deep7

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a writer/photographer/ecologist
Has a website at deeppics.com
Joined on May 10, 2008
About me:

God makes it, I see it and photograph it. Sometimes that works well!

Comments

Total: 722, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark IV First Impressions Review (1066 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nick Brundle - Photography: This is a camera that can take high quality pictures. If I want to take video I'll buy a video camera.
How many landscape photographers actually take video when there on an assignment?
I've only taken video a few times in the last couple of years.
Don't know how other snappers use video on their dslr??

Have you seen the video yet? It will almost certainly be better than that from early 5D versions, which have been very successful...

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 22:27 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark IV First Impressions Review (1066 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheRealEagleclaw: Okay, so as an owner of a Canon 1dx Mark II, 5d Mark II and a 80D why would I buy this? I wanted to upgrade my 5d but I don't think I can justify the purchase of this. If it had better video maybe, but with my crop sensor I get better reach with my lenses, exact same auto focus with both my 1d and 80d. No slow mo unless I push it in post. The jump from 21-30mp isn't good enough to justify it and at best it would probably end up being a so-so b camera to my existing gear. I really wanted to get this camera as the 5d mark II was in its days bloody awesome, GROUNDBREAKING really, but this seems to me to be a crappy attempt at catching up to existing offerings from other companies. Were I to purchase now and I still may I'd go with something from sony for small video b camera or nikon for a pro level shooter as canons files in post while greatly improved recently still lag behind. I hate complaining about cameras that are thousands of dollars but really get it together canon.

You've seen files from this camera post-processed?

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 22:24 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark IV First Impressions Review (1066 comments in total)
In reply to:

disraeli demon: I know we're nowhere near this now, but if the on-sensor focus features (high precision, face tracking with servo AF, full frame coverage) continue to improve, I wonder if we'll one day hit a point where optical viewfinders start to look like a liability?

Maybe we are already there? I read this report and thought how much better this camera would be without a mirror! In this case, that is largely because you can't use all its features with the optical viewfinder but it's also because, when I pick up my own DSLR, it feels like a dinosaur compared to my other cameras. I wonder how long it will be before Canon offer an EVF version of any of their DSLRs?

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 22:22 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark IV First Impressions Review (1066 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deardorff: "and though we don't expect the 5D Mark IV to have caught up with full-frame sensors from Sony"

WHY NOT? Canon have lived as third banana for years now. A NEW sensor - why can't they at least match the competition, much less beat it?

Nikon and Sony have been available to tear apart and work with so Canon engineers must be sleeping in their sushi on this one. You know the goal and settle for not making it.

Not a good move Canon.

Note that this isn't fact, only speculation on the part of the article writers. Canon may well have "caught up" with Sony in this regard. I suggest you don't get stuck into Canon until you know what the actual case is!

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 23:57 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark IV First Impressions Review (1066 comments in total)

Comments about dynamic range being lower than other camera models were speculative and pretty mischievous too. Testing may show it's better than other cameras, after all. Or, quite likely, not significantly different. That wasn't good journalism. If they have actually tested it, they should say. If not, those comments are unwarranted and not neutral reporting.

I don't have Canon cameras but would be offended if I did!

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 20:23 UTC as 92nd comment
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark IV First Impressions Review (1066 comments in total)
In reply to:

cirtapfotos: So what I gathered reading DP Initial Review...Canon Comes up Short once again in the Dynamic and Low Shooting Range. Hence...Nikon's D810 and Sony's a7Rll(not ii) are still class leaders. Thanks DP.

Comments about dynamic range were actually speculation and pretty mischievous too.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 20:19 UTC

I had (and loved) the original Mju with the f3.5 lens. It got driven over by an eight ton horse truck and that did kill it - but not completely. It didn't let any light onto the film and the rewind system still let me get the film out normally. I'm really amazed by how tough those cameras are! The lens was pretty good too.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 08:19 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

Mister Joseph: Only interesting about m43 is the smallish Panasonic 100-400 lens. Other than that, just get the cheapest FF body and stick a 24-70/2.8 and/or 70-200/2.8 and just shoot.

My point stands.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Joseph: Only interesting about m43 is the smallish Panasonic 100-400 lens. Other than that, just get the cheapest FF body and stick a 24-70/2.8 and/or 70-200/2.8 and just shoot.

You've got that back to front but that's fine. m4/3 users understand the advantage of being able to get good depth of field without compromising on shutter speed etc. and we end up with awesome glass with far less weight. Horses for courses.

They don't actually make super-crisp small zooms for larger formats...

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2016 at 23:03 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Joseph: Only interesting about m43 is the smallish Panasonic 100-400 lens. Other than that, just get the cheapest FF body and stick a 24-70/2.8 and/or 70-200/2.8 and just shoot.

I've only taken four shots with the 100-400. Two at the wide end, two at the long end, at ridiculously slow shutter speeds on an EM1. It's much more perfect than I ever expected.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2016 at 10:38 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Joseph: Only interesting about m43 is the smallish Panasonic 100-400 lens. Other than that, just get the cheapest FF body and stick a 24-70/2.8 and/or 70-200/2.8 and just shoot.

Or get a really nice m4/3 body and a gorgeous lens or two and just enjoy your photography, without worrying about what people who don't understand the format think!

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2016 at 09:04 UTC
On article Samyang introduces full-frame 20mm F1.8 ED AS UMC (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

noirdesir: That Four-Thirds model gonna be a huge hit. Or rather the opposite.

Putting a wide-angle FF lens in front of a 4/3 sensor is already wasteful enough, releasing something for a mount which saw its last and final camera release almost six years just takes the crown in pointlessness.

"And there are probably about 10x as many Pentax APS-C cameras currently in use than 4/3 cameras." Really? I'd be amazed if that was true. If so, owners keep them well hidden! Not that it is possible to really know how many cameras people own are "in use".

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 18:55 UTC
On article Samyang introduces full-frame 20mm F1.8 ED AS UMC (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

noirdesir: That Four-Thirds model gonna be a huge hit. Or rather the opposite.

Putting a wide-angle FF lens in front of a 4/3 sensor is already wasteful enough, releasing something for a mount which saw its last and final camera release almost six years just takes the crown in pointlessness.

And yet my first reaction was "what a great lens for my 4/3 camera"! Cheaper than the near-unobtainable 25/1.4 and faster than the 25/2.8. Good on them.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

h2k: Now expecting an interview, i didn't expect in the least this awkward multi-click format. I find this user-unfriendly to a high degree (aware that many on-site clicks may be good for DPR).

I thought this could be interesting content, but i can't bring myself to click-click-click through this.

I know at least one great website of a major general weekly that breaks its stories into 2 - 3 pages - with the additional option of reading everything on one single page. Possible at DPR?

I'll vote to keep the slideshow format used here. It's really easy to use, DOESN'T need lots of clicks (I also just use the arrows) and the little chunks of information with an accompanying picture is just right for a light article like this.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 21:18 UTC
In reply to:

Alphoid: Honestly, a review without even mentioning the aperture? Seriously, dpreview?

Random web site suggests this was a constant f/2.8 zoom. If that's correct, it should be on par with an FZ200 in many ways. That's a pretty decent camera. 10x zoom vs 20x zoom would be the major difference, aside from the obvious generational difference in sensor technology, storage technology, etc.

Contra, as your pseudonym suggests, you are wrong.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 21:00 UTC
In reply to:

RobBobW: We had some of these in our Engineering offices when they came out so our field staff could document their inspections. It was quite magical at the time to have them send in photographs directly to the office and not have to wait for photofinishing. We could also for the first time, include photographs in our soft copy reports. They really cracked the lid open on the use of digital photography for work documentation.

Our office got a different model floppy disk Mavica at around the same time and found exactly the same thing. Do a field inspection, insert disc into computer, insert photo into report. Done. At the time, it was amazing.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 20:57 UTC

That was really interesting, thanks. Those people largely have a different perspective from the enthusiastic browsing types who frequent the forums here! Refreshing.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 20:45 UTC as 38th comment
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hibiscusbloom: Well, it looks like at this stage, anyone wanting the best of best in raw action has to settle for a giant toaster weighing a ton. It doesn't end there. You need the 600/4 or 800/5.6 to get the best images. Sometimes, it may not be the money but the weight.
Can we progress with smaller gadgets? More innovation, thinking outside of the square is needed to produce smaller, lighter cameras. Is mirrorless the solution? Maybe. At least a bit smaller and lighter. But a wee way to go before it can catch up with the DSLRs. It's good to have hope and dreams.

HIbiscusbloom: Beg, borrow or rent a (comparatively) tiny Olympus EM1 with the 300/4 lens and you will see that the progress you ask for is startlingly close!

(Oh no, did I just open myself up to a barrage?!)

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 10:38 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nick Brundle - Photography: With all the problems of auto-focusing always wondered why Canon dropped there Eye Controlled System they had on the EOS 3 in the late nineties.
You could pick one of the 45 points of the autofocus system simply by looking at it though the viewfinder. An infrared transmitter and receiver mounted around the eyepiece monitored the position of your iris, thus "knowing" where you were looking and focusing on.
Rumors are that it might be back on the 5d MkIV

I had an EOS30 with eye-controlled auto-focus and was just as baffled when they dropped it. Absolutely nothing I have used since has come close to the speed of that system. It was absolute magic. It did need recalibrating a couple of times in the first month or so, as I gelled with the camera and slightly altered the way I held it to my eye, but then it remained stable for years.

Rave rave rave, yup, it was that good! People who didn't like it, though, could turn it off. No losers.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 07:46 UTC
In reply to:

Nigel Tafferham: How can they dare think that Canon cams can be used for such a sacred thing as the Olympics - we all know that ONLY Sony cams are worthy !!! The arrogance of them using that lousy Canon equipment !! ;)

What's next film ? ;)

4) Quality. It's ridiculous to suggest Canon cameras can't produce quality!

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 22:53 UTC
Total: 722, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »