AbrasiveReducer

Lives in United States United States
Joined on May 27, 2010

Comments

Total: 3047, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Haim Hadar: Back in those day when you could actually do something useful with this camera, the same people that now pay this exuberant amount for it, would have probably dismiss it as a crappy knock-off... Funny how things work. Plus, that gun camera has got "tacky" written all over it.

The camera gunstock wasn't intended to be a fashion statement. Unlike a lot of the "can you top this?" features on modern cameras, the gunstock had a purpose.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 18:12 UTC
In reply to:

snapa: Some people simply have more money than sense. If you have nothing better to do with $400k then to spend it on an almost useless camera, you have more money than you deserve to have. Will the person who bought it actually use the camera, or just put it on a shelf to admire it? Either way, what a complete waste of money.

To each his own but I doubt it will appreciate much if at all in price. First, everybody who knows early Nikon RF cameras already knows about the pre-24x36 cameras, so the existence of this camera is not news.

Second, and more importantly, a lot of the guys who are interested in this stuff, who are old enough to appreciate it, are dying off. Younger people, if they have the money, can drop it on modern limited edition cameras. There's an assumption that something rare will always increase in price. Ask the Leica Historical Society what has happened to the value of their memeber's collections.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 18:08 UTC
On article Venus Laowa 12mm F2.8 Zero-D sample gallery (116 comments in total)

This is making me nostalgic. A really wide lens without tons of barrel distortion. (This was the norm in the film era when there was no way to correct the distortion.)

Personally, I'd rather see more lenses with low distortion than more gold coatings and bubble-shaped bokeh, etc. And the bonus is when there is no distortion to correct, sharpness does not suffer from having to move all those pixels.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2016 at 19:04 UTC as 12th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

noisephotographer: Reasons not to buy:
-Too much depth of field, the Canon G1x II would be a much better choice in this regard, even the Lx100
-No touchscreen (maybe not extremely relevant because of the deep depth of field, but could be also very useful for the user interface, pinch to zoom, etc)
-no in-camera raw processing as far as I know
-only up to 70mm equivalent focal length
-not the best quality you can get in a small camera, for example Fuji X70(albeit less detail) or Canon M3+22mm f/2
-Sony's jpgs and auto white balance could be better

Reason to buy: If you waste time thinking about it, Sony will release a newer model.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

tbcass: "Reason to reconsider: You just don't need it"

Since when is "need" a real consideration for DPR readers. They might say they need but in reality they want.

Tis the season to buy, whether you need it or not. You won't find much help on how to manage with what you already have even if it's perfectly fine. At least DPR is not suggesting these cameras are a good "investment."

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 at 20:44 UTC
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art Lens Review (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

QuarryCat: So bad - Sigma failed again.
We all want the best Performance for half the price.
But all Nikon-Users will have to pay for the 14-24 mm monster or stay with the 16-35 mm VR -
all Canon-Users will dream from the heavy-fat 11-24 mm L or live with the very good 4/16-35 mm L IS
all others still wait for a real good ultra-wideangle or use single focal lenses.
The Tamron 15-30 mm doesn't deliver, not for Pentax, nor for Canon or Nikon.
And the new Sigma stays disappointing for to much money.
Next chance is Nikon, to built a real good, not so large 4.0/14-24 mm.

It's not a failure, it's just mediocre. Sigma has been on a winning streak and all the reviewers have raved about their newer lenses. Just not this one.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2016 at 07:31 UTC
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art Lens Review (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

zodiacfml: I don't understand the negative tone of the review. It is 95% of the performance of the Canon for half the price. The build quality is also around 85% of the Canon.

They just can't beat the Canon now though because they couldn't make the lens any bigger. The ART line was successful because they were significantly larger and heavier than the Canon/Nikon equivalent where size/weight is a factor in lens design.

While I tend to ignore DxO tests, this lens is plainly not 95% of the Canon, nor 85%, nor 75%. It's sharp at some focal lengths and not at others. The other Sigma Art lenses are better.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2016 at 07:28 UTC
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art Lens Review (202 comments in total)

You have to wonder what Sigma was trying to accomplish with this. It's like the Rokinon tilt shift lens; you pay a lot less and you get a lot less.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 01:37 UTC as 49th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Seems the true cost of these cameras is accepting that you need two systems if portablily is a concern. Buy a top SLR and some good lenses, it's a brick; buy a m43 camera and the outfit is genuinely small but not SLR quality. APS is a compromise. Not quite FF SLR and with a few good fast lenses, not small and light either.

I wish I was a "real person" so I could exchange insults but I'll just say I love my Pen F outfit, but when size and weight are not an issue there are things I can do with my Canon 17TS and 5D3 that cannot be done with the any m43 camera so that's why I have the two systems.

m43 is amazing for what it is, but when you take your 2-seater sports car to Home Depot to pick up sheetrock, it won't happen.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 19:36 UTC
In reply to:

obsolescence: No doubt it's a great camera for many purposes. The question for me is whether the upgrades are enough of an improvement over (the other predecessor) EM5-II to justify the cost. It doesn't have significantly better IQ and there's still no native UWA Tilt-Shift lens that I need (and please don't respond about software corrections) ...which is leading me to transition to FF in the not-distant future.

Just because, in their heyday, Olympus made a great 24 Shift (and not so great 35 shift) to compete directly with Nikon in 35mm format, I wouldn't assume they would try to squeeze good enough performance out of m43 to make a shift lens practical.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 19:24 UTC

Seems the true cost of these cameras is accepting that you need two systems if portablily is a concern. Buy a top SLR and some good lenses, it's a brick; buy a m43 camera and the outfit is genuinely small but not SLR quality. APS is a compromise. Not quite FF SLR and with a few good fast lenses, not small and light either.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 16:01 UTC as 57th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

El Chavo: By some comments I read here I guess I know why mFT is the bestest best evah:
-According to some of the zealots here 16mp is more than enough for everyone on earth. (What's that?! It's 20mp now?) I mean 20mp is more than enough.
-If the camera they are comparing against is bigger than the mFT its just too big heavy and big but if it is smaller it is not built as well as mFT. (Also apply to lenses)
-If the sensor is bigger than the "micro" you are trying to overcompensate but if it is smaller "it's what you can do with it" (and how dare you compare mFT to 1 inch sensor).
-Dynamic Range? JPEG has more than enough than anyone would ever need because "I say so".
-High ISO? No one should ever shoot more than iso 800 anyways because "I say so".
-If the price is high for a FF camera than it is an absurd but if it is high in mFT you are buying "the system".
-The menus are terrible? Well there is no need to dive in those but have you seen the menus in Sony or Fuji? So dumb right? LOL!

And besides, it's not made by Sony!

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 15:47 UTC
On article 2016 Holiday Gift Guide: $500 and up (40 comments in total)

I'll bet those $900 dye sub printers are gonna fly out the door. And by the way, I thought the Leica was covered in rubber from the world's finest ping-pong paddles. Now you're telling us its just a shower mat?

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 19:57 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On article 2016 Holiday Gift Guide: $500 and up (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

photomedium: Do we need a segment on how to blow 500 bucks or more on a gift?
Who is the target audience here? Wall street executives with a huge xmas bonuses?
Or bored wives of said executives?

These are unbiased reccomendations from a site that just happens to be assoicated with a major retailer.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 19:54 UTC
In reply to:

old_slowhand: Just had the chance to hear a lecture of Dr. Kaufmann (ex CEO and big shareholder of LEICA) last Friday on a Congress. Believe me, these guys know exactly what they are doing ;-) This is why they survived (after standing of the verge of bancrupcy) and e.g. Kodak did not. Don#t let the superficiality of this red lens fool you...

There might be some truth to what you say except that, besides being in a completely different business than Kodak, Leitz went through a series of owners, business plans and near-death experiences before arriving where they are. They were able to buy time based on their history and strength of their brand name.

Finally, they've hit on a mix of "real" Leica cameras, Panasonic, and silly but super-profitable boutique items. If they know what they're doing, its because they've tried everything else.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 18:32 UTC

That's easy. Joel Peter Witkin.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 18:23 UTC as 55th comment
In reply to:

tkbslc: I get a bit weary of these "largest ever" or "fastest ever" or "most megapixels ever" claims. It's pretty obvious that each year or two as technology advances that the new gear will be "the best ever". Claiming to have the "best ever" every single year, is a little much.

Something a bit less dramatic would be a lot better. Maybe, "Seagate increases portable drive capacity to 5TB".

Agreed, but since a hard drive is a storage device, if a new hard drive can store more than the previous one, that is genuinely "better." Whereas a camera that has 32 megapixels probably won't do anything you couldn't do with 24 megapixels.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 04:25 UTC
In reply to:

WayneHuangPhoto: Get a RAVPower Filehub and use any hard drive you want to backup. Costs you all of $40 plus cost of HD.

Or just get a full sized hard drive and a cable. The point is, these drives are small, relative to what they can store. They're almost as small as a pocket camera that doesn't fit in a pocket, and that's pretty small.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 04:20 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (304 comments in total)
In reply to:

GRUBERND: waiting for anyone building a version with:
24-120
hotshoe
tilting touchscreen
non-soapy body

Much as I despise phones, they do actually fit in your pocket.

DPR should ask for photos showing how people carry their Sony pocket cameras. Seated comfortably with a "Sony in their pants." Sony, no baloney as they used to say. After all, fitting in a pocket is supposed to be the reason for spending this much for a small camera. If you're going to use a belt pouch, a bag, or a carry a coat with large pockets, why all the fuss about pocketability?

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 17:40 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (304 comments in total)
In reply to:

photomedium: Seeing the whole ensemble of RX100 in one place like that makes one thing very clear: the first two old model should disappear and the rest should drop in price by 30%.
This thing is actually hurting sony from a marketing standpoint.
$450 for a now VERY outdated compact is outrageous.

None of these is outdated if you just want still photos that a better than a phone and something that says Zeiss. The high price of the newer ones makes the older ones comparatively cheap.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 17:21 UTC
Total: 3047, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »