Dennis

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

Comments

Total: 452, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

eazizisaid: Beautiful camera. If I had the money it'll go straight to Leica's pocket. Beautiful design, beautiful attention to details. You get what you pay for no matter what other people think... because if they had enough money too, they'll spend it on a Leica.

I appreciate Leicas. But despite the fact that they're well engineered and well built and unique, they're not for everyone. I suspect that if you priced this camera in line with high end Sony/Fuji/m43 mirrorless ($around $1700) you still wouldn't get that many buyers.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2017 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

chadley_chad: And queue all the camera snobs calling this rubbish and offering their opion as to why. Yawn.

And cue chadley_chad insulting everyone who finds yet another technically good video uninteresting (without offering an opinion as to why).

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 05:01 UTC
In reply to:

Fishchris: Very creative and fun to watch 😉 Totally not surprised by all the negative comments on here. In case you're new here and haven't figured it out yet this site is predominantly for techies, and definitely not for the Arts. The majority of the people who frequent this site would not know art if it came up and slapped them in the face.

That's quite ironic, when my criticism (and that of others, I assume) is that videos like this and the most recent one posted, suffer from an abundance of technical skill and a lack of artistry.
Wouldn't you expect people who are all tech and no art to appreciate the same ?
The Revenant was wonderful. Nebraska, brilliant. This is "look what I can do with a computer".
Anyway, I'm guessing you liked it, so just like fanboys here, you feel it necessary to insult those who don't.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 04:56 UTC
In reply to:

Bobthearch: The issue seems silly at first glance, but sure looks as if Fujifilm deliberately designed their Instax Square borders to look exactly like Polaroid's instant photos. It's not merely a shape within another shape, but the exact same alignment and proportions.
And I can't see any justification for Fujifilm's demand that Polaroid's Registered Trademarks should be canceled.

"Fujifilm is attempting to profit from Polaroid's long-standing and legally trademarked product design."

I think Fujifilm is trying to profit from the popularity of Instagram. I doubt they thought to emulate Polaroid in an effort to make money.
Edit: Looking again, they do seem to be going for the retro appeal with the borders ...

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 18:21 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV review (533 comments in total)
In reply to:

Imager of: As long as you have good light you’re fine. Start getting the iso above 400 and things start turning to mush. Owned for 2 weeks but returned. My Fuji xt2 killed it.

I've shot ISO 6400 with the original RX100 and results are fine for at least a 5x7. Imaging-resource claims ISO 400 is good for a 20x30" print and ISO 1600 for an 11x14. We all know it has a 1" sensor and if you need FF quality, then a 1" sensor isn't going to cut it. But these sensors are pretty amazing.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 18:22 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: I think the same philosophical advice we throw at photographers all the time needs to be applied to videographers: you can get up early, put a drone up in the air in great lighting at an exotic locale, be an expert pilot, be good at post processing, but you need a better idea than fly around in circles and speed up the result to make people dizzy. (It's the old "sharp image of a fuzzy concept" extended to video). It definitely took some skill and the location is beautiful. I would not watch it again or share it with a friend. (Especially not right after a meal).

@chadley_chad

I've yet to see anyone claim to be able to do better. But yes, lots of people complaining about this annoying video. Sometimes, the emperor has no clothes. There's a reason cinematographers aren't hired to write, direct or score movies. We've seen many videos here over the last couple years that contain wonderful footage, but fail to be interesting enough to watch for the entire duration (never mind ever want to watch again). You were wowed. Should I attack you for being easily impressed ?
I truly believe that as people become jaded by watching more and more impressive footage, videographers are going to have to move past the "wow" factor of nice footage and learn how to produce good videos.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 02:04 UTC

I think the same philosophical advice we throw at photographers all the time needs to be applied to videographers: you can get up early, put a drone up in the air in great lighting at an exotic locale, be an expert pilot, be good at post processing, but you need a better idea than fly around in circles and speed up the result to make people dizzy. (It's the old "sharp image of a fuzzy concept" extended to video). It definitely took some skill and the location is beautiful. I would not watch it again or share it with a friend. (Especially not right after a meal).

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 21:49 UTC as 45th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Jesus, Barney...

The biggest problem in today's politics is the disconnect between most politicians and the common worries of the common man, a disconnect that, when multiplied and unchecked for, leads to the type of problems you're closer to than I am.

It is most unfortunate that you decided to transpose that disconnect to your editorial stance by electing a camera that should be as much "Gear of the Year", as Uwe Koetter Chastity Belt should be considered "Underwear of the Year".

As always, I contemplate the distinct possibility that I am not seeing things as they should be seen.

...but I can't shake this feeling that you'll be the one to regret this choice in the coming future.

By all means, state your contrary opinion, but recognize the irony in doing so after bashing Barney for expressing his. BTW, I most certainly don't agree with Barney's choice. I also most certainly don't have a problem with him making a choice that doesn't match mine.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 17:01 UTC
In reply to:

GregFranklin: Like a stick shift car, sometimes it's just worth it. Hope one day I can experience a Leica.

I suggest trying one out in a store somewhere or renting one. I find the quality construction satisfying, but rangefinder shooting just isn't for everyone - isn't for most people. Leica is partly a niche product because it's so expensive (and you can get the same IQ and functionality for less) but also because relatively few people are going to truly enjoy shooting with a rangefinder over time. I'm not one of them. I have a couple of 70s era compact rangefinders and a Rollei TLR and they were a blast to use on the handful of occasions I put a roll of film in them. But I chose an SLR over those less practical options most of the time.
If I won a Leica kit as a prize in a contest, I'd promptly sell it and buy something else. I'd rather have Zeiss lenses on a Sony if I wanted to focus manually and enjoy the quality of expensive, manual lenses. But I'd go for something else more practical. (No idea what and I don't think I need to worry about it).

- Dennis

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 16:46 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Jesus, Barney...

The biggest problem in today's politics is the disconnect between most politicians and the common worries of the common man, a disconnect that, when multiplied and unchecked for, leads to the type of problems you're closer to than I am.

It is most unfortunate that you decided to transpose that disconnect to your editorial stance by electing a camera that should be as much "Gear of the Year", as Uwe Koetter Chastity Belt should be considered "Underwear of the Year".

As always, I contemplate the distinct possibility that I am not seeing things as they should be seen.

...but I can't shake this feeling that you'll be the one to regret this choice in the coming future.

I don't think anyone but Barney gets to say what camera "deserves" to be called gear of the year ... if I recall, this gear of the year feature is a series of picks by all of the dpreview contributors, listing which piece of gear, from everything they used during the year, they liked best. If I worked for dpreview and had a chance to try all the gear that comes through the office, there's a good chance I'd have picked the Hasselblad or Fuji medium format camera as my "gear of the year" and there would be dozens of people complaining about how dumb my pick was.
Ultimately, you have an editor telling you which piece of gear, out of everything he tried, he kept going back to and using the most. What is there to object to in that ? (I suppose he could have titled it "My favorite gear this year" to soften the blow to all those whose egos are scratched whenever someone has something good to say about any other camera but theirs ...)

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 16:35 UTC
In reply to:

biza43: I am not sure where these derogatory comments come from: envy? lack of money to get the same camera system? If I had the money, this is the camera I would like to have, period. For all the negativistic folks that suggest other, cheaper options, sure, they exist. But to pretend that, e.g., a Fuji X100 gives the same result that a M10 with a 35mm lens, yeah, keep on dreaming...

Finally, these are personal pieces, regarding the gear that a given person has favoured during 2017. Nothing more, nothing less. I am sure that Barney is aware that there are cheaper cameras, just let the man enjoy what he has.

Oh, and that reddish brown strap and black half case combo has got to go !

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 15:42 UTC
In reply to:

biza43: I am not sure where these derogatory comments come from: envy? lack of money to get the same camera system? If I had the money, this is the camera I would like to have, period. For all the negativistic folks that suggest other, cheaper options, sure, they exist. But to pretend that, e.g., a Fuji X100 gives the same result that a M10 with a 35mm lens, yeah, keep on dreaming...

Finally, these are personal pieces, regarding the gear that a given person has favoured during 2017. Nothing more, nothing less. I am sure that Barney is aware that there are cheaper cameras, just let the man enjoy what he has.

They come from the implicit lack of validation. From an article that doesn't confirm MY belief. Instead, it says that somebody else has a different value system and there can't be two value systems (and mine can't be wrong !) If I don't think a Leica can be gear of the year, then nobody else is allowed to, either.

Now, if his part 2 is the Thambar lens, we might just have to show up in Seattle with a vat of tar and feathers :)

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Jesus, Barney...

The biggest problem in today's politics is the disconnect between most politicians and the common worries of the common man, a disconnect that, when multiplied and unchecked for, leads to the type of problems you're closer to than I am.

It is most unfortunate that you decided to transpose that disconnect to your editorial stance by electing a camera that should be as much "Gear of the Year", as Uwe Koetter Chastity Belt should be considered "Underwear of the Year".

As always, I contemplate the distinct possibility that I am not seeing things as they should be seen.

...but I can't shake this feeling that you'll be the one to regret this choice in the coming future.

Not everyone will aspire to own a Leica (I don't, either), but it seems that people are objecting to Barney picking "gear or the year" that's expensive. It wouldn't matter if he'd picked the new Fuji GFX.

As for the analogy, sure, you can take the same pictures with another FF camera (not likely you'll match the IQ or DOF capabilities of a FF sensor with a powerShot). Just as you can drive a cheap car to work as well as a luxury car. That doesn't mean the luxury car is no more than a cheap car with a little bling on it.

If you don't value luxury goods, more power to you (and your wallet). I wouldn't spend my money on Leica, either. But I'm not going to deny that they're nicely crafted, much more so than any of my more practical, value-oriented mass market gear.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 15:31 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Jesus, Barney...

The biggest problem in today's politics is the disconnect between most politicians and the common worries of the common man, a disconnect that, when multiplied and unchecked for, leads to the type of problems you're closer to than I am.

It is most unfortunate that you decided to transpose that disconnect to your editorial stance by electing a camera that should be as much "Gear of the Year", as Uwe Koetter Chastity Belt should be considered "Underwear of the Year".

As always, I contemplate the distinct possibility that I am not seeing things as they should be seen.

...but I can't shake this feeling that you'll be the one to regret this choice in the coming future.

Ever read fan/enthusiast magazines ? Odds are the "common man" can't afford the Car of the Year, either. But what fun is it if we don't have something to aspire to or dream about; something to spend our fantasy lottery winnings on ...

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: I do "get" the whole rangefinder thing but the X100 delivers most of this type of work for a whole lot less.

If you think the X100 delivers the same thing ... then you don't really "get" the whole rangefinder thing.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 14:47 UTC
In reply to:

Sezano: Can’t wait for (part 2).

Part 2 has to be the Thambar ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 14:37 UTC
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.

Well, we all know that the OEM manufacturers are never going to compete with Sigma/Tamron on price ...

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 03:37 UTC
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
Total: 452, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »