D200_4me

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

Comments

Total: 483, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article First samples: Leica Thambar-M 90mm F2.2 (223 comments in total)

The comments on this one should be interesting. I'll add my 2 cents (or $6,500). I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would pay that much for a Leica branded Lensbaby. No thanks.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 17:48 UTC as 161st comment

I doubt LR6 would be incompatible with new versions of Windows anytime soon. I'd say it would almost certainly be compatible with whatever the next major release of Windows is and that would give you several more years of use. I wouldn't want to use LR6 that long though with the added step of converting files to DNG before importing.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 16:04 UTC as 54th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

MShot: Work isn't fun anymore.

Some things are inappropriate, but the same thing is fun to some people. How do you know in advance?

Somebody says or does something you don't like. A good reason to destroy a career? Walk away.
Some women discovered a way to blow up people they don't like. If you're accused, how do you prove innocence? In this cruel world, you're guilty. Everybody who wants to promote themselves piles on for publicity. They're publicity whores.

Some women think its a career strategy. Kill off any man who you don't like or need to out of the way for career advancement, or negotiate a big raise. I saw enough to make feel like I never want to speak or be near a woman in the workplace.

What if a woman acts like she wants the attention and then complains about the reaction? It's bait. If they aren't attractive they can't shoot you for harassment because nobody believes it. Seems like ALL these women want to look hot, but don't like the consequences.

This has gone too far.

Wow...I remember watching an old video of that guy and Trey Ratcliff as they strolled through Yosemite talking about mirrorless cameras. I guess Trey isn't hanging with him anymore given that he lives in NZ now. Interesting story.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 15:44 UTC

If their 15 stops of DR is really true, I might have to start saving my money now ;-) I've been tempted by the a7 series for awhile, but I've still kept away for various reasons but it just keeps getting more and more compelling. Curious to see the DXO score compared to the D850's score for DR.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 21:26 UTC as 68th comment | 1 reply
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

zeratulmrye: hmm...$1200 is quite expensive for a 90mmF2.4 but this one seems acceptable. The bokeh is very creamy, which is something you wouldn't find on both FE85 or Batis 85. LoCA is not the best in this class but surely better than FE85. Still, it's hard to ignore that FE85 is only $600 and 2/3 stops faster.

I see your point about the higher ISO vs lower ISO when it comes to making adjustments to account for DoF.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 20:03 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

zeratulmrye: hmm...$1200 is quite expensive for a 90mmF2.4 but this one seems acceptable. The bokeh is very creamy, which is something you wouldn't find on both FE85 or Batis 85. LoCA is not the best in this class but surely better than FE85. Still, it's hard to ignore that FE85 is only $600 and 2/3 stops faster.

I'm not suggesting a smaller sensor has better image quality because I own FF and m4/3 and I'm not uneducated on the matter. I'm saying (as I understand it), if you had a f/1.2 lens on FF and a f/1.2 lens on m4/3, they are the same in terms of the light coming in. But yes, of course 1.2 on m4/3 is a deeper depth of field (which can be a benefit to some if 1.2 is 1.2 for gathering light on both systems).

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 19:40 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

zeratulmrye: hmm...$1200 is quite expensive for a 90mmF2.4 but this one seems acceptable. The bokeh is very creamy, which is something you wouldn't find on both FE85 or Batis 85. LoCA is not the best in this class but surely better than FE85. Still, it's hard to ignore that FE85 is only $600 and 2/3 stops faster.

1.2 is still 1.2 for gathering light. 1.2 is (yes) 2.4 in terms of depth of field...but not everyone will care about that. The deeper depth of field may be a benefit anyway in low light when you need a faster shutter speed AND more depth of field AND to keep the ISO lower.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 19:31 UTC
In reply to:

D200_4me: I've always wondered how they can offer something like Snapseed for free and keep dumping more money into it for improvements because I haven't see anywhere in Snapseed where you have to pay for certain features and so on and there are no ads, so how do they monetize that? It's not like Google needs the money, but I was just curious how that works. Maybe it's just to get you in the door using their apps and that might lead you to using their other services that do have ads or have paid features or something like that.

Good point. And have you ever wondered how/why you can get traffic info on a rural back road out in the middle of nowhere where you wouldn't expect to have such info? I imagine that comes from Google tracking every Android device that pulls up to that stop sign 200 miles from civilization. Because of the position, speed and how long the device sits at that point, I guess that's how they get the traffic info.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 13:26 UTC
In reply to:

Howard: This may mean that I will finally be able to afford the A7R II.

If you care most about DR and high ISO quality is secondary on your list of priorities, the original a7 has better DR than the a7RII. Of course that would also mean you'd have to be ok with the body on the original a7 and any other differences, but it's still a very relevant sensor today in 2017.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 13:12 UTC

I've always wondered how they can offer something like Snapseed for free and keep dumping more money into it for improvements because I haven't see anywhere in Snapseed where you have to pay for certain features and so on and there are no ads, so how do they monetize that? It's not like Google needs the money, but I was just curious how that works. Maybe it's just to get you in the door using their apps and that might lead you to using their other services that do have ads or have paid features or something like that.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 13:08 UTC as 125th comment | 4 replies
On article Fujifilm X-E3 Review (752 comments in total)

One thing Fuji has been very good at lately has been offering very good cameras at a low price (compared to the competition).

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2017 at 15:13 UTC as 94th comment | 3 replies
On article My experience at an Instagram influencer party (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

D200_4me: I read the story and I couldn't help but think, if I had to do that 'for a living', I'd feel like a prostitute...or maybe I'd just feel too controlled by what others want. No thanks. Oh well. If those people can get money from that lifestyle, more power to them. Seems pretty lame though. I'm thinking....superficial people would enjoy that 'line of work.'

You have a point. I guess what these people are doing just seems so fake and superficial. At least if you are shooting in a more 'normal' environment, you'd have your direction that the client wants you to go in, but normally I think a photographer would then put their own touch on it and decide how to shoot what is needed. I don't think Joe McNally sets up various scenes and invites all his friends over to walk around and take some shots for their clients.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 23:01 UTC

I've probably already said it 20 times in one form or another since the announcement came out, but what we need (LR6 users) is simply a LR ONLY subscription for around $5 per month with no storage and NO Photoshop. Most of us would be totally fine with that since the cost is close to what it would be if we paid to upgrade LR every 18 months or so (but they make more if it would have been 24 months between upgrades). I don't understand the requirement to buy PS along with LR OR be forced to buy the extra storage and LR only. There aren't any other options to select just LR for a lower price. Why not? I have zero interest in Photoshop but I have VERY high interest in keeping my LR going into the future.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 17:24 UTC as 166th comment | 5 replies
On article My experience at an Instagram influencer party (49 comments in total)

I read the story and I couldn't help but think, if I had to do that 'for a living', I'd feel like a prostitute...or maybe I'd just feel too controlled by what others want. No thanks. Oh well. If those people can get money from that lifestyle, more power to them. Seems pretty lame though. I'm thinking....superficial people would enjoy that 'line of work.'

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 16:18 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies
On article Photo story of the week: Dubai draped in fog (64 comments in total)

Looks like he (Elia) managed to escape without touching any hips while in town. Be careful if you visit that joint: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5005779/Brit-jailed-touching-man-s-hip-Dubai-bar.html

It's always amazing at how politicians and other 'public' figures have to keep their mouths shut if they want to see/do certain things. Don't upset the apple cart, you know...look the other way.

Anyway, it's a nice photo. I do like it :-)

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 10:47 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

D200_4me: If anyone is going to switch away from LR, what they also need is an option to import all the edits that were already made to the photos in LR. Otherwise you have thousands of photos that are no longer edited. That's the biggest hindrance to switching to something other than LR.

Well then there are things like split toning, the camera profile that was selected in LR, post crop vignetting, adjustment brush, radial filter, clarity, vibrance, etc, etc. I think there are lots of things that can't be easily imported to any other brand's software. I would hate to lose all that. If Adobe would simply lower the price to $5 per month and only include LR (I don't want PS), I would be ok with that. Looks like I might have to end up being ok with $10 per month too. We'll see. Depends on how aggravated I am later. Like I said, I won't want to lose all that work, even if it's just my hobby. I put a lot of time into this and it's just really disappointing to lose the standalone version going forward.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

D200_4me: If anyone is going to switch away from LR, what they also need is an option to import all the edits that were already made to the photos in LR. Otherwise you have thousands of photos that are no longer edited. That's the biggest hindrance to switching to something other than LR.

Right...and I made sure i have a downloaded copy of the LR6 installer. Just in case.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 16:46 UTC
In reply to:

D200_4me: If anyone is going to switch away from LR, what they also need is an option to import all the edits that were already made to the photos in LR. Otherwise you have thousands of photos that are no longer edited. That's the biggest hindrance to switching to something other than LR.

Sure, but you'd lose all the history behind the edits, but yes that's one way around it to keep both the raw and the edits. Also I realize the edits in LR couldn't all be exported somehow to a new program because there are many features that might only be in LR and those specific edits wouldn't match up with some other program's features.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 16:27 UTC

If anyone is going to switch away from LR, what they also need is an option to import all the edits that were already made to the photos in LR. Otherwise you have thousands of photos that are no longer edited. That's the biggest hindrance to switching to something other than LR.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 16:19 UTC as 57th comment | 14 replies
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1633 comments in total)
In reply to:

D200_4me: Have they officially announced there will be no new standalone version or is this just an assumption based on all the news about the subscription based versions (two of them now - LR CC and LR CC Classic)?

Oh....crap. Like many people, I have a lot of time and thousands of images in my catalog so i'll have to think hard about what to do going forward. For now I'm fine with LR6 until a new camera comes that I want and then maybe no native support for it in LR6. I don't mind the subscription but like Richard said, $79 per upgrade when you really needed it was cheaper than the $120 per year, every year for the sub. I'd feel more comfortable with $5 per month. I can afford their price, but that's not the point.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 01:02 UTC
Total: 483, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »