the Nikon's. (Or they both are, in slightly opposite direction, making the results even more exaggerated.) While not a $1800 lens, I went through four 50mm f1.4Gs before I found one that wasn't decentered. 1 out of 4 ain't a great ratio regardless of what the price is...

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 23:37 UTC

Interesting results, thank you for posting it!! 3 thoughts: 1) The sunburst stuff--the Nikon one really didn't look good next to the other ones. However, it also didn't have a giant flare-spot elsewhere in the frame. I'm kinda surprised there was no mention of this. Sometimes it's a nice effect, but it can also ruin a picture. 2) I'm really surprised at how much wider the Nikon ends up being. 3) It is great to see 3rd-party lenses perform this well. But, they're also not the smaller, lighter, and (significantly) cheaper alternatives any more either. Turns out Canon and Nikon weren't making large, expensive lenses just for the heck of it. ;-)

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 23:30 UTC as 89th comment | 8 replies
On article Nikon announces Coolpix AW130 and S33 rugged compacts (32 comments in total)

I feel like this is some kind of joke.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 16:45 UTC as 8th comment

This might be the weakest update I've ever seen. "Oh, weren't impressed by the last one? Well wait till you see what we've added this year..."

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 01:21 UTC as 10th comment
Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »