AbrasiveReducer

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

Comments

Total: 3557, showing: 501 – 520
« First‹ Previous2425262728Next ›Last »

I think I'd rather go with a Fotron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotron

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 01:02 UTC as 216th comment
On article Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III real-world sample gallery (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

aaronbass813: I would be really disappointed if I spent $5,700 (5D MKIV + 16-35 III) and that was the image quality that I was getting out of the combo.

I think this is a case where if you don't like something you shouldn't buy it. And by the way, the 17-40 is a dog. DPR won't say it, but it's the worst of all Canon's L lenses. Some people love it (go figure) but there's no comparsion between the 17-40 and any other L series wide zoom.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 18:03 UTC

You can see the darkening in the corners, but knowing Tokina, I'll bet it's an outstanding lens. Tokina has been making "art" lenses all along.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2016 at 22:03 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
On article Canon EOS M5 added to studio scene comparison tool (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: Interesting that every Sony camera article is rammed with hundreds of comments about how awful and lacking it is, and in a Canon one there is absolutely zero trolling and comparatively few comments, despite Canon being late to market and the performance being behind the Sony.

It seems the rivalry is only one way, or (more probably) that many of the negative comments in the Sony threads are from paid trolls and astroturfers.

Looking at the engraving in the middle left hand ninth of the chart - the wall behind the old lady with clasped hands; the A6300 and A6000 are the only aps-c cameras resolving the lines on the wall here. The image quality is remarkable.

And yet if you visit the forums you'll find that many Canon and Nikon users will not even accept that Sony is a camera company, (They make TVs apparently).

So how do they settle this with themselves? that more detail is recorded in images produced by a camera that was built by a company that isn't even a camera company?

Since you brought it up, here's an idea. Take a Sony camera and a Canon camera. Send each in for repair. Then decide if Sony is a camera company.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2016 at 19:27 UTC
On article Canon EOS M5 added to studio scene comparison tool (87 comments in total)

Interesing that this elaborate chart does nothing to resolve prople's opinions. They look at the same chart and reach completely different conclusions.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2016 at 19:22 UTC as 25th comment
On article Have your say: Best prime lens of 2016 (152 comments in total)

If I'd seen a few tests, I'd probably vote for the 19 PC Nikkor. As it is, all I know for sure is its expensive and made by Nikon.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2016 at 06:47 UTC as 16th comment

What happened to these photos is as important as the photos themselves. These days, you can claim the images were altered in Photoshop and if that doesn't work, create a fake news story about a conspiricy and people will believe it. But nobody is claiming that the events shown here did not happen.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2016 at 06:43 UTC as 37th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

tom1234567: Just got rid of Adobe LR AND PP today
I now use on1Photo Raw instead of LR,
and the new Affinity for windows released today in place of PP.

so Adobe no more monies from me,
the LR done nothing for the Fuji jpeg problems
I have the Fuji X-T2 and the D7200 and the new programs handle the files with no problems
I think a few more users will be leaving Adobe soon

Tom G

When you see what Affinty gives you for $40, you realize how ridiculous Adobe has gotten.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2016 at 23:03 UTC

Even though most photography is ridiculously easy compared to how it used to be, not everybody wants to be a professional, or even claim to be one. For those folks, taking photos is about chronicling their lives and for that, any camera will do.

I've had people ask how I took a shot and when I tell them, it's obvious they're not interested in putting in that much effort.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2016 at 19:33 UTC as 8th comment
On article Fujifilm launches X-A10 as entry-level X-series model (166 comments in total)

Seems like a good deal for the price. As for the dreaded selfies, if you look at Fuji literature for their lower end models, it's all aimed at young girls so obviously the selfie makes sense.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 19:36 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (338 comments in total)

The conclusions are sort of funny. A $1600 35mm lens may not be ideal for those on a tight budget. Since the lens is large and heavy, people who want a lens that's not large and heavy might want to look elsewhere. Excuse me, but aren't these things obvious?

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2016 at 20:26 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michiel953: Another observation. I don't understand the obsession of some with ultimate sharpness in edges and corners. What subjects are predominantly two-dimensional? Most are three-dimensional and, depending on the amount of field curvature, there's probably a slightly curved band of acceptable sharpness across the frame.
Then there's focus shift, less reliable AF points as you move towards edges and corners.

I would agree that it's worthwhile to be able to quickly get into accurate focus a subject far from
the center, for composition reasons, but that depends on so many factors.

Sure, but I'd rather start with a lens capable of delivering sharp corners with a flat subject. It may be that real world situations will hide the flaws of a lens that can't do this but then again, maybe not.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2016 at 20:21 UTC
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 (125 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 16th comment | 13 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 (275 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 (275 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 (275 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 64th comment | 2 replies
Total: 3557, showing: 501 – 520
« First‹ Previous2425262728Next ›Last »