kodachromeguy

Lives in United States United States
Joined on May 5, 2007

Comments

Total: 470, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ljclark: Hopefully we'll see the disappearance of the X-Trans sensor over the next couple of years. There is no need for it any more.

I have three 24MP Fuji cameras (X-Pro2, X100F, and X-T20) and two 24MP-ish Nikons (D500 and D7200). Considering the hassle of finding a decent X-Trans RAW converter (Iridient for Windows works best for me) and what I can do with the Nikons, X-Trans brings nothing to the table.

It is difficult to find an X-trans raw converter? As in the 7 or 8 excellent packages now available? As in this is mid-2018 already? OK, whatever you think.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 12:37 UTC
In reply to:

xPhoenix: Cool lens, but honestly, 12 grand? Those images are fine, but I think my 200-500 is just as capable. Even if it doesn't get me all the way there as far as IQ is concerned, it'll get me at least 95%. Spending over 8 times as much is just absurd, IMHO. Nikon needs to focus on lenses that real people are actually going to buy. 600PF at a reasonable price? Yes, please! This 100-400? No thanks.

I do not get your comment. You consider $12,000 too much for a limited production top grade lens aimed at real nature photographers? Fortunately, there are lower cost options.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: while the shots are good , i find the price excessive , and im not sure cheaper options in the m43 universe or apsc camp would do worse in such consistently bright conditions

i seriously doubt iq differences would be apparent without serious pixel peeping

Oh, cosina, you have been here long enough to know that pxel peeping is the main criteria of modern digital photography on Dpreview. Well, maybe pictures of brick walls to prove "sharpness."

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 15:44 UTC
In reply to:

snapa: My question is, "how many people would actually purchase this lens"? I mean, how many people would purchase a low IQ lens, just to get gold plating on it? Maybe there are a few Leica camera owners who think this lens would look really cool on their ridiculously priced cameras. Gold plating on a lens is the last thing I would want to own. Maybe I’m crazy, but the quality of glass and IQ a lens produces is much more important to me.
It reminds me of the old saying, a fool and his money are soon parted.

Oh, oh, another Dpreview "photographer" who can't afford a Leica.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 04:57 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm X-H1 Review (548 comments in total)
In reply to:

Decooler: NO! If I can buy a Nikon D810 new for the same price, I shall, so much better quality. I have 4/3rds equipment and at a pinch its OK. I have an Fz1000 and at a pinch its OK in good light, but I simply choke on the idea that, measure for measure an APS-C or , much worse, micro 4/3rds product should cost the same amount of money as a full frame lens or camera: it is a truly sickening prospect, sorry.At a third of the price, possibly, yes, but even so, weird !

This is the obsolete more for your money by size argument. In the old days people claimed European cars were "overpriced" (whatever that doofy expression means) because you could buy more tonnage of Detroit car for a similar price. OK, so a 24*36mm digital camera costs the same as one with APS-C sensor. So what? How about the many other factors in the imaging chain? How about bulk, mass, intrusiveness, the camera dweeb factor?

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 01:06 UTC
In reply to:

matthew saville: The equivalent of 17mm is as wide as this DMF system can go?

...aaaaaannnd, that's why many /serious/ landscape photographers don't /seriously/ consider medium format, I guess.

Yes, that is awful when a 17mm lens is insufficiently wide for landscape work.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2018 at 18:24 UTC
In reply to:

LessMirrored19: The insecurity level of DSLRs fanatics has exceeded 9000 😂

You can say the same for a lot of these dumbos (oops, I meant "photographers") regarding Leica, Hasselblad, film, medium format, Fuji, and monochrome imaging. I always wonder why these clowns give a crap about the type of camera someone else uses.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2018 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

PeterAustin: It will help directing casual photographers to the same locations we see repeatedly on Instagram. That means less foot traffic at other locations. The app could be useful to figure out which locations to avoid.

Good point. When the mass bulk (lowest common denominator) flocks to something, do the opposite or go elsewhere. That especially applies to investments, but scenic viewpoints fit as well.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2018 at 20:04 UTC
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: Why all the negativity about new options?

Is this not great for those who find it useful?

Could this negatively affect those who opt out?

Clyde, think this through. How many ways could this possibly go wrong? Is this proof to marketers of your buying habits? Think your logon credentials will really be hack-safe? Think it might induce people to buy extra crap in their lives that they could do without? And then they will complain that they can never save or get ahead.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2018 at 03:43 UTC
In reply to:

R Johns: It seems nifty, but at $1600.00+ it better be tack sharp, corner to corner, at 200mm.

I do not understand. You consider $1600 a lot for a manufacturer brand state-of-the art zoom lens in the long focal length range?

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 02:57 UTC
In reply to:

ovlov: I hope I don't remember the vomit I read on here.

Do you mean in the article or in the comments? The latter are often good for a barf.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2018 at 21:09 UTC

I wonder who really owns the Rollei and Rolleiflex trademarks now? In my opinion, it would be more useful for some company to make a Instax film back for the Hasselblad 500 series. Several Kickstart start-ups claimed to be doing that, but I have not seen a solid product. That way, you could use your normal 120 film backs but occasionally make an instant print for a customer, model, or family member.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2018 at 21:07 UTC as 101st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: Why are so many people complaining about someone showing some ingenuity, learning how to design and build cameras for himself, and being prepared to share what he does with everyone?

The crowd here likes to think they are so sophisticated and know all the answers about cameras, marketing, and the economics of the imaging marketplace. And, of course, the film thing seems to intimidate many of them.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2018 at 16:59 UTC
In reply to:

guywithyashica: Brilliant, man. I believe the manufacturer that puts out a film-digital hybrid will steal the market. Full digital or swappable film back with digital backup for proofing. I'd buy one.

As Copal wrote, there have been attempts to market a hybrid camera, but with limited appeal. The results went down two paths:
1. A modular camera like the Hasselblad 500 series which had a totally separate film back or digital back. Is the Rollei Hy6 still in production?
2. A SLR camera that had been purposely-built to electrically connect to a digital back. As far as I know the Leica R8 and R9 were the only ones that accepted the DMR back:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4888226123/leicadigitalr9

Yes, that Leica, the Leica that so many of the "experts" here like to mock and criticize as being technologically backwards, etc. Otherwise, the challenges of fitting a digital sensor into a film camera have eluded most inventors.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2018 at 16:56 UTC
In reply to:

Copal Fit: In fact it is a good idea, and here is why: first, film is a different medium than digital. Especially for B&W, film can still be the better option. Some film exhibits a much better grey tonal range than a regular digital sensor can "see". This camera is useful if somebody is vested into either the Sony E-mount MLC system and/or in Leica M mount lenses. Easily the digital camera can be carried along with this film camera and the same set of lenses. Nice thing is that due to the shorter flange distance of the E-mount, also most M-mount lenses can be used on each camera with suitable adapter ring (yes, different adapters would then also work on both cameras with DSLR lenses for example). I wonder more about the viewfinder of this film camera as shown - it might require an external finder attached on the hotshoe socket instead.

Thank you, Copal. A well thought-out comment, as opposed to the "Is this a joke?" drivel one normally reads from the film-experts here on Dpreview.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2018 at 17:18 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: Maybe I will see in 10 years 6x9 digital back with graflok mount for my loved Horseman VH 6x9.... til now I am using 6x9 roll films. Ilford fp4 with Adox ADOLUX APH 09 give wonderful results.

Bite your tongue, Mateus. How dare you say here that you get great results from (Horrors!) film. The real "photographers" here have assured us that film is dead, that they would never go back, that film does not fit their workflow, that it has insufficient dynamic range, etc.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 23:36 UTC
In reply to:

mrkarisma: "you're not as good a photographer as you think you are" BUY A NEW AND MORE EXPENSIVE CAMERA and all your problems will be solved!

Careful, now. A lot of the "photographers" here really believe that cr @ p. Why else would they go on and on about dynamic range, cheating on ISO, ISO of 125,000, sharpness, bokeh, "full-frame," and whatever else is the fad of the moment?

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2018 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

endofoto: Fuji should produce FF cameras too in addition to MF. XT2 are expensive but large DOF of crop sensor will not satisfy wedding pros. They are not produced for birding which is the advantage of crop sensors bec of conversion factor. XPRO2 come on, what is pro about this cam? it is good very good, but with too large DOF for portraiture, too narrow view angle for landscapes.

We just went through this FF stuff a day or so ago (see comments below). Let it go. If you really want FF, go buy a brand that supplies it. End of topic, forget Fujifilm.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2018 at 04:57 UTC
In reply to:

AustinMN: Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why you're not as good a DPreview commenter as you think you are.

Oh, most of these "experts" are excellent commenters. However, as for being photographers, many are at that first peak on the curve (about 0.5 of the distance to the first tick mark on the X axis).

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 21:16 UTC
In reply to:

semorg: If Fuji had a full-frame camera, I would switch them on a heartbeat. This kind of continual product support is industry leading and I don't know who else does that.

Fuji could have just introduced all these features in a new camera body and no body would have complained. Instead they're committing to fully support their users and giving them the best camera today for what they bought yesterday.

Keep it up Fuji and hopefully you'll force rest of the manufactures to follow your lead here.

OK, here we go with this stuff again. What would "full-frame" do for your photography that you cannot achieve with the APS-C format that Fuji is using with their present cameras and lenses?

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 13:50 UTC
Total: 470, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »