webrunner5

Lives in United States Oxford, OH, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Feb 23, 2007

Comments

Total: 396, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Like them or not, they will sell a ton of them.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 16:00 UTC as 6th comment
On article Pinnacle Prime: Olympus ED 25mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pikme: How many pictures of a dog's face to we need to see?

Seriously, these are about the most uninspired photos for a new 'perfect' lens that I can imagine. I get it, a few photos to show the DOF and look for flare makes sense, but all these images might as well be concrete walls. Where are the images to show off the lens' rendering appeal?

It's not like you're lacking in photographers....

I think it is one of the Better set of examples as of late. Boy add that to the Olympus colors, hard to beat.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 15:51 UTC
In reply to:

Sranang Boi: I have a feeling it will sell like hot cake. Specialist photographers have been dreaming of a camera like this.

Sell like Hot Cakes, yeah right. You will be able to buy a nice, brand new car for what the 3 lenses you Need and the body cost.

There is not 2% of the people on here that can justify to their wife to let them buy one LoL.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 15:15 UTC

I think it is just 30fps.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 14:20 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
On article Canon EOS M5: What you need to know (548 comments in total)
In reply to:

scott_mcleod: Question for those who have seen the camera *in real life* - many of the photos make the painted parts look a sort of bluish-grey (somewhat reminiscent of the T70 IIRC). Does it look that way to the eye, in natural light, or does it appear a more neutral color?

Well the T90 was an awesome camera other than the liquid crystal thingy going belly up after a lot of years.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2016 at 04:33 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon PowerShot Pro70 (110 comments in total)

I had one. I think I paid around $1,100.00 for it. Maybe more. A Ton of money back then.

But it was a nice camera with a Ton of CA in tree limbs. I loved it!

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 04:31 UTC as 32nd comment
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1920 comments in total)
In reply to:

tonyreidsma: In the DPR employment application is it a necessity for thick skin? I hope so.

Thank you DPR for your reviews and for this site, where we can come to learn, converse on the forums, and complain on the reviews. It's much appreciated by all.

On topic - I didn't realize Canon was even part of the discussion regarding the future of cameras. It's beyond me why someone would pay $3500 for something like this, but that's me. Some wonder why I just paid almost $2000 for a SONY lens. My wife is one of them.... ;-)

Well like they said if you just want to dip your toe into video I think this camera does that pretty well.

And this Dual Focus thingy Canon has is a REALLY BIG DEAL. There is not a camera, video company that would not kill to be able top say their product has this for not only Stills, but video also. And I bet patent wise they have it sewed up.

I would kill to have it in my Sony Pro Video camera, as well as my stills cameras. That feature alone maybe worth the price of admission, it is that good of an item to have.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

Correction man: Cooke lenses are super things on Movie camera it will be interesting to see how they perform on Stills cameras IF anyone can afford to use them

They Are a bargain, try buying the Leica set. They go for 300k used if you are lucky..

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 17:53 UTC
On article ESPN publishes iPhone 7 Plus photos from US Open (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maksim Yankovskiy: So a good photographer with armed with any camera will produce good images. What is new here? Composition is nice, but it's not the camera. The choice of lighting and shadows is nice, but it's not the camera.

The oversaturated colors, that's probably the camera. The pixelated look, that's probably the camera.

A note to all who say that DSLR photographers are threatened by tiny phone cameras. We are. But not because DSLRs are being rendered inferior, as you state. It is because of lack of effort of the general population to educate themselves on photography, on how an image is produced. Why the tiny sensor camera is technologically inferior to a larger sensor camera. Why a good fast focusing system is important. Why it takes a lot of heavy glass to generate a quality image.

We feel threatened because tiny phone cameras allow human ignorance to bubble to the surface.

Well I am happy for you that you are able to walk around all day 24/7 with a D5, or a 1DmkII around your neck.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 15:50 UTC
In reply to:

jorg14: Did anyone ever mention how little they care?

Did anyone ever mention how little they care if YOU care. If you "don't care" why did you reply to this thread?

If you don't want one well that's fine. Seems like Apple this year has sold over a Billion iPhones now. Seems like somebody cares. I know I do.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 16:55 UTC
In reply to:

Kevin Omura: Yup 12mp is good enough and here are some reasons why the headphone jack was taken out. I'm sure you could make it water proof to a degree but it's still a gaping hole where water and crud can collect especially something like sand. I'm ambivalent to the loss personally since I don't use headphones on my phone. On my Macbook it would be a huge deal though.

Here are some interesting reasons why the jack was turfed. https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/inside-iphone-7-why-apple-killed-the-headphone-jack?utm_term=.uhZpJzQoW#.bdwn4wqa6

The stylus pen is in its own compartment and it had NO physical relationship to the internal cavity of the actual phone. Big difference. An oh I own both type of phones. So no dog in the fight as they say.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 15:52 UTC
On article Sony offers E PZ 18-110mm F4 G OSS for Super 35mm/APS-C (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

webrunner5: This lens is Way to slow for video. Most video cameras a Terrible at low light. That is why the vast majority of B4 lenses are all mostly f1.4, f1.7. They where that for a reason.

You notice all the new Sigma, Zeiss lens coming out are T 2.2 or T2.0. They Need to be that fast. Sure they are more expensive than this is. And if you can afford to get into video big time you can afford to buy a 5 thousand dollar lens or more.

I doubt this lens is just going to fly off the shelves. To rich for poor people, to slow for rich people. Would I take it, well yes. But if they want to do video lenses, Well do them, don't half ... you know what, them.

Well go buy it. I won't. End of short story.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 23:54 UTC
On article Sony offers E PZ 18-110mm F4 G OSS for Super 35mm/APS-C (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

webrunner5: This lens is Way to slow for video. Most video cameras a Terrible at low light. That is why the vast majority of B4 lenses are all mostly f1.4, f1.7. They where that for a reason.

You notice all the new Sigma, Zeiss lens coming out are T 2.2 or T2.0. They Need to be that fast. Sure they are more expensive than this is. And if you can afford to get into video big time you can afford to buy a 5 thousand dollar lens or more.

I doubt this lens is just going to fly off the shelves. To rich for poor people, to slow for rich people. Would I take it, well yes. But if they want to do video lenses, Well do them, don't half ... you know what, them.

Sure the Sony 28-135 f/4 PZ works great with your A7rII, It is a FF camera with great low light ability. Perfect for that. And this new one will be sort of useless for it unless you shoot in the cropped mode, which you probably will on it.

And for all the B4 haters out there, there are a LOT of people that use them yet on pmw F3, F5, F7, even F55's. Lots of people use them on Blackmagic stuff. I do.

There is nothing like a B4 lens that anyone normal could ever afford. They are just incredible if you have a HD to this day.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 18:08 UTC
On article Sony offers E PZ 18-110mm F4 G OSS for Super 35mm/APS-C (128 comments in total)

This lens is Way to slow for video. Most video cameras a Terrible at low light. That is why the vast majority of B4 lenses are all mostly f1.4, f1.7. They where that for a reason.

You notice all the new Sigma, Zeiss lens coming out are T 2.2 or T2.0. They Need to be that fast. Sure they are more expensive than this is. And if you can afford to get into video big time you can afford to buy a 5 thousand dollar lens or more.

I doubt this lens is just going to fly off the shelves. To rich for poor people, to slow for rich people. Would I take it, well yes. But if they want to do video lenses, Well do them, don't half ... you know what, them.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 16:43 UTC as 16th comment | 8 replies
On article Sony offers E PZ 18-110mm F4 G OSS for Super 35mm/APS-C (128 comments in total)

This lens is Way to slow for video. Most video cameras a Terrible at low light. That is why the vast majority of B4 lenses are all mostly f1.4, f1.7. They where that for a reason.

You notice all the new Sigma, Zeiss lens coming out are T 2.2 or T2.0. They Need to be that fast. Sure they are more expensive than this is. And if you can afford to get into video big time you can afford to buy a 5 thousand dollar lens or more.

I doubt this lens is just going to fly off the shelves. To rich for poor people, to slow for rich people. Would I take it, well yes. But if they want to do video lenses, Well do them, don't half ... you know what, them.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 16:43 UTC as 17th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Suave: I would assume that the primes will come in above XEEN, but below Canon. So, around $4000?

I bet less than that!

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 17:58 UTC
On photo Last voyage in the Dramatic skies challenge (10 comments in total)
In reply to:

lakkot: A beginner's question - do you need aperture closed down so much to get a all-round sharp picture with 16mm focal length?

Yeah f14 is into diffraction territory for sure. But then he, she could have raised the shutter speed to help. But who thinks of that off the cuff on a pretty much once in a lifetime shot LoL.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2016 at 20:38 UTC

Looks pretty nice for the money.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2016 at 18:58 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

KW Phua: I think if Canon remove the AA filter, the detail and noise will be improved.

This camera is being pushed as a Video camera also. And very few dedicated Video cameras have no AA filter. Well I can't really think of any. Imagine trying to shoot a news room, or fashion runway video. Good luck with that.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 03:30 UTC
On photo Silence in the Blown highlights challenge (4 comments in total)

Wow that must have been one serious house or place in it's prime. Sad to see it neglected that way.

I like the mood of it with the natural light. Well done.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 02:33 UTC as 2nd comment
Total: 396, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »