JochenIs

Joined on Jan 30, 2014

Comments

Total: 541, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

copyfall: I like this focal range lot more than 70-200mm. I had Pentax 150-450mm zoom and used it a lot under 300mm range.

Do you also like twice the weight? Then this is a no brainer ;-)

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2019 at 11:16 UTC

Want some disturbing background structures in your portrait? here you go!

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2019 at 08:49 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

entoman: I suspect that the bits that AI Structure decides to recognise and "enhance" will not necessarily be the bits that *you* want to be "enhanced".

Applying masks manually may be slow, but it gives total control over how you want to alter the brightness, contrast, saturation, colour balance, sharpness and detail of every element in the image.

If the AI would just give you the detection masks it would actually be useful.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2019 at 08:37 UTC
In reply to:

Yari13: There is no way, really no way anyone could waste $1400+$1400 for a A6600 Body combo with 16-55 2.8. This is FF prices territory! Way too overpriced Sony!

Yeah if you need the best AF then it may be worth to pay the extra. I would rather spend the $1200 on lenses or other gear.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2019 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

Serjojeee: A6600 with this 16-55 will be more pricey than Nikon Z6 kit with 24-70 F4 S. That's insane!

If you like a good viewfinder Nikon is better.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2019 at 20:36 UTC
In reply to:

Yari13: There is no way, really no way anyone could waste $1400+$1400 for a A6600 Body combo with 16-55 2.8. This is FF prices territory! Way too overpriced Sony!

A7ii used = 700€ (ebay germany) thats about $800. These bodies started at 1800€ (online price). There is many reasons not to buy a body new if they have such a huge decline in value.
Edit: Get that body and the Tamron 28-75 if you want value.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2019 at 20:30 UTC
In reply to:

PeterY: Amazing!! Please show this to the Flat Earthers!

Your welcome. The russian camera which took the first image from the far side was displayed at Photokina last year. :-)

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2019 at 06:58 UTC
In reply to:

PeterY: Amazing!! Please show this to the Flat Earthers!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2019 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

beavertown: manual focus in 2019?

Hehe im a little jealous for those beautiful Canon lenses you have in your gearlist. :P

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2019 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

beavertown: manual focus in 2019?

@Entoman Yes FF with high MP count is good but pricy. If you want to crop like that you benefit alot from a good viewfinder.
Another small benefit for m43 is that you can put the camera in tight places where a bigger camera might not fit. Very useful in some macro situations.

FF in lowlight doesn't have a noise advantage if you want the same depth of field.
1/100s | ISO3200 | f8 - on fullframe
1/100s | ISO800 | f4 - on m43
gives about the same picture and noise. In normal situations you would just open the aperture but in macro you need the DOF.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2019 at 15:58 UTC
In reply to:

beavertown: manual focus in 2019?

@UllerellU
Nice pictures :-)
A bigger sensor is not necessarily better for macro work. If you have 1:1 on FF it means you can put 24mm objects in full frame. With m43 and 1:1 you can put 13mm objects in full frame. Thats is about twice the magnification. The shallow depth of field advantage of bigger sensors is often unusable in macro photography. Image quality for the same depth of field is better with the bigger sensor only if you can stay at base iso or close to it. For alot of handheld macro work this is not the case.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2019 at 09:54 UTC
In reply to:

beavertown: manual focus in 2019?

I love my 60mm Micro-Nikkor for its autofocus. With moving insects or leaves in the wind (a very soft breeze is enough) i wouldn't want to rely on my manual focus skills.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2019 at 09:42 UTC
In reply to:

PeterY: Amazing!! Please show this to the Flat Earthers!

@DarnGoodPhotos The question wasn't if flat earth is reasonable rather if the above argument is enough to show that it is a sphere.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2019 at 00:33 UTC
In reply to:

PeterY: Amazing!! Please show this to the Flat Earthers!

The moon only shows one side to the earth. We cannot see the other side from here because some magic makes it rotate around the earth without ever showing the other side.
Its rasonable to think the flat earth could do the same and always stay oriented to throw a circular shadow on the moon.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2019 at 20:26 UTC
In reply to:

PeterY: Amazing!! Please show this to the Flat Earthers!

This shows only that earth is either spherical or a circular disk well enough oriented to throw a round shadow.
Edit: Earth could also be an elliptic disk oriented at a certain angle to throw a "circular" shadow.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2019 at 19:30 UTC
In reply to:

Greg Silver: The earth's not flat. Just video conference someone at the opposite side of earth in real time outside. If it's light where you are, it'll be dark there. If the earth was indeed flat then it would be light for both people or dark for both people. These flat earth theories really have no weight to them.

Since in the video conference both persons have their head up they must be on the same side of the disk. right?

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2019 at 16:49 UTC
In reply to:

PeterY: Amazing!! Please show this to the Flat Earthers!

@pollup We can see only a small part of our earths shadow on the moon. Then is the moon a flat disk or does it have curvature? If it has we see a deformed shadow.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2019 at 16:42 UTC
In reply to:

PrakticaB: Let's see who's buying a 500/5,6 which is 24 cm long & 1,46 kg & has VR
- papparazzi
- private investigators
- hikers (they love the low weight)
- wild life & also sport photographers
- many other, for which ~4000 USD are not a problem at all, such as certain citizens from Gulf-states, India, China, you-name-it country

No, 12000 per year is definitely not enough. Apprently Nikon vas way too cautions in planning the manufacturing capacity...

As a hiker i carry two 500mm f5.6 pf because i love the low weight ;-)

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2019 at 15:23 UTC
In reply to:

milkod2001: Is there some reasoning for that? Is it done intentionally to save on labor and logistic cost and to keep price high? If they would overproduce they would have to lower price in order to sell.

Does Sony do the very same with 24 1.4GM and 135 GM? Always on backorder.

Well since this number is an unconfirmed rumor lets start guessing what the reasons for that are :-)
And don't compare the number to numbers of comparable lenses. Lets do it the Digital Photographic Rumors way and call the number small without any comparison at all :-)

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2019 at 12:27 UTC
In reply to:

Brick Wall: As someone else noted, this is Hunger Marketing--the use of artificial scarcity to drive demand. If you think, about it 5000/month is a tellingly low number.

In the fourth quarter of 2018 alone, Apple sold 46.89 million iPhones worldwide--at an average price of several hundred dollars!

They should make these lense for all mounts. Its amazing. They make 300mm f4 for fullframe smaller than Olympus for micro43.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2019 at 08:45 UTC
Total: 541, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »