pavi1

Lives in United States GUN BARREL CITY, TX, United States
Works as a CPA
Joined on Jul 29, 2005
About me:

CP5000
Fuji X100
D300S
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6D EX DC HSM
Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6
Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 D Macro
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM
Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AF
Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D
Nikkor Macro 60mm f/2.8D
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D
Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D AF ED-IF
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR
Nikkor 105 f/2.8 Micro AIS
Rokinon 85mm f1.4
Sigma 500 f7.2 (doorstop)
Kenko Extension Tubes
2XSB-800
SU-800
Alien Bees

Comments

Total: 47, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (424 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarcMedios: I have an X20 as a "visual notebook" and like it a lot, especially the 4:1 zoom. I can't, for the life of me, seriously consider a $1,200 camera that does not have interchangeable lenses. Why would I want to limit myself to the focal length that some anonymous engineer decided for the camera?

T Oliver - you have a X-Pro1 with a 35mm lens. The X100 is a 23mm lens. There is a lot of difference.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 23:48 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (424 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Lots of comments but none referring to the short focal length as a disadvantage. Personally, I'd be sorely tempted if it had a more normal focal length (30-34mm) as that would be genuinely useful for general purpose photography. The field of view of this 23mm lens is too wide for most things, yet too narrow if I want to go wide.

As far as I can see, only Sigma make a large-sensor compact with a standard lens but that has other limitations! I know you could get a PenF + 25/1.8 combo or an XE2 + 35mm lens but they aren't so tiny.

I understand Fuji would have done their market research and I am clearly in a minority here but I am curious if anyone else agrees?

Murat's point is the camera has the same field of view that a 35MM/full frame camera has with a 35MM lens attached.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 00:28 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (424 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarcMedios: I have an X20 as a "visual notebook" and like it a lot, especially the 4:1 zoom. I can't, for the life of me, seriously consider a $1,200 camera that does not have interchangeable lenses. Why would I want to limit myself to the focal length that some anonymous engineer decided for the camera?

I would never pay $1,200 but I did pay $700 for a very slightly used X100 Limited.
I have a DSLR and 12 lenses so I am not focal length restricted.
The 23 mm lens, 35mm equivalent, is the same angle of view in many millions of phone cameras so it seems to be a focal length that serves the masses.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 23:53 UTC
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gerard D C: The "crowd" that take part in crowdfunding need to become much smarter. It's time people demanded to see some level of practical commitment to producing a product before putting money forward.

Those money begging videos aren't even close to enough for a smart investor.

There were two candidates under criminal investigation. They each got close to 60 million.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 01:10 UTC
On article GoPro's poor holiday sales lead to staff layoff (116 comments in total)
In reply to:

FRANCISCO ARAGAO: Another victim of mobile phones.

Sorry but I have never seen a mobile phone on a helmet, bike handlebar, surf board, or any of hundred other setups used to record action.
It is more everyone had one that wants one so why buy another.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 22:58 UTC
On article Here at last: Nikon announces D500 (1174 comments in total)

XQD and no flash. I am out. Will wait to see what is available when the D300S fails.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 22:57 UTC as 206th comment | 8 replies
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (744 comments in total)

He left out many more short comings. Too bad the buyers are so insecure.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2015 at 23:07 UTC as 95th comment
In reply to:

zubs: BOOM! Canikon,didn't see that one coming.

At $3,500 plus with tax, I doubt many will ever want to see it coming or going.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 16:37 UTC
On article Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents (347 comments in total)

The only thing magic about 70-200 is that it is a great range on DX. It would suck for me on FX. I would want 105-300 2.8 for FX, not 50 - 140 for DX. There was never anything magic about 70 - 200 on 35mm.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 02:41 UTC as 66th comment
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: It's a phone. Big whoop.

Yes to you it is. To the rest of the world it is a pocket computer that happens to have a phone and camera included.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 22:42 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: Do you even need focusing on the sensor this small? Wouldn't DoF be like from 2ft and up when focused at hyperfocal? And who cares about focusing speed for macro?

You actually do need focus. Pick yours up and see.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 22:41 UTC
In reply to:

brianj: It provides a very expensive P&S camera without any zoom, I wonder why people fall for it.

It is a pocket computer first. It is a phone second. It is a camera third. This should be simple enough.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 22:40 UTC
In reply to:

intruder61: Samsung still stays on top.

VW Beetle is still on top or did something knock it off the top? Anyway, whats your point?

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 22:40 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: TWO REASONS WHY CAMERA COMPANIES ARE LOSING MONEY: 1. Capitalism is dying (finally), because it is based on faulty mathematics, so it has to end at some point. 2. NOBODY CARES ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY ANYMORE. The only people who care are the obsessives who think looking at an inferior 2-D representation of something on a screen is better than appreciating the real thing with your eyes in real time. Now that everone has a camera, people are waking up and thinking, what the hell is the point of photography? Why don't I just look at the world with my eyes and stop wasting valuable resources and valuable time doing a pointless activity?

Clueless or trying to be funny?

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 00:04 UTC
In reply to:

dr8: if by "losses" they figure 'em like the rest of corporate America, then that simply means - 'Hey, we did not make as much PROFIT as we thought/planned/hoped/told our investors/ we would.' - It does not mean that actual $$$ left their pockets....as is pointed out that profit was 1 cent MORE per share than what "analysts" THOUGHT it would be.

GAAP loss. Do you know what that is?

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2014 at 23:29 UTC
Total: 47, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »