Rick Knepper

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

Comments

Total: 534, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
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.

I feel like you are avoiding engaging in specifics other than specific unsubstantiated claims. This is the first time I have heard of any Leica 50mm being referred to as the sharpest 50mm available.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 23:52 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.

You know we are discussing M series cameras and lenses. I've used many Zeiss lenses including renting the Zeiss 55mm and if Leica is producing lenses that are as sharp across the frame wide open as the this Zeiss is, then I stand corrected. If it keeps pace with the 35L II in this very important performance category, I stand corrected. Point me in the direction of a review that clearly features wide open shooting and full size images so I can be impressed. I still would not spend $7k on a Leica camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 14:47 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.

HowaboutRAW, the 35L II is an excellent lens for a 50 MP system. Leica lenses are suitable for Leica's diminutive sensor resolutions.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 03:20 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.

Good lenses are expensive but not Leica expensive. Case in point: Leica Summilux 34/1.4 = $4995 vs. Canon EF 35L/1.4 II = $1799. Although I haven't seen a direct side by side comparison, the Leica would be huffing and puffing to keep up to this new Canon lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 11:35 UTC
In reply to:

snapa: I'd rather see Sony announce a few more high quality native APS-C E-mount zoom lenses and updated pancake primes myself :-/

No. I am talking about the lensrental.com review among others that say the lens isn't all that. Check on SAR for these alternative reviews.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Dear Fugi, beyond the 6 lenses already announced, first look into adding a long lens. The 23mm (18mm 35mm equivalent) will satisfy UWA for many. I think 300mm should be the target.

Who's Fuji?

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 16:18 UTC

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.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 13:51 UTC as 45th comment | 26 replies
In reply to:

snapa: I'd rather see Sony announce a few more high quality native APS-C E-mount zoom lenses and updated pancake primes myself :-/

Sony released the 70-200 GM to mediocre reviews.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 13:40 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Sorry Sony/Metabones, I'm buying a Fugi GFX 50S instead. More resolution, more dynamic range, mirrorless.

Using a large Canon lens on a system with a large adapter takes away one of the major "benefits" of the Sony system. Using a 3rd party adapter is a fool's errand in my estimation. AF performance will still not be as good as it would be on a Canon system.

Ok. This is the first I am hearing that some Canon lenses actually perform better adapted to the Sony system. Of course, I do not follow the Sony forum and what I hear from former Sony/Canon users on the Canon forum may be weighted towards the complainers.

Was I right about the size/weight? I rented the A7r II with the Batis 25mm. That was light weight but I could see little advantage to employing a large adapter and a heavy Canon lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 13:26 UTC

Dear Fugi, beyond the 6 lenses already announced, first look into adding a long lens. The 23mm (18mm 35mm equivalent) will satisfy UWA for many. I think 300mm should be the target.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 12:53 UTC as 43rd comment | 5 replies

Sorry Sony/Metabones, I'm buying a Fugi GFX 50S instead. More resolution, more dynamic range, mirrorless.

Using a large Canon lens on a system with a large adapter takes away one of the major "benefits" of the Sony system. Using a 3rd party adapter is a fool's errand in my estimation. AF performance will still not be as good as it would be on a Canon system.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 12:47 UTC as 22nd comment | 7 replies

Already pre-ordered the camera and the 63mm prime and the zoom. Pumped.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 10:23 UTC as 79th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

photophile: Sorry, but these "moon shots" don't work for me. All I see is what appears to be the moon, obscured by buildings or monuments. Why ? If you want to see moon shots, browse the various DPR forums - lots of very good examples.

You see a "shot of the moon". I see a shot of Lady Liberty with the moon as background.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 13:08 UTC
In reply to:

cdembrey: Why would anybody want t o shoot the same pic, that millions have already shot??

It's impossible to shoot the same pic.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 02:59 UTC
On article Meet two nomadic photographers who travel full-time (152 comments in total)

I could do semi-nomadic within my own country (this is why I spend $2 a week on the lotto). There's so much to see and photograph in the USA (as I am sure there is in any country) that a person might never be able to get to everything (and do it justice) in a lifetime.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 18:26 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

stevo23: I'd rather see them work on in-camera raw histograms.

Stevo, you (or anyone) may need the features more than the level of peace of mind that I require. I wanted to agree with you that an in-camera RAW histogram is of more interest to most potential users than in-camera DNGs without sounding like I am endorsing the software.

digidog, ML claimed AEB of more than 3 images. what they didn't say was the brackets were limited to half stops as the finest increment. I needed 1/3 stops. ML claimed higher dynamic range but that was at the expense of lowered resolution. I am told this is not the case any longer, but ML required a very specific shutdown procedure otherwise your camera was temporarily bricked and required pulling the battery. If someone believes they need ML, I would recommend renting an ML-enabled camera from lensrental.com first.

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

stevo23: I'd rather see them work on in-camera raw histograms.

The software is essentially a hack. The users are essentially beta testers. There is a "gotcha" in many of their features. I find these uncertainties problematic.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 22:42 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: I'd rather see them work on in-camera raw histograms.

Hear hear, except, I'll never put ML crap on any camera of mine again.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 15:34 UTC
In reply to:

Holger Bargen: Pentax offers it since many years - without extra software (if I get the meaning of the new Canon feature right).

I thought about this after I posted. Canon RAW is supposed to be 14 bit lossless compressed anyway. http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/14-bit_ad_conversion_digic4_article.shtml?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=DSAs&utm_content=DSAs&utm_campaign=DSAs&cm_mmc=GA-_-CanonOnlineStore-_-151030PLA-_-DSAs&=&gclid=CJiWmornqNECFQ-1wAodOZkIEg

So that part of it does seem like needless fanfare. I guess for those who have bought into the DNG hype, having DNG straight out of the camera might be a thing.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 15:33 UTC
In reply to:

Holger Bargen: Pentax offers it since many years - without extra software (if I get the meaning of the new Canon feature right).

Not sure if outputting DNG is the main idea. Outputting lossless 14 bit files in the DNG format is the main attraction. DPR may not have gone far enough in its description.

Here's the post at ML:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=18443.msg176809#msg176809

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2017 at 20:52 UTC
Total: 534, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »