Rick Knepper

Lives in United States TX, United States
Joined on Oct 8, 2003

Comments

Total: 558, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Great Bustard: Is it just me (and/or my monitor) or are the colors just kind of off? I'm thinking that their jpg engine and/or the RAW converter needs some tweaking.

I'd like to know what RAW converter they are using b/c ACR won't open the files.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 21:15 UTC
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I scanned the article for tests with specific lenses and didn't see anything so I didn't read the article. No need to because I know what I know. If the following matches the article then great..

What I know is the best zoom cannot match the best prime (I'll throw the Zeiss Otus 55mm out as an example) but the best zoom can match some primes, especially budget primes or primes from a generation ago (for some brands at least) when the entire frame is taken into consideration.

IMO, the new standard for premium lenses is sharp across the frame wide open. The lens doesn't have to be uniformly sharp across the frame but the edges and corners have to be sharp with minor fall-off from the center.

AlephNull, I guess I didn't notice these comments before the 24-70 II because I would not have felt they were true. The 24-70 II changed my mind about carting around a bunch of primes 24, 28, 35 & a 50. The 35L II puts Canon back on the prime map.

The 24-70 II also showed me that a wide angle lens of either variety, prime or zoom, didn't have to fall-off all the way to out of focus blur at the edges and corners wide open.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 02:36 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I used to covet Leica lenses, their over-priced cameras not so much. I've adapted a few R series lenses to my Canons and at that time, they produced better IQ then similar Canon primes. I would have bought into Leica if they had priced their camera to sell lenses. Nowadays, great lenses are a dime a dozen, have AF and are much cheaper than Leica. Lost opportunity times 1000s I would suspect.

Nologo, I started this thread by saying "I used to covet Leica lenses, their over-priced cameras not so much." I have adapted some Leica lenses to my Canon but M series lenses were not adaptable. I doubt I would ever pay $73-7400 for the 50mm APO or any 50mm although I would pay 60% of that for a really good 50mm. The fact that Leica gouges its customers over cameras leaves me with the suspicion that much of the $7400 is a Leica Mark Up.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 02:22 UTC
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I scanned the article for tests with specific lenses and didn't see anything so I didn't read the article. No need to because I know what I know. If the following matches the article then great..

What I know is the best zoom cannot match the best prime (I'll throw the Zeiss Otus 55mm out as an example) but the best zoom can match some primes, especially budget primes or primes from a generation ago (for some brands at least) when the entire frame is taken into consideration.

IMO, the new standard for premium lenses is sharp across the frame wide open. The lens doesn't have to be uniformly sharp across the frame but the edges and corners have to be sharp with minor fall-off from the center.

teddoman, don't lie. You read every word.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 19:42 UTC
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I scanned the article for tests with specific lenses and didn't see anything so I didn't read the article. No need to because I know what I know. If the following matches the article then great..

What I know is the best zoom cannot match the best prime (I'll throw the Zeiss Otus 55mm out as an example) but the best zoom can match some primes, especially budget primes or primes from a generation ago (for some brands at least) when the entire frame is taken into consideration.

IMO, the new standard for premium lenses is sharp across the frame wide open. The lens doesn't have to be uniformly sharp across the frame but the edges and corners have to be sharp with minor fall-off from the center.

I think how this "zoom is better than a prime" notion got started at least in the Canon world is when Canon released the amazing 24-70 II. This lens is sharp across the frame wide open at its widest FOV no less and it certainly beats many of Canon's primes for sharpness across the frame. Actually, Canon was known for poor edge and corner performance in both their zooms and primes in the mid-2000s and is why many Canon landscape shooters sought out the 20 year old Zeiss Contax 21mm lens.

As is the case with any notion online, it gets repeated thousands of times and the more it gets repeated the more it get abbreviated. The such and such zoom can beat some primes across the frame gets turned into the zoom is better than primes.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 13:53 UTC
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (237 comments in total)

I scanned the article for tests with specific lenses and didn't see anything so I didn't read the article. No need to because I know what I know. If the following matches the article then great..

What I know is the best zoom cannot match the best prime (I'll throw the Zeiss Otus 55mm out as an example) but the best zoom can match some primes, especially budget primes or primes from a generation ago (for some brands at least) when the entire frame is taken into consideration.

IMO, the new standard for premium lenses is sharp across the frame wide open. The lens doesn't have to be uniformly sharp across the frame but the edges and corners have to be sharp with minor fall-off from the center.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 13:53 UTC as 63rd comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Rhawi Dantas: Sweet lenses... I will be getting the 85.

And what the hell is a 'BOCA'?

Bokeh

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 10:31 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: Several years ago my wife and I together with another married couple decided to go take a look at the lava flow overlook since Kilauea had recently erupted and the lava 'river' was quite active. We were told that it was a short walk across the lava field. Warned to walk only on what appeared to be the coolest lava crust, and we walked, and walked, etc. More than two hours later we arrived at the cliffs.

We saw the lava flow over the cliff. The sulfur dioxide was so thick in the air as to make impossible to breathe. The heat and stench were intense. Our athletic shoes were trashed from the sharp lava field. It was a heroic but foolish feeling to walk on lava crust with a hot red glow just below the surface. Would we break through?

The comment of Samuel C. in this thread was the most apropos in describing such people who do this as stupid. As one of those stupid people, I quite agree. At the time we were 70 which is proof that wisdom does not necessarily come with age.

Jim, did you not say, "The comment of Samuel C. in this thread was the most apropos in describing such people who do this as stupid." This sounds to me like you are the one criticizing. If yo9u stick to criticizing your own stupidity you won't draw criticism from others. By the way, Samuel C is a bonafide troll.

That's the point Jim, I never leave home, motel or camp without a pair of these:

https://www.asolo.com/en/products/backpacking/triple-power-structure/tps-520-gv-evo-chestnut.html

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: Several years ago my wife and I together with another married couple decided to go take a look at the lava flow overlook since Kilauea had recently erupted and the lava 'river' was quite active. We were told that it was a short walk across the lava field. Warned to walk only on what appeared to be the coolest lava crust, and we walked, and walked, etc. More than two hours later we arrived at the cliffs.

We saw the lava flow over the cliff. The sulfur dioxide was so thick in the air as to make impossible to breathe. The heat and stench were intense. Our athletic shoes were trashed from the sharp lava field. It was a heroic but foolish feeling to walk on lava crust with a hot red glow just below the surface. Would we break through?

The comment of Samuel C. in this thread was the most apropos in describing such people who do this as stupid. As one of those stupid people, I quite agree. At the time we were 70 which is proof that wisdom does not necessarily come with age.

Jim, two hours is a short walk. it certainly sounds like you were not outfitted correctly and you were not mentally or physically prepared.

But, this walk isn't foolish for everyone.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 11:54 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I assume I am taking a risk every time I strike out on a hike. The NPS sets boundaries for a variety of reasons many of which benefit NPS and their budget.

I don't find the image with the tripod compelling enough to agree with the boundary set by whatever agency did it on the basis of safety. What would be a more compelling deterrent for me is the quality of the composition from that angle. Moving closer would probably set off alarms that I am not going to get anything really useful vs. the risk that I couldn't get back behind the boundary with a long zoom.

Hey badScience, may I call you BS for short? I am tired of screwing with you, your master troll friend and the dozens of illiterate morons who liked your posts. Buh bye.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 11:30 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I assume I am taking a risk every time I strike out on a hike. The NPS sets boundaries for a variety of reasons many of which benefit NPS and their budget.

I don't find the image with the tripod compelling enough to agree with the boundary set by whatever agency did it on the basis of safety. What would be a more compelling deterrent for me is the quality of the composition from that angle. Moving closer would probably set off alarms that I am not going to get anything really useful vs. the risk that I couldn't get back behind the boundary with a long zoom.

BadDoofus, I decry you repeatedly distorting my words. You are a troll. This last post makes no sense whatsoever. You are descending into incomprehensible blather.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I assume I am taking a risk every time I strike out on a hike. The NPS sets boundaries for a variety of reasons many of which benefit NPS and their budget.

I don't find the image with the tripod compelling enough to agree with the boundary set by whatever agency did it on the basis of safety. What would be a more compelling deterrent for me is the quality of the composition from that angle. Moving closer would probably set off alarms that I am not going to get anything really useful vs. the risk that I couldn't get back behind the boundary with a long zoom.

Brody this is what I am talking about. I never said I was a cynic. I said the "cynic in me". It's a writing device. It's a hyperbole.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 16:27 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I assume I am taking a risk every time I strike out on a hike. The NPS sets boundaries for a variety of reasons many of which benefit NPS and their budget.

I don't find the image with the tripod compelling enough to agree with the boundary set by whatever agency did it on the basis of safety. What would be a more compelling deterrent for me is the quality of the composition from that angle. Moving closer would probably set off alarms that I am not going to get anything really useful vs. the risk that I couldn't get back behind the boundary with a long zoom.

BadPhotog, how do I know this image was taken by you? You post anonymously here and the person who posted that pic at Flickr posts anonymously as well both with different anonymous handles.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 16:23 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I assume I am taking a risk every time I strike out on a hike. The NPS sets boundaries for a variety of reasons many of which benefit NPS and their budget.

I don't find the image with the tripod compelling enough to agree with the boundary set by whatever agency did it on the basis of safety. What would be a more compelling deterrent for me is the quality of the composition from that angle. Moving closer would probably set off alarms that I am not going to get anything really useful vs. the risk that I couldn't get back behind the boundary with a long zoom.

Drive, I was speaking about barriers that were put up for "safety" reasons.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 15:58 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I assume I am taking a risk every time I strike out on a hike. The NPS sets boundaries for a variety of reasons many of which benefit NPS and their budget.

I don't find the image with the tripod compelling enough to agree with the boundary set by whatever agency did it on the basis of safety. What would be a more compelling deterrent for me is the quality of the composition from that angle. Moving closer would probably set off alarms that I am not going to get anything really useful vs. the risk that I couldn't get back behind the boundary with a long zoom.

BadMoron. don't pretend you care about anyone. Wishing people dead that you have declared as stupid just tells me you are a pathetic human being.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 15:55 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I assume I am taking a risk every time I strike out on a hike. The NPS sets boundaries for a variety of reasons many of which benefit NPS and their budget.

I don't find the image with the tripod compelling enough to agree with the boundary set by whatever agency did it on the basis of safety. What would be a more compelling deterrent for me is the quality of the composition from that angle. Moving closer would probably set off alarms that I am not going to get anything really useful vs. the risk that I couldn't get back behind the boundary with a long zoom.

Brody, you can draw illogical conclusions all you want. You can call me names all you want. You obviously haven't read the entire thread nor understood it. You can't possibly think this post will deter me from defending myself against you and the other trolls.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 15:49 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I assume I am taking a risk every time I strike out on a hike. The NPS sets boundaries for a variety of reasons many of which benefit NPS and their budget.

I don't find the image with the tripod compelling enough to agree with the boundary set by whatever agency did it on the basis of safety. What would be a more compelling deterrent for me is the quality of the composition from that angle. Moving closer would probably set off alarms that I am not going to get anything really useful vs. the risk that I couldn't get back behind the boundary with a long zoom.

Drive, I do not understand your question.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 01:52 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I assume I am taking a risk every time I strike out on a hike. The NPS sets boundaries for a variety of reasons many of which benefit NPS and their budget.

I don't find the image with the tripod compelling enough to agree with the boundary set by whatever agency did it on the basis of safety. What would be a more compelling deterrent for me is the quality of the composition from that angle. Moving closer would probably set off alarms that I am not going to get anything really useful vs. the risk that I couldn't get back behind the boundary with a long zoom.

BadScience, let's call you BadLogic, BadReader, BadTroll. I never said "I do not like being told where to go and where not to go. But repeating a lie over and over is the classic behavior of an anonymous troll.

Nice try, BadPhotographer. A bald-face lie that you were ever close to Mesa Arch.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 01:51 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I assume I am taking a risk every time I strike out on a hike. The NPS sets boundaries for a variety of reasons many of which benefit NPS and their budget.

I don't find the image with the tripod compelling enough to agree with the boundary set by whatever agency did it on the basis of safety. What would be a more compelling deterrent for me is the quality of the composition from that angle. Moving closer would probably set off alarms that I am not going to get anything really useful vs. the risk that I couldn't get back behind the boundary with a long zoom.

Samuel C, I was at Mesa Arch one morning well ahead of your usual alarm clock setting surrounded by a dozen photographers when an idiot started walking across the top of the Arch. I was the one who piped up and told him the get the F down from there. The other lemmings chimed in after that and the dude was shamed down. I would agree to a barrier there. There may actually be one up there but I wouldn't know since I wouldn't walk across any Arch.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2017 at 22:29 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: I assume I am taking a risk every time I strike out on a hike. The NPS sets boundaries for a variety of reasons many of which benefit NPS and their budget.

I don't find the image with the tripod compelling enough to agree with the boundary set by whatever agency did it on the basis of safety. What would be a more compelling deterrent for me is the quality of the composition from that angle. Moving closer would probably set off alarms that I am not going to get anything really useful vs. the risk that I couldn't get back behind the boundary with a long zoom.

Samual C, in what way is my "a more compelling deterrent" statement an admission of violating a barrier? This is what I am talking about. You have poor reading skills. "Sounds like" sounds like your poor interpretation and in the process, you've stirred up the trolls.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2017 at 22:21 UTC
Total: 558, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »