mandophoto

Lives in United States Tucson, AZ, United States
Joined on Feb 23, 2010

Comments

Total: 116, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mandophoto: "...to learn new strategies, tools and ideas to leverage the power of story and effect social change."

Does everyone in Seattle talk like this?

Ha! Yes, but Blue Earth is a non-profit.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 21:19 UTC

"...to learn new strategies, tools and ideas to leverage the power of story and effect social change."

Does everyone in Seattle talk like this?

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 19:56 UTC as 3rd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Jonath: Read any recent review on here and there is a clear pattern, if a camera cannot do everything well, it is fair game for criticism. Such are our high expectations that we think these devices should do flawless low-ISO, flawless high-ISO, flawless tracking AF, last all day on one battery, be impervious to weather, the list goes on.

It's almost like we've forgotten that some camera's aren't necessarily designed to do everything well and clearly this camera was not designed for everyone, probably not even 1% of everyone and has very specific use cases in mind apparently manifest in how it performs at low-ISO (and its price).

It's safe to assume this is a deliberate act, isn't it? (happy to be challenged) It's not like Nikon don't know what they're doing with DR. The question then is of judgement, have they got this right? Even with these very specific use cases and a focus on sports / wildlife in mind, low ISO performance seems surprisingly poor given what is possible. Doesn't it?

@brycesteiner: Glad to know you think the D5 is a fantastic camera.

So how 'bout this: "DPReview's job is to show people the MERITS of the flagship D5."

Sure, no camera is perfect.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 13:57 UTC
In reply to:

Jonath: Read any recent review on here and there is a clear pattern, if a camera cannot do everything well, it is fair game for criticism. Such are our high expectations that we think these devices should do flawless low-ISO, flawless high-ISO, flawless tracking AF, last all day on one battery, be impervious to weather, the list goes on.

It's almost like we've forgotten that some camera's aren't necessarily designed to do everything well and clearly this camera was not designed for everyone, probably not even 1% of everyone and has very specific use cases in mind apparently manifest in how it performs at low-ISO (and its price).

It's safe to assume this is a deliberate act, isn't it? (happy to be challenged) It's not like Nikon don't know what they're doing with DR. The question then is of judgement, have they got this right? Even with these very specific use cases and a focus on sports / wildlife in mind, low ISO performance seems surprisingly poor given what is possible. Doesn't it?

@ brycesteiner: What makes you think the D5 is not fantastic? There's no flaw, only your fatuous expectation of a perfect camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 12:11 UTC

When Sony answers Nikon with an A7sIII with ISO capability of 3 million +, the naysayers will flip and proclaim it as an innovation. We guys can be hilarious.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 15:49 UTC as 102nd comment
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2489 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlexReusch: I think you did not really understand how to use the ISO dial. You should operate the dial with your right hand, while you are looking through the viewfinder. The changing ISO values are visible on the display. In that fashion, it is a very natural, simple and quick setup option. Using the dial looking from above on it, can be confusing and not feeling natural at all. If you use this camera on a regular base, you will find yourself doing adjustments almost automatically, all with your right hand, while not moving your eye off the viewfinder. Instead, being concentrated on finding the right composition.

@bernardf12: Film was available with different ASA/ISO ratings, so changing the ISO setting in film cameras was common. Digital sensors are "multiple ISO," which makes Auto ISO possible, meaning changing individual ISO settings on a digital camera is not absolutely necessary. You know all this, but perhaps you prefer to use individual ISO settings.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 21:39 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2489 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlexReusch: I think you did not really understand how to use the ISO dial. You should operate the dial with your right hand, while you are looking through the viewfinder. The changing ISO values are visible on the display. In that fashion, it is a very natural, simple and quick setup option. Using the dial looking from above on it, can be confusing and not feeling natural at all. If you use this camera on a regular base, you will find yourself doing adjustments almost automatically, all with your right hand, while not moving your eye off the viewfinder. Instead, being concentrated on finding the right composition.

@Richard Butler: You obviously never used a Canon "new" F-1 (second iteration.) Now that camera has an almost impossible to use ASA dial! The first F-1 had the same system as this X-Pro 2 and frankly I never considered it difficult. As MikeF4Black suggests, is there really a need to constantly change the ISO, especially with today's "ISO-less" digital wonders?

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 21:24 UTC
In reply to:

Carerra: oh wow? did Sony ask you to say that.

It's a bit of levity from the DPreview folks. Lighten up, think about it, and smile.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 16:01 UTC
On article Video: a look at the Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II (125 comments in total)

I don't understand the continual harping about the Sony menu design. I've used Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, and Sony cameras and frankly all have opaque and cryptic menu systems.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2015 at 16:36 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
On article Canon 35mm F1.4L II: a photojournalist's perspective (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

supersteel: nice article to read..images..meh.

dont like the cropped face suit man and the distracting element in the pictures of the nfl players..meh.

Rescue? No, 140815, Mr. Stead doesn't need my support.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2015 at 22:49 UTC
On article Canon 35mm F1.4L II: a photojournalist's perspective (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

supersteel: nice article to read..images..meh.

dont like the cropped face suit man and the distracting element in the pictures of the nfl players..meh.

newuser140815...meh.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2015 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

eyeswideshut: How can the same company release something as handsome as this and then the SL?

The T is nice but adding the largish EVF compromises the elegant simplicity of the T. The SL is actually quite nice, and the overall design balance of that camera type is the best so far.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 21:41 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: If you'd told me they were taken with a D810 and some Zeiss or some of the more expensive Nikkor lenses I would see no reason to doubt the statement.

The Summilux lenses are already renown for quality, so it didn't seem necessary to check those samples. But I will.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2015 at 20:58 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: If you'd told me they were taken with a D810 and some Zeiss or some of the more expensive Nikkor lenses I would see no reason to doubt the statement.

So you're comparing a 36mp sensor to a 24mp sensor, and comparing single focal lenght lenses (the best from Nikon are their big and very expensive single length telephoto lenses, and ZEISS doesn't make zooms in the Nikon mount,) to the Leica SL kit zoom lens. That's actually a compliment to the Leica.

I have the Nikon 24-120 f4, and as much as I want to believe, that kit zoom does not compare to what I see in the Leica SL 24-90. I cannot afford to switch, however that won't prevent me from giving credit where it is due.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2015 at 13:35 UTC
In reply to:

mandophoto: From the DNGs posted here, that 24-90 Leica looks mighty fine. Yep, it's big, heavy and expensive, but it tunnel's light wonderfully.

Yeah, I was referring to the real world samples.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2015 at 23:24 UTC

From the DNGs posted here, that 24-90 Leica looks mighty fine. Yep, it's big, heavy and expensive, but it tunnel's light wonderfully.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2015 at 22:47 UTC as 32nd comment | 7 replies
On article 20:20 vision: Hands-on with Sigma's 20mm F1.4 'Art' (148 comments in total)
In reply to:

mandophoto: Well, this lens alone is heavier than the new Leica SL camera. Bad Sigma.

(The above is... whatever you make of it.)

You're correct. And this lens is certainly not the first new, large, heavy, high quality lens to be designed for our high rez sensors. I was joking a bit just to point out that for all the calls for small and light gear, getting around physics is going to be difficult. Not even Sony, the darling of the moment, can avoid physics. When they finally release a 600mm f4 for sports photogs, you can bet there will be a Leica SL sized Sony to accompany that lens.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2015 at 23:15 UTC
On article 20:20 vision: Hands-on with Sigma's 20mm F1.4 'Art' (148 comments in total)

Well, this lens alone is heavier than the new Leica SL camera. Bad Sigma.

(The above is... whatever you make of it.)

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2015 at 22:59 UTC as 33rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mandophoto: A bunch of sour guys posting here. They're actually envious of a 4 year old getting a little attention. I hope these posts are by trolls and not regular visitors. Sheez.

Yep, like I said....or something.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2015 at 02:10 UTC
In reply to:

mandophoto: A bunch of sour guys posting here. They're actually envious of a 4 year old getting a little attention. I hope these posts are by trolls and not regular visitors. Sheez.

You're backpeddling from calling some of the kid's photographs "throaway." And now the efforts of a proud father to innocently show his kid's photographs are questioned. Yeah, Davinator, you're envious. Or something.

As others have said, it is a nice story of a father and son bonding by using photography. Seems like a relevant subject for a photography site. Plus we get a nice break from the never ending number chrunching we've all become addicted to. Peace.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2015 at 01:33 UTC
Total: 116, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »