Dennis

Lives in United States CT, United States
Works as a Software
Joined on Oct 25, 2002

Comments

Total: 435, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

rsf3127: Other lens manufacturers should learn from this.

What should they learn ?

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 18:01 UTC
In reply to:

aephe: "'ultra extra-low dispersion'" ...The phrasing is getting to the point of silly. :D

Yeah, but nothing less will do when you're working in the studio while listening to music on your googlephonic stereo with the moon rock needle.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 13:15 UTC
In reply to:

nir-vana: Insanely priced, whether it's considered as 200/2.8 or as 400/5.6

Yup. It's always gonna be an f/2.8 lens. And it's always gonna be a 200mm lens.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 13:13 UTC
In reply to:

noisephotographer: "the iPhone X is the best smartphone DxO has ever tested in the photo category"
It's not the best smartphone Dxo has ever tested in the photo category. It is the smartphone camera with the best Dxomark photo score. This is a completely different statement. You make this mistake every time you post a Dxomark article, you don't want to learn?

This is the best comment ever posted in the pedantic category.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 18:47 UTC
In reply to:

Swerky: I still don’t understand how the camera phone relegates the compact camera to the trash bin. If I was in the market for such a camera I’d definitely prefer a dedicate photography tool to a phone. Completely different ergonomics and way of shooting. Powerful optical zoom and more capable flash. Seems to me the only real advantage of a phone is immediate social sharing...
Dunno if phones today have better image quality output than small sensor cameras.
But that’s only a personal opinion.

I've used any number of low end digicams as well as better ones, from a Panasonic (with a 1/2.3" sensor) to the RX100. I rarely use my phone for any remotely serious photography (I use it a lot for snapshots to show, then forget) ... but I do use it occasionally and when I do, I find it no worse (and probably better) than the entry level p&s's I've used, with their 1/2.3" sensors, slow 3X zooms and no raw capture capability.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 19:01 UTC
In reply to:

mick232: The reason is not the rise of smartphones, but the fact that these cameras couldn't add any extra value on top of what you get from your smartphone. On the contrary, smartphone vendors keep improving their camera apps, whereas the likes of Nikon thought they can get away with selling the same non-innovate stuff for years.

I disagree. First, smartphones have the luxury of all the capabilities of a $500-$1000 device ... you can't compete with that selling cameras with zoom lenses for $129. People are going to buy a phone, camera or no camera ... when the camera in the phone is good enough, they stop using a dedicated camera. Digicams suffer in capability by not being attached to powerful (and expensive) computing machines. But they have offered extra value in the form of zoom lenses ... as evidenced by the fact that smartphone makers are working hard to add that capability to their phones.
None of the camera makers were ever going to stand a shot of competing in the cell phone market, so this was probably just an inevitability. Nothing to be done about it.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 18:57 UTC

Funny, when you're holding the camera and looking down at the lens, it doesn't look/seem so big (nor did it strike me as heavy ... it was probably mounted to the exact same demo A6300). It looks and feels like the 30/1.4's "big brother". Nothing so compact as the 35/1.8, but then again, it's a 16/1.4. It looks huge in the first picture, but in the last, if you imagine taking that lens hood off, it's not that big in the palm of the woman's hand.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 03:46 UTC as 47th comment
On article Hands-on with new Tamron 100-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di VC USD (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tim Love: Please let it focus better than the Sigma 100-400mm. I loved the size and range of the Sigma but it's slow focus for BIF and no tripod collar was depressing so It had to go. I will give the Tamron a go and hope for better results.

I tried it out on a D7000 yesterday (at Photoplus) and was very impressed with focus acquisition* speed (I say that because I did not try continuous AF). So I'm not sure how it would do for BIF, but it's promising.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 13:08 UTC

I tried this lens on a D7000 at Photoplus Expo today. It's compact and light and - unlike the Sigma - has an available tripod collar (it wasn't on the unit I tried). Autofocus was surprisingly quick in the Expo (indoor lighting where shots at 1/125s were in the ISO 4000 range).

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 22:42 UTC as 7th comment
On article Sony developing a 400mm F2.8 G Master lens (132 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Much joy among Sony fan people, the vast majority of whom will never be able to afford this $15000+ lens.

Sony's A mount 500/4 is $13K. Nikon's is a little over $10K and its 400/2.8 is a bit more than that. A newer 400/2.8 from Sony will probably be priced at $13 or higher.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 12:23 UTC
On article Sony announces lightweight FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS lens (297 comments in total)
In reply to:

FredVasilescu: I can not notice this lens is heavier than Canon counterpart.
Where is the mirorless advantage?

Have you been living under a rock the last 5 years ? The pros and cons of mirrorless (which have little to do with lens size) have been debated hundreds of times.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 12:19 UTC
On article Sony announces lightweight FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS lens (297 comments in total)
In reply to:

Menneisyys: I wonder if it's optically any good. (Sony has some mediocre zooms even in this price range - see for example the 16-80.)

I had the 16-80 and liked it a lot ... I now have the Nikkor 16-85. The Sony was compact, fast focusing (for a screw mount lens), and very sharp, not to mention f/3.5-4.5 compared to the more typical f/3.5-5.6 in this range (Nikon has since released the excellent 16-80/2.8-4). I wish the e-mount 16-70/4 was as good as the 16-80.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 12:17 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)

Years ago, IBM (and others) were pushing "Netbooks" - stripped down computers that accessed software as a service (like Chromebooks). Today, the phone and tablet are the devices that delivered on the concept.
More and more people are going to bypass the personal computer altogether. What used to require local software is now a combination of apps and software as a service. The cloud is also their extended storage. It's more convenient than dealing with a computer, it makes everything accessible when they're not home, it's still there when they upgrade their phone, and it's shareable.
So the cloud is justifably "the future". Just not all of the future. Just as phones aren't the only camera for everyone, cloud-based photo editing (never mind video editing) isn't for everyone. CC "classic" addresses the niche market (for those who don't mind subscriptions) for now. But if CC subscriptions grow and Classic subscriptions shrink, I wouldn't count on continued support for Classic.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 14:05 UTC as 79th comment
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bgpgraebner: Geez. I'm a broke-ass student who lives on approximately $500/month (in Brazil) and even I don't mind paying $10/month for adobe products. Don't you guys get paid for your work or anything? One would think that you can easily embed the cost of a $10/month software in their paid work.

@Victor
Re: resisting progress - the problem is that progress for some isn't progress for all. Just because "everything is moving to the cloud" doesn't mean it's the right thing for everything (I subscribe to Spotify - would subscribe to Netflix if I had the bandwidth, so I rent DVDs from them instead). Cloud-based photo storage and editing probably makes sense for many, many phone photographers and may make sense in the workflows of some pros.
Change is only inevitable when nobody resists it. If everyone threw in the towel and switched to digital, there would be no film available to buy. I don't want to run cloud-based software on my PC and don't want to keep my photos in the cloud. I'll use LR until I can't then switch to something else.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 13:44 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bgpgraebner: Geez. I'm a broke-ass student who lives on approximately $500/month (in Brazil) and even I don't mind paying $10/month for adobe products. Don't you guys get paid for your work or anything? One would think that you can easily embed the cost of a $10/month software in their paid work.

I like reading about consumers' reactions to the never-ending death by 1,000 subscriptions - for example, NFL games have seen decreased ratings lately and in analyses of whether any of it is due to the flap over the national anthem, it's been pointed out that ratings in general are suffering from "cord cutters". I have no objection to the dollar amount associated with a Lightroom subscription - I just have philosophical objections to paying for a subscription for software, as opposed to licenses where I get to choose whether the updates the company made in the last release are worth my money. Software as a service makes it easier to justify a subscription fee - instead of using software on your computer, you're using their servers. I just don't find that remotely appealing (never mind practical, because DSL & satellite are my only broadband options).
I'm still on LR6, but will look elsewhere when I need support for another camera in the future (possibly Capture One).

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 12:53 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bgpgraebner: Geez. I'm a broke-ass student who lives on approximately $500/month (in Brazil) and even I don't mind paying $10/month for adobe products. Don't you guys get paid for your work or anything? One would think that you can easily embed the cost of a $10/month software in their paid work.

$10/mo is trivial to some; less so for others. The question is what you're getting for your $10/month. For many, it means paying Adobe to produce stuff that you wouldn't buy if you had the choice.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 12:21 UTC
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (419 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dennis: Re: page 7 "In addition to this potential for slightly better image quality, the RX100 V can also ..." The potential for slightly better IQ (due to the faster equivalent f-stop on the RX100 V) only applies when there's a need/desire to shoot equivalent photos. In good light, at base ISO, there's no need to bump the ISO on the Canon to shoot equivalent photos.
It must still be expensive to miniaturize cameras - the RX100's are pretty pricey. This camera is $1300 while an SL2 is only $500 (and all the buzz has been that mirrorless bodies are "the future" because they can be made so much more cheaply than SLRs - you'd think a fixed lens version shouldn't cost twice the price of a DSLR and kit lens). Regardless, it looks like a nice enough camera for those who buy one.

I don't know how much looking cool has to do with it ... I bought an RX100 (the original $500 version !) because it fits in a jacket pocket or a tiny case on my belt.
But otherwise, I agree - I commented as if miniaturization must be expensive, but in reality, I wonder how expensive it can possibly be ... especially in light of the conventional wisdom that says that mirrorless is less expensive to produce than SLRs. I have to believe that there's a pretty high profit margin in an RX100-V - or in this camera. Maybe mirrorless is destined to dominate because - assuming it is cheaper to produce - that means higher profit margins (instead of lower retail prices).

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 13:15 UTC
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (419 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pooya Rastin: What. Almost the same price as a Sony A6500 and a 16-50 lens. Who will buy this?!

Maybe the lens on it is good ?

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 12:37 UTC
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (419 comments in total)

Re: page 7 "In addition to this potential for slightly better image quality, the RX100 V can also ..." The potential for slightly better IQ (due to the faster equivalent f-stop on the RX100 V) only applies when there's a need/desire to shoot equivalent photos. In good light, at base ISO, there's no need to bump the ISO on the Canon to shoot equivalent photos.
It must still be expensive to miniaturize cameras - the RX100's are pretty pricey. This camera is $1300 while an SL2 is only $500 (and all the buzz has been that mirrorless bodies are "the future" because they can be made so much more cheaply than SLRs - you'd think a fixed lens version shouldn't cost twice the price of a DSLR and kit lens). Regardless, it looks like a nice enough camera for those who buy one.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 12:36 UTC as 94th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Kerensky97: File this in "Missing the point"

Any camera will shoot better than a Holga too. That doesn't stop people from buying them. And they buy them specifically because they DON'T want to use their smartphone.

People need to quit thinking this was meant to be a "DSLR Killer" or the "New Era of Photography". It's a gimmick. And there is a market of people who want gimmick cameras.

@fmaxwell - no arguments - the marketing is shameless. They're honest, when asked a direct question, and it's not too hard to piece together just what this camera is, but the marketing wants you to think it's something more.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 00:08 UTC
Total: 435, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »