AbrasiveReducer

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

Comments

Total: 3411, showing: 541 – 560
« First‹ Previous2627282930Next ›Last »
On article Real world test: The Panono is a 108MP spherical camera (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin Meier: no thing is too stupid to sell it ... a very expensive gimmick nobody needs ...

It's hard to imagine anyone needs one of these. But I'd sure like to toss one around before the novelty wears off.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 04:09 UTC
On article Trippy mirrored timelapse turns Hong Kong upside down (15 comments in total)

Looks like the opening to the Bosch TV series.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2016 at 16:16 UTC as 10th comment
On article Fujifilm X-Pro2 versus X-T2: Seven key differences (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

JosephScha: Re: "So which one should you buy?" Really? Is that the purpose of the info presented on dpreview? I hope not. Using phrases like that will bring out all the people who think Amazon has influenced content, to say "see? See? I told you so!".

Barney, your candor is appreciated. It's all about helping people decide what to buy, period. Not that long ago, people paid money for subscriptions to magazines that told them what to buy. Literally paying to be advertised to.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2016 at 18:52 UTC

Doing laundry, now there's a twist on tragedy. Generally, I like photos of ruins, except when they are staged but at least there's no smokey HDR.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 16:41 UTC as 35th comment
In reply to:

Impulses: Why are they trying to make renting gear like one of those swag subscriptions for tochkes or some sorta curated experience. Gear isn't content, gear is for producing content. This seems like a solution in search of a problem at worst, and a service for those that just don't know what they want (at all) and simply wanna dabble in photography...

The latter isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I don't see the market. If you can afford $150/month ($200 with insurance) then you can afford to buy/return/resell a few cameras, and in the end actually own something in return for your time/money. Paying up $1,800 (yr) or even $900 and in the end come away empty handed is a tough sell.

That's the key. If you can afford it, you don't need it. The pro needs a specific item at a specific time, and if it needs to be rented, it's part of the cost of the job. The amateur wants to try stuff, sure, but the cost of trying something could just as easily be put towards buying it. Or, you could pull a Ken Rockwell and just buy stuff and return it.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

obsolescence: That Theta cam is junk. If you want to see some really high quality 360˚ VR Panos, check out http://360-foto.dk or http://worldwidepanorama.org

Yes, but what would happen if the Theta did have decent image quality? Its bound to happen eventually, and then it will be the time to make a comparison like this.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 04:20 UTC
In reply to:

Skyscape: I'm betting that greater than 98% of the "photographers" existing now wouldn't have the slightest idea how to produce a good photo with this camera.

"How many autofocus points does it have?"

"OMG OMG the images are not super-razor sharp!" We all know the definition of a good photo is sharpness now.

"Does it shoot 4K video?"

"Where do you insert the memory card and battery?"

"Can I return it to the seller if, after 'testing' the camera I find the lens to have some silly 'flaws' that only I can see because I am a super-professional photographer that requires their lenses to be NASA-quality perfect, so as to shoot flowers and brick walls in my back yard."

I do think today's cameras are superior but the level of skill required to get a good image is vastly less than it used to be. It's like saying "I know how to drive an automatic transmission!"

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 19:10 UTC

Its funny to read this because anyone who's ever studied photography knows about Ansel microwaving the prints to check for dry-down. But maybe its worthwhile, to show to today's photographers how much effort it used to take to get to a great image.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 18:59 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies

Nice. If your idea of a nice carbon tripod is a Chinese knock-off, the price will seem unimaginable. But if you're comparing to a really good tripod like Gitzo or RRS, this FLM looks quite reasonable. And unlike your camera, you don't replace your tripod every other year.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 22:03 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2212 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: Technology is one thing but cmon curmudgeons. There's no way you don't look at a camera with dials for shutter, ISO, aperture, exposure, and still have a dial under your finger to use for whatever else you can desire and not start to drool. I'm starting to feel like the camera is more about the enjoyment I get out of using it and all the dials and big EVF really make it fun to USE, not just fun to look at the pictures that come out afterwards.

There are two generations here; folks who want as many features as possible, with as many buttons and menus as possible...and people who want the technology under the hood, with exterior designs going back to what worked in the first place. Maybe someone will make a camera you use for 20 years, that doesn't require a battery.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 20:35 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2212 comments in total)
In reply to:

jl_smith: So I did a short comparison between an X-T2 setup and a D750, since someone mentioned one could just buy a D750 for 'these prices'. Of course you cannot *DIRECTLY* compare FF and APS-C (insert equivalence blah blah blah) but I came close. Also, this is an older camera vs a new X-T2, so prices are skewed a bit.

For those curious - took the prices and stats from B&H:
D750 w/ 35mm f/1.8, 70-200 f/4, and 16-35
Price:$5017.85
Weight:2689g
bulk:215 in^3

X-T2 w/ 23/1.4, 50-140/2.8, 10-24
Price:$5096
Weight:2213
Bulk:162 in^3

So with the Fuji setup you pay 1.6% more in cost, for 82% of the weight and 75% of the bulk (volume) of the Nikon. Specs you all can compare for yourselves (video differences, OVF vs EVF, whatever).

Then there are the intangibles: control preferences, after-release support of camera, battery longevity, etc.

I prefer Fuji ;)
Others may prefer Nikon.

Good to have choices.

Interesting comparison. Both these outfits are heavy (bring on macho comments) but if you're going to carry all this stuff, why go with a smaller sensor? I don't fault Fuji; if you want lenses of this quality, they will be heavy.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 17:28 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2673 comments in total)

If you want a Pentax mount and/or pixel shift, this is a sweet camera. Otherwise, I think I'd wait to see if this camera triggers a Pentax revival. The rest of the unique features don't strike me as very useful (like new Photoshop features) but the list is long, the price is low and the images look great. Hopefully, Ricoh will continue the Pentax/Olympus tradition of being a bit more affordable than Nikon/Canon, for EU consumers.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 05:48 UTC as 343rd comment
On article Pentax K-1 real-world sample gallery (144 comments in total)

Nice photos, but as far as I can tell, the pixel shift is the only thing that sets these images apart. So you have to be knowledgable enough about cameras to appreciate pixel shift, yet willing to roll the dice on a Pentax system. The night shot of Mt. Saint Helens is cool but so much has been done to it, it seems that the camera is almost secondary.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2016 at 16:33 UTC as 22nd comment | 4 replies
On article Meyer-Optik Goerlitz launches 3-element 95mm F2.6 (124 comments in total)

If they made a triplet that performs well on a 60mp camera, then its worth $1700. Its also a miracle.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 04:23 UTC as 33rd comment | 2 replies

Hopefully, this will be easy to defeat.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 04:12 UTC as 146th comment
On article The price is right: Canon EOS Rebel T6 / 1300D Review (422 comments in total)

Ohmygosh, just 18 megapixels. How will a beginner get by on that? And since the lens is soft (this being the real, substantial, drawback) maybe having less than 25mp is a good thing. Probably a good, cheap body for infrared conversion, too.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 20:43 UTC as 68th comment | 12 replies

I'll donate, but only if they agree to develop the film in Panthermic 777. Or maybe use those little bottles of FR X-22.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 16:39 UTC as 25th comment

Um, that's a good observation that Sony is probably concentrating their resources on producing their most popular models. They're pretty sharp at Sony, I guess.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 16:33 UTC as 4th comment

Didn't they recently identify the couple kissing in Times Square on VJ Day? We really are in the information age, if you live long enough.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 16:41 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

razadaz: A lot of people posting information here about their preference for DSLR design are not really listened to. I like many can see the obvious advantages of mirrorless but perhaps the downsides are not so obvious. Even Hasselblad say Mirrorless is 'probably' the future, implying that there are still downsides to the design. Mirrorless may well be the future, but that future might be further off than we think. When the Kodak/Nikon DCS 400 digital camera was introduced in 1994 many of us thought it was all going to change now. In reality it took many years.

When you sell both mirrorless and non-mirrorless, you say (obviously) that each has its advantages.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 16:39 UTC
Total: 3411, showing: 541 – 560
« First‹ Previous2627282930Next ›Last »