D200_4me

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Feb 2, 2006

Comments

Total: 342, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Got focal range? Canon 24-105mm F4L II sample gallery (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

D200_4me: It could use an extra 15mm (like Nikon's version). I pretty much use the 24-120 f/4 all the time. It's a very useful range. Not sure why Canon can't get an extra 15mm in there....or better yet, the ultimate zoom lens that would be just about the only lens I'd ever need would be a 24-200 f/4. Wish they made one (for FF).

I do use other lenses, but I use the 24-120 most. I love the 85mm f/1.8 for example. Also have the very inexpensive but great Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
24-120 gallery: http://www.thephotographyhobbyist.com/CAMERAGEAR/Nikon-24-120mm-f4-Lens/

85mm gallery (not as many images since it's not as usual for me during travel so I normally leave it at home when traveling): http://www.thephotographyhobbyist.com/CAMERAGEAR/Nikon-85mm-f18G-Lens/

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 15:02 UTC
On article Got focal range? Canon 24-105mm F4L II sample gallery (53 comments in total)

It could use an extra 15mm (like Nikon's version). I pretty much use the 24-120 f/4 all the time. It's a very useful range. Not sure why Canon can't get an extra 15mm in there....or better yet, the ultimate zoom lens that would be just about the only lens I'd ever need would be a 24-200 f/4. Wish they made one (for FF).

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 12:38 UTC as 16th comment | 6 replies

Thanks, Captain Obvious (Samsung). As if it wasn't already known... ;-)
Liking my iPhone 7 Plus :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 20:51 UTC as 20th comment

It's a fad.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 00:11 UTC as 12th comment
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with Nikon D5600 (321 comments in total)

Just like any other camera with a nice sensor, you'll be able to make some superb images with this camera. But yes, it's nice to have all the extra features too. ;-) Honestly though, most of us really just need the basic exposure controls and a nice sensor and lens to make great photos. Shame to see these 'entry level' cameras get dismissed so often. Anyway, come on Nikon...where's my full frame or APS-C Nikon mirrorless camera system? I want one.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 22:28 UTC as 50th comment
In reply to:

sai1: I wonder if the Auto ISO changes will find a way into the G85.

I found it on the Body and Design page. I didn't look there originally...because who would have thought ISO would be talked about on the Body and Design page? ;-) Auto ISO has nothing to do with the body or the overall design.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 13:24 UTC
In reply to:

sai1: I wonder if the Auto ISO changes will find a way into the G85.

Ok, I didn't read through the entire article but I searched a couple of the pages for the keyword 'auto' and didn't find it. I guess I overlooked it on one of the pages.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 13:22 UTC
In reply to:

sai1: I wonder if the Auto ISO changes will find a way into the G85.

Where did you see a mention about being able to set a minimum shutter speed for auto ISO? I haven't seen that yet and I've seen quite a bit of GH5 coverage already. No mention of details on auto ISO features that I've seen.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 12:48 UTC
In reply to:

sai1: I wonder if the Auto ISO changes will find a way into the G85.

Ok, that's good. I'd welcome that change and hope it comes to the G85 also. I also wish they'd give an option based on the focal length like Nikon does. Seems like it would be a pretty easy feature to deploy.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 12:03 UTC
In reply to:

sai1: I wonder if the Auto ISO changes will find a way into the G85.

What changes? I didn't see any mention of that unless it's in other info somewhere online that I haven't seen. If they'd do auto ISO the way my D750 does, that would be wonderful. For now, I set my auto ISO to top out at 400 and let it top out at 800 if I really need it, but so far I've found that max of 400 works just fine and the IS makes up for the difference (depending on your subject matter)

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 11:40 UTC

Just show them your portfolio and if they still insist on seeing what gear you use, they're more trouble than they're worth. But...you could just buy a few dummy bodies from the early 2000's off eBay (some broken, for parts only sales) to keep around as something you point to when they ask. Doesn't matter if they work or not, they're just big cameras to show off when they ask.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 22:20 UTC as 261st comment | 1 reply
On article Google Pixel users reporting camera app issue (39 comments in total)

My iPhone still works fine. ;-) Oh and don't worry about my iPhone's camera quality. I use a real camera for anything I consider worth capturing. I use my phone for the occasional snapshot of work-related stuff and also a random family snap now and then. Suffice it to say it wouldn't be a disaster if my phone's camera quit working.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 19:56 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
On article Action-packed: Sony a6500 review (1127 comments in total)

No matter how excellent a camera's image quality and feature set is, it does me no good if I can't stand the body. If I don't like the body/handling, I won't want to use it. Just saying...form/ergonomics has a big role to play as well. I had the a6000 and I enjoyed its image quality, etc...but I hated the body and ended up selling it. Still might be a Sony alpha (full frame) in my future...but I'm in no rush for now.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2016 at 15:22 UTC as 231st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

D200_4me: Some day they'll get there, but for now it's just a shame that high ISO quality and resolution is a fair bit behind APS-C and full frame 35mm. Those are the only two 'cons' in my opinion. The price is fine, were it not for the two cons I mentioned (for me anyway). Just my personal thoughts/choice/preference. Well, there might be one other con. I can beat my FF Nikon files to death (D750) in post-processing and they still show very, very little to no degradation but my Olympus m4/3 files need a gentle touch in post (raw files) or they'll fall apart quickly.

I assume PPierre is talking about depth of field. f/1.2 on m4/3 is like 2.4 on full frame. Sometimes you do want or need the more shallow DoF of FF and sometimes you don't. Sometimes it's better to have naturally deeper DoF with a very bright aperture like when shooting in darker conditions but you still need a certain amount of DoF to get when you need in focus (rather than a razor thin strip). It works both ways. There are advantages and disadvantages. I've shot both systems very much and I do get into plenty of situations where I need a higher ISO than I'd be comfortable with (on m4/3) even with a very wide open aperture. Having said that, MOST of what I shot is low(er) ISO. Overall, my D750 and Df files (and old X-T1) easily beat my E-M1/E-M5 files when it comes to lifting shadows, etc. I love m4/3, but just wish the sensor tech would catch up quicker to FF (regarding overall image quality - ISO and DR).

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 21:29 UTC

Some day they'll get there, but for now it's just a shame that high ISO quality and resolution is a fair bit behind APS-C and full frame 35mm. Those are the only two 'cons' in my opinion. The price is fine, were it not for the two cons I mentioned (for me anyway). Just my personal thoughts/choice/preference. Well, there might be one other con. I can beat my FF Nikon files to death (D750) in post-processing and they still show very, very little to no degradation but my Olympus m4/3 files need a gentle touch in post (raw files) or they'll fall apart quickly.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 12:32 UTC as 86th comment | 10 replies
On article Affinity Photo beta now available for Windows (75 comments in total)
In reply to:

D200_4me: No thanks. I only need Lightroom (which is a product I've been very happy with for a few years now).

Ah....ok.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 20:42 UTC
On article Affinity Photo beta now available for Windows (75 comments in total)

No thanks. I only need Lightroom (which is a product I've been very happy with for a few years now).

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 19:54 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies

Guilty. Idiots.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 15:06 UTC as 64th comment
On article Apple revamps MacBook Pro lineup, adds 'Touch Bar' (871 comments in total)

I like my iPhone, but I'm never buying a Mac. No point in it. I can get a very powerful desktop PC for my photo editing for less money and the Surface Book is an excellent laptop replacement. Hoping to have the Surface Book next year for work (my real job, not photography). :-)

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2016 at 22:16 UTC as 174th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Vahab: There are Windows phones out there, too.

Maybe the biggest 'problems' (if you want to call it that) is the lack of apps for Windows phones. Otherwise they seem like fine devices.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2016 at 22:11 UTC
Total: 342, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »