Joined on Jan 13, 2012


Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Throwback Thursday: the Nikon D80 (243 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kabe Luna: My first "serious about photography" camera? That'd be the groundbreaking Canon EOS 10s 35mm FILM SLR. Three AF points was mind-blowing back then. As were 5 fps and spot metering, coming from a Rebel S II. Fantastic camera with which I learned oh so much and, eventually, created pictures I'm proud of to this day.

My first serious camera was an EOS100. My dad was very jealous of that camera. It was still working until about five years ago.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 04:18 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1560 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jose G: well at least the original a 99 got the gold award and and scored a 84%... it does add to the confusion.

This comes up on every thread relating to a review and the DPR staff have reiterated numerous times that there is no correlation between % score and the colour of the award. The award, i think, is based on where the reviewer sees the camera relative to its competitors and the score is a weight average of its various attribute scores. I think this how it works.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 05:00 UTC
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Someone smarter than me pointed out on Nikonrumors that the introduction of the new baby Canon M is really what killed this camera. How could this compete with canon's ever-improving mirrorless cameras?

@mrbrightside - They could have made a camera(s) that fixed the m5 (mainly video) shortcomings.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 23:24 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Looking at these images I can categorically say that I will have no interest in buying into the Olympus system. The images are very flat and desaturated beyond belief. I have just finished playing around with a Fujifilm X-T10 with 35mm f/2 and the jpegs straight from camera completely destroy this nonsense you've posted. Whilst I don't normally crit peoples work, these images leave a lot to be desired.

Just in case you missed it: "All images processed and cropped to taste ..."
And calling someones shots "nonsense" isn't critiquing it is just a plain old insult.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2017 at 21:34 UTC
In reply to:

usernamealreadyinuse: Very sad that so many who understand absolutely nothing about the business of advertising, feel inclined to comment here and so freely demonstrate their ignorance.

You're welcome. I glad you finally understand it is not worth complaining about.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 01:10 UTC
In reply to:

usernamealreadyinuse: Very sad that so many who understand absolutely nothing about the business of advertising, feel inclined to comment here and so freely demonstrate their ignorance.

"Not posting ignorant comments isn't matter of being an advertising expert - it's matter of not being stupid." I think you are expecting a lot for an internet forum to free from ignorant commentary.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 22:44 UTC
In reply to:

usernamealreadyinuse: Very sad that so many who understand absolutely nothing about the business of advertising, feel inclined to comment here and so freely demonstrate their ignorance.

Really?? Did you actually expect a photography gear website forum to have expert advertising commentary? I feel that is ignorance on your behalf.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 00:42 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1627 comments in total)
In reply to:

OlyPent: Cleaner RAW image than m4/3rd 20mp cameras at 100 ISO.

Is that because there isn't any ISO 100 m43 image to compare against? When looking at 200 vs 200 I can't see a much of difference, using the GX8 as a reference.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 04:34 UTC
On article Action-packed: Sony a6500 review (1147 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: Why do I still want a two year old Samsung NX-1 instead of a new Sony a6500?


Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 04:32 UTC
On article Action-packed: Sony a6500 review (1147 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: Here's is something rather amusing.. Go to IQ comparison ad the A5100 to the mix, put it to jpg iso 6400, click the box on to one of the faces and tell me what you see.. Why is the a 5100 handling noise better....

I think that is just due to different jpeg processing. The 6500 is, to my eye, retaining more detail. The raw 5100 is definitely noisier.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 04:30 UTC
In reply to:

duartix: This article starts with utter nonsense. It's right there in the tile: "$2000+".
I could understand a price top limit, but a low limit? What sense is in that?
Do you know of any "Semi-Pro"/whatever that says "I need a new camera body, but because I'm a Semi-Pro I can't spend less than 2000$!" ?

Anyway, having said this, and considering dpreview says they selected "cameras with 50 or more megapixels geared perfectly for studio shooters" I don't see a reason either why the Olympus OM-1 Mark II wasn't included, even with reserves, as most of the time it can achieve a 50+ MP output in a studio shoot. Dpreview itself (when reviewing the OM-D E-M5 II, considered "the camera not only competing with the Nikon D810's level of detail capture but comfortably exceeding it in terms of color resolution".

I have read over on the 43rumors site, when discussing the price of the E-M1 ii, "pros" posting that the cost of the camera is not a concern. I didn't delve any further than a quick look at the personal sites but there are plenty (who knows what a sufficient number is) of people using m4/3 for paid work.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 05:15 UTC
In reply to:

stefpix: The photos look worse than what could be taken with a camera phone: Gulfoss looks not sharp at all, many photos look underexposed. The waterfall @ Skogafoss has no detail in the highlights. I guess the camera could produce better photos. DPreview should really post better photos to show the potential of a camera.

These look very poor and lazy photos. I have been to Iceland long ago and the landscape is really amazing.

As Tommi K1 states - the "dramatic tone" art filter often produces ugly effects. It only works on certain images.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 01:21 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1627 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looks like a decent enough camera but, yet again, we have a fake SLR style. No mirror means you can put the viewfinder in the corner and have a more compact and more comfortable body but it looks like marketing has dictated this one (the buyer is convinced this is a "real camera like a 1DX")?

Doesn't the central EVF make it easier for left-eye users? The EVF on the left side of the body is only really good for right-eye shooters I am guessing as I am a right-eye-kinda-guy ;-p

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 01:34 UTC
In reply to:

ecm: Still don't care. Hope the loss of connectivity options and Apple's rather cynical efforts to lock in profit margin - by forcing 3rd party vendors to use Lightning connectors and thus pay Lightning patent fees - doesn't catch on in the Android phone world. I have bluetooth headphones and they're great right up til the batteries run out.

"All the while new Samsung's are exploding." Wow, that sounds so scary, oh wait it is just hyperbole, there are only 35 confirmed explosions out of millions of handsets. And it still hasn't been determined if it was faulty/cheap chargers or not.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 02:39 UTC
On article Apple unveils iPhone 7 and dual-cam iPhone 7 Plus (916 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wild Light: The Bokeh mode is absolutely horrendous. It's so fake looking, the worst kind.

It looks good but after looking slightly longer, the lack of a "fade in and out of focus" is a little disconcerting to my eye.
I am guessing that for most users this will not be a problem as they are getting the look of a larger sensor+fast lens.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 02:12 UTC
On article Pentax K-70 firmware 1.10 now available (21 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: I would like the pentax lens line-up if my choices for a wider-than-35mm-equiv-AF-prime were the too slow 15mm f4.0 and the anchient and still not that fast (and certainly not sharp open) 14mm f2.8. Am I missing something?

Fuji's got at least 4 different choices:
16mm f1.4 WR (the one I keep drooling over)
14mm 2.8
18mm 2.0
12mm 2.8 zeis

"Fisheyes and manual focus lenses don't count"
Why not? Once you head into wide angle territory manual lenses are fine, it is more about the image quality. Generally speaking wide angles are used for landscapes leading the tripods and plenty of time to focus manually. The increased depth of field of these lenses also makes autofocus less important.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 05:02 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-Pro2 versus X-T2: Seven key differences (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

chriswilliams10: I guess my thoughts would be why would anyone choose the X-Pro2, and at $100 more, no less. What is happening to X-Pro2 sales upon the announcement of the X-T2?
Fuji will have to lower their price on the X-Pro2 if they want to sell anymore. Even there size and weight are not different enough to be a compelling reason to choose the X-Pro2. It's simply that the X-T2 can do everything the more expensive camera can, and then some, including 4K.... I'm seriously going to watch for reviews on the X-T2 and consider that camera. Hope it doesn't shutdown from overheating! Look's like Fuji has limited clip length to keep that from happening.. I guess, also, to watch for sales on the X-Pro2, especially for stills folks only..

As I was clicking through the slides I thinking the same thing @chriswilliams10. Before checking the prices I was thinking "well the Pro must be cheaper" but nope, the viewfinder is its only "advantage" apart from looks, and that is purely a personal thing.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 00:52 UTC
In reply to:

StevenE: People question m4/3 format for good reason when we see lenses like this at US$1300.
This is equivalent to a FF 24 f/2.8, which can be had for Canon at US$550, less than half the price and it is smaller and lighter. Even more significantly, you can get a FF 24mm f/1.4 from Sigma for US$850, that's a US$450 savings, and there is, and likely never will be, a m4/3 equivalent to that!
So, although it has it's uses, micro 4/3 is a compromised format

"This is equivalent to a FF 24 f/2.8, which can be had for Canon at US$550"
But this is a (panasonic) Leica lens not a Canikon. You expect to pay more for a better quality lens.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 10:45 UTC
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1994 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbcass: Why did it take so long for this review to come out? Why is it "semi professional" considering that it's a camera a lot of professionals use?

I'm guessing file size? For certain professionals who have to process a lot of files I can imagine the slightly longer prices times could be a turn off compared to a D4s file size. A couple of seconds per photo across a couple of thousand photos could add up to a lot of time.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2016 at 09:54 UTC
In reply to:

leecamera: Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it's overpriced. T those that say they are I feel they've never actually shot seriously with a Hass.

These things are beautiful optics, with a smaller market than DSLR. Both of these things have an effect on the price.

If I am more expensive than the next photographer, does that make me necessarily overpriced...? Not if I do it better.

This site, whoever it belongs to, charges for photography work.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 01:12 UTC
Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »