Tazz93

Tazz93

Lives in United States Pasadena, United States
Joined on Feb 1, 2007

Comments

Total: 173, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Tazz93: 2 ounces, new paint, and coatings... that might be a tough upgrade sale, making this lens effectively for people who haven't had a 70-200 or still holding out from the version I.

@ dgstewart, I didn't feel the need to upgrade, but I found a V2 at a good price and now I'm glad I did. The wide open performance was the one thing I noticed, everything else was pedestrian. If your not feeling the bug, stick with what you got.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 15:34 UTC
In reply to:

Bershatsky: I’m quite surprised by the release of this lens. I have no complaints with version II. Why not have canon update and gave us a new 50mm f/1.4L lens, or a 28mm? Why not a mirrorless 5DM?

I can’t believe they didn’t ask my opinion!

I wonder if this is a precursor to some very under-whelming body releases?

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 05:15 UTC
In reply to:

Chaitanya S: Decent weight saving over previous version.

Camwow, yeah there is a whopping 1.76 ounces shaved. That said you might be able to feel that. Just barely...well maybe.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 05:12 UTC

2 ounces, new paint, and coatings... that might be a tough upgrade sale, making this lens effectively for people who haven't had a 70-200 or still holding out from the version I.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 04:38 UTC as 107th comment | 3 replies

Personally, I dislike the feel of most mirrorless cameras. Coming from the past, they simply remind me of the past's point and shoots. But, I also understand they have inherent design features are going to surpass the mirrored counter-parts. So while I'm not ready to trade in my mirror box for an EVF, I do see the writing on the wall. And while I will still want the OVF, the speed of the mirrorless will likely force me to give in at some point in the future. Couple that to the possibility of AF working down to F11 or greater, I simply can't see the mirrored cameras keeping pace. Again, I'll fight it to the last second, but it is clear it's coming. Luckily, I don't see a reason to swap over anytime very soon, but I suspect 2 generations in, most will be compelled to do so. However, if they force a new mount on the users... that could complicate matters.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2018 at 15:17 UTC as 331st comment
In reply to:

Tazz93: The F4, yeah I can see it worth updating, but not the 2.8. The only reason I see that working is if they have found something borderline revolutionary in lens tech or maybe a built in 1.4. Who knows anything is possible, we'll just have to wait and see.

In all honesty, I don't think most would pay the (minimum) $2500 premium a new lens will bring, for the expected improvements. Nikon found that out with their excellent 2.8E. Over time it will sell, but there's is no compelling reason to grab one for the sake of updating, especially if they go Nikon-like on this one's price, $3000 isn't out of the question with a conventional formula.

@Jack, the built in 1.4 was just an example of what type of value would be needed to entice an a reasonable number of updaters. There's no doubt the lens would be heavier and more expensive. But looking at the current parts bin, I can see a scenario where a basic update of the 2.8 could be so close to the current, where you might be able to pull a copy of both old and new off the shelf and see the same performance through lens variation. But hey... maybe they'll blow us away with something revolutionary, however I'm not holding my breath.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2018 at 18:25 UTC

The F4, yeah I can see it worth updating, but not the 2.8. The only reason I see that working is if they have found something borderline revolutionary in lens tech or maybe a built in 1.4. Who knows anything is possible, we'll just have to wait and see.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2018 at 17:27 UTC as 56th comment | 3 replies

That is a big improvement, but you can likely account for sizable amount in the US tax reform. However, the fact that revenue went down and they still saved that much money suggests they were terribly managed prior to the restructure. With that said, this is a strong step in the right direction.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2018 at 23:19 UTC as 51st comment
In reply to:

boarderphreak: So... You're paying $25/year to take pictures that everyone else is taking.

Worse... you're paying $25 to give away your special locations.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2018 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

Tazz93: Honestly... the evasive answers lead me to think he was simply telling people what they want to hear. Unfortunately, when people hide their true intentions, it's generally for a reason. You don't buy a company of that size and not have a clear concise view of where you are going with it. As a Flickr user, I don't see a lot of positives from this.

Here's a view someone posted going back to 2012 about why Smugmug failed them. I cut out alot, but feel free to view the article in its entirety here, https://www.cloudave.com/21908/why-i-am-leaving-smugmug-hint-it-is-not-just-about-the-money/

"Why I am leaving Smugmug. Hint: it is not just about the money
By Dan Morrill on September 10, 2012

...I rely on feedback; I want to see what others think of the picture, good, bad, ugly. I live for comments, thoughts, likes, hearts, fave’s or whatever else a person looking at my picture is thinking at the time.
...but let’s look at apples to apples here, one year on each site.

-Smugmug Number of Views 618,000, no likes, no fave’s, no comments, one sale for six bucks
-Flickr Number of Views 644,000, 1,508 likes, 99 comments, no sales
-Deviant Art Number of Views 82,000, 1,100 likes, 498 comments, no sales"

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 21:13 UTC
In reply to:

Tazz93: Honestly... the evasive answers lead me to think he was simply telling people what they want to hear. Unfortunately, when people hide their true intentions, it's generally for a reason. You don't buy a company of that size and not have a clear concise view of where you are going with it. As a Flickr user, I don't see a lot of positives from this.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/20/smugmug-acquires-flickr/

"...Over time, we’ll be migrating Flickr onto SmugMug’s technology infrastructure..."

Again, nothing I've read on the subject leads me to think things will continue to the user's benefit as they have in the past. Honestly, I can understand that, as I said previously, Yahoo was too good to its users. A user base of 75 million users show that, which incidentally is expected to be many times greater than Smugmug. That last part is only important when you factor in the quote above.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 21:11 UTC
In reply to:

Tazz93: Honestly... the evasive answers lead me to think he was simply telling people what they want to hear. Unfortunately, when people hide their true intentions, it's generally for a reason. You don't buy a company of that size and not have a clear concise view of where you are going with it. As a Flickr user, I don't see a lot of positives from this.

The company that bought it did so for a reason, a very simple reason. They want to turn a profit off of it. As I said previously, Flickr was something special for users, and there is no way is it going to continue to be the tool it has been for the last 14 years.

Here is a little insert from a previous interview, "We certainly think we need to operate it with an eye to our cash flow and our profitability. We are going to have to take a detailed look at the business and make sure it’s growing and healthy.”

If that doesn't tell you the direction they are going with it, I don't know what will.

Which company is displaying the "uncaring" facets you mentioned? The ones who honored the previous intent even after purchase or the one that purchased it with the intent to break the founding nature of the platform?

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 16:55 UTC
In reply to:

Tazz93: Honestly... the evasive answers lead me to think he was simply telling people what they want to hear. Unfortunately, when people hide their true intentions, it's generally for a reason. You don't buy a company of that size and not have a clear concise view of where you are going with it. As a Flickr user, I don't see a lot of positives from this.

And I always find it annoying to have someone else tries to tell me how I should feel. If you didn't like Flickr as it was, that's your opinion. It served my needs, and it did so very well (I'd argue industry best). I never want a gimmicky media platform. There too many out there as it is. Its only fault was it was TOO good to its user's. That meant it was bad on the balance sheet. Would Verizon screw it up, not likely. The likely course Verizon would have taken was none. Verizon, very likely, down the road would have just closed shop. However, for me that might have been a win over this. Something tells me when the real future for the platform is introduced, many of the core Flickr users will opt out, and something tells me that will not take long.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 15:47 UTC

Honestly... the evasive answers lead me to think he was simply telling people what they want to hear. Unfortunately, when people hide their true intentions, it's generally for a reason. You don't buy a company of that size and not have a clear concise view of where you are going with it. As a Flickr user, I don't see a lot of positives from this.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2018 at 15:59 UTC as 5th comment | 7 replies

Hmm... I'd love to see the photos this one beat out.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 22:13 UTC as 109th comment

It's not hard to see why some companies would choose to pass, especially with the time bump. As one of the larger shows, makers no doubt plan releases to a certain time of year. Bumping up releases to make the show will be tough to say the least. We may see a lot of pre-production prototypes slated for release at the end of the year.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 16:01 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

bikinchris: No built in teleconverter?

Really...

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2018 at 02:29 UTC

Please... someone go out to the site and test. I wouldn't think those two vantage points would be that close.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 20:59 UTC as 37th comment | 1 reply
On article CP+ 2018: First Look - Sony 400mm F2.8 G Master (462 comments in total)

I guess imitation is really the sincerest form of flattery.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 18:27 UTC as 37th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

ovlov: In two years Canon will release a similar model that costs twice as much.

Actually, I thought Sony was taking one out of Canon's book. They've taken the approach of recycling and handicapping features from earlier and more expensive cameras and put them in here. Not to say the camera lacks innovation (although I'm sure that argument can be made either way), but this looks very Canon-esque.

I wonder if that is more of a sign of something a large company starts to do in order to spit cameras out at a fast pace rather than wait for an actual advancement in tech. Maybe it has more to do with companies trying to offer a massive line of products, and then being forced to implement the same two or three changes across the line. Each improving on the former model's ability, but not really offering anything new.

Don't take this as a Sony Bash, because its not. I'm just starting to see similarities in the aspects that people bash Canon. Obviously not to the same extent, as Canon did let themselves fall fairly far behind, but there are definitely similarities.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 22:51 UTC
Total: 173, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »