Lives in United States North State, CA, United States
Works as a Retired engineer
Joined on Nov 19, 2010
About me:

Fujifilm X-T10
Fujinon 16-50 XC
Nikon D7000
Nikon V1
Nikon V2
Nikkor 10-100mm lens
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Tokina AF 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX
Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD
Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED
Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR
Nikon SB-600 Speed light


Total: 73, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Olympus PEN E-PL9 headed to the US and Canada (182 comments in total)

I love the looks of this Olympus PEN E-PL9, however it is a poor value compared to the Fujifilm X-A5. For the same price of the Olympus PEN E-PL9 body only, one could purchase a Fujifilm X-A5 with a kit lens included. Plus the X-A5 has a much larger sensor and PDAF, which the Olympus PEN E-PL9 lacks. M43 cameras look a bit stale with their dated sensors and lack of PDAF which even the higher end cell phones cameras now feature.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2018 at 09:27 UTC as 2nd comment

The question is whether or not the consumer will trust Samsung products not to catch fire again. As the saying goes, "Once burned, twice shy!"

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 04:48 UTC as 11th comment | 5 replies
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2161 comments in total)

Only a small percentage of buyers of the 6300 will ever use prime lenses with it, so why are only prime lenses used in the reviews of the Sony APS-C cameras?
Answer: The Sony APS-C zoom lenses are junk glass that get terrible reviews.
If Sony ever produces a good quality native APS-C zoom lens for this camera, I would seriously consider buying one, (despite it's poorly designed grip and ergonomics). I keep waiting and hoping Sony wakes up some day and gets the news that optical quality is important to serious amateur photographers and the vast majority of sub FF sensor ILC owners (me included), rarely use or even own prime lenses. Poor lens selection for APS-C is one of the major reasons I left the Sony A mount, and six years later nothing has changed, unfortunately.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 07:34 UTC as 202nd comment | 15 replies

No doubt Sony cherry picked this copy among several lenses available to them, but the big question is how good will the quality control and copy to copy variations be in the production lenses that people buy, and how reliable will they be over many years of professional use. Maybe these new and very expensive line of lenses will improve Sony's reputation in this regard, or a least Sony is hoping they will.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2016 at 05:11 UTC as 22nd comment | 6 replies
On article What a view: Aukey Super Wide Angle lens quick review (61 comments in total)

This reviewer is much too kind to this lens, to the point that he has no credibility as even a casual photographer. All one has to do is look at the lousy images to realize this lens is a worthless piece of junk that will end up in at the bottom of a drawer or more likely in the trash bin. Save your money folks!

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 18:23 UTC as 20th comment | 3 replies
On article Opinion: Pour one out for Samsung cameras (321 comments in total)

R.I.P. Samsung camera division. At least you gave it a good effort in an ever shrinking camera market. Samsung deserves kudos for that, at least. Despite the demise of the NX system, if I could get an NX1 with a 16-50mm f/2-2.8 "S" OIS lens, for under $500, I would still buy one. Still looking for that fire sale!


Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 23:24 UTC as 30th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

havoc315: So a big heavy ultra wide angle lens... That really isn't too ultrawide. Equivalent of 21mm.... I don't see much of a point to this lens.

I agree. I can't imagine changing lenses just to get to an extra 2mm of focal length (I own the Tokina 16-50mm f2.8.) No doubt one would have to stop down to f4.5 or more for decent edge sharpness anyways. The focal length range is too long at the wide to be a true UWA, which makes for a really useless lens design, IMO.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 02:42 UTC
On article Good genes: Samsung NX500 review posted (523 comments in total)

No EVF is off-putting, but no built-in flash is a deal killer for me. I had a Nikon V1 which also does not have a built-in flash and it was a real pain putting the flash on and then having to take it off when stowing the camera. Sometimes I forgot or misplaced the flash. I use the convenient built-in flash of my Nikon Coolpix A often to good effect, both indoors and outdoors, (for fill flash). Why some camera designers think a flash is a rarely used accessory that one should carry separately is beyond me.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2015 at 17:24 UTC as 32nd comment | 9 replies

The foliage look mushy in the landscape images when viewed at 100% on my PC. Does anyone else see this as well, or is it some kind of technical glitch?

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 04:17 UTC as 71st comment | 3 replies

To my eye, the new 20MP sensor is better in every way to older 16MP sensor. I was very close to buying a GX7, but after seeing the definite improvement in the high ISO image quality, (detail retention and dynamic range) of the GX8, I decided to wait for the price of the GX8 to come down instead. Glad to see m43 sensors improving once again after a stagnant period!

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2015 at 22:48 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply

Yes, there are some excellent Zeiss lenses still being made, but unfortunately Zeiss dirtied it's brand years ago when they signed a contract with Sony allowing them to brand any lens Sony chose as a Zeiss Tessar lens. The Zeiss quality assurance of Sony/Zeiss lenses is a joke and is all just marketing. Some Sony /Zeiss branded lenses such as the Carl-Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS are junk on the inside. Photozone only gives it one an one half stars out of a possible five, optically. Unfortunately many Sony users are being duped into paying premium prices for the the blue label Zeiss on the outside, but only getting questionable Sony optical and mechanical quality on the inside.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 18:36 UTC as 17th comment | 13 replies
On article Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know (515 comments in total)

I just bought a new Nikon V2 w/ 10-100mm lens kit for less than the going price of the 10-100mm lens alone, and have been favorably impressed with the V2's AF speed and accuracy, the controls layout, and handling. The compact, (2.38 in. or 60.5 mm long) ,10-100mm lens is surprising sharp for such a wide range of focal length, even at 100mm.

Looking at the photo results (shooting RAW and processing with Capture ND), this evening I was thinking that with a little more dynamic range I could easily give up my Nikon D7000 and all my large heavy FX and Dx lenses and just go all in with the light weight and compact Nikon 1 system. If the new sensor is as good as I think it will be with improved dynamic range, I predict more than a few will switch from DX to Nikon 1 in the future.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 07:41 UTC as 110th comment | 1 reply
On article Not dead yet: Sony announces three A-mount lenses (120 comments in total)

I had once owned the original Sony 70-300mm F4.5 – F5.6 G lens used on a Sony a700 and was impressed with it's sharpness excellent micro-contrast optics. However, I was disappointed with the focus speed and the thin plastic build which made the lens feel cheap. My lens became infested with grit of some kind due to a lack of sealing even though I was careful with it. In comparison my Nikon 70-300mm (paid $350 in a kit price), is not as sharp, and lacks great micro contrast, but the focus speed and build quality is superior to the Sony 70-300G. I have had the Nikon lens in all kinds of environments over the past four years including blowing sand and salt spray without any issues. Nice to see Sony realized the original 70-300mm F4.5 – F5.6 G shortcomings and have corrected the issues!

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2014 at 22:18 UTC as 7th comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1015 comments in total)
In reply to:

StefanD: Is it me, or are those leaves in the background of the sample picture under "Image Quality" plain ugly and very distracting?
I find that picture very unpleasant to look at.

I agree. That photo of the tree leaves is very disappointing in terms of sharpness (especially beyond the center), and the bokeh is terrible. I get better images from my Nikon V1 with just a 1" sensor. One can have a wonderful sensor in a camera, but a poor lens can ruin it all. Obviously Panasonic took too many shortcuts with the lens and it shows. Like they say, "A chain is only as good as it's weakest link."

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 18:45 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1015 comments in total)

Well, darn it!
I really like the design concept of the LX-100, which is very close to what I want in a travel camera in terms of size and sensor image quality. However, it fails on on four counts that give me reason to pass on this camera.
1. No phase detection auto focusing. (Sorry, but I am spoiled by my Nikon V1's focusing performance!)
2. No built in flash, and the supplied flash is crude and weak with no bounce capability. At least the tiny flash for my Nikon V1 can do bounce flash.
3. Inferior EVF. There are much better available that do not tear.
4. Despite the hype, my eyes tell me the lens is not sharp enough, especially at the edges, which is a big disappointment considering the price of the camera and the short focal length range.

As it stands, the LX-100 is a bit too disappointing and over-priced for it's performance capabilities. Hopefully the rumored Nikon competitor to this camera will not have these shortcomings.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 23:20 UTC as 236th comment | 7 replies
On article Olympus PEN E-PL7 compact mirrorless camera announced (80 comments in total)

Too bad there is no EVF. That's a deal killer for enthusiasts. Using a rear LCD to compose is lame, and especially annoying in sunny conditions!

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2014 at 06:07 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies
On article Am I missing something here? (627 comments in total)

You missed the Nikkor 18.5mm f1.8 in your list of enthusiast lenses.
It's hard to take your opinions seriously Richard, when you don't even bother to vet your research before you go about bashing a camera system you don't use and know so little about.
You are missing something else Richard: Journalist objectivity.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 04:55 UTC as 225th comment | 4 replies

I have been into photography long enough to remember when serious 35mm primes were expected to be f2.0. Making a sharp 35mm f2.8 prime is cheap and easy. Too bad Sony took the low road and made this consumer grade lens a full stop slower than the excellent Minolta 35mm f2.0 legacy lens of yesteryear, and adds insult to injury by pricing it like a pro f2.0 lens. I just don't see how Sony's new FE mount camera system will be successful without a full set of pro quality FE lenses, and in terms of maximum aperture, this lens does not qualify as such.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 05:20 UTC as 18th comment | 9 replies
On article Sony Alpha 7 Review (1601 comments in total)
In reply to:

Abhiru: I used to value dpreview information a lot, but this review struck me as strongly biased; there must be a VERY GOOD REASON for dpreview to risc their reputation in such a blatant way.

If anything DPR was too kind to the A7 in their review. In no way does this camera deserve even the Silver Award based on IQ, handling, AF, and performance, not to mention the pitiful FE lens offerings. Sony may someday produce an improved version of the A7 with some pro FE lenses to mount on it, but until they do, the FE line of cameras is merely a plaything for those fascinated with expensive mirrorless cameras, rather than a serious and competent photographer's tool.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 03:33 UTC
Total: 73, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »