Kristian Rickert

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Apr 3, 2011

Comments

Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6
On article Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III real-world sample gallery (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Franiec: I believe that this lens is one of the greatest optics ever created by any of manufacturers.
Since printed media are in the decline, this lens appeals less and less to the mainstream (smartphone and tablet users) and the trend will continue.
Use of such lens is shrinking by the minute because people want to share their pictures instantly on the smartphone and tablet screens. It is hard to discern the difference at these sizes.
Add $2200.00 to the mix and you'll have the picture of a struggle that typical wedding photographers have to meet to stay in business.
That is why gear like that is less and less appealing. Even for the people who make a living using such lens.

Computer screens aren't a good candidate for great equipment. iPhone pics on instagram look amazing, but if you try to print them any bigger than an 8x10, you'll see the real results.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 16:43 UTC
On article Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III real-world sample gallery (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

aaronbass813: I would be really disappointed if I spent $5,700 (5D MKIV + 16-35 III) and that was the image quality that I was getting out of the combo.

I've owned this lens now for a couple months. It's amazing. The photos aren't anything to print in a gallery, but they do their job: just shows the performance of the lens. The 17-40L has less detail if you're going to zoom in and look at the finer details.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 16:41 UTC
On article Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III real-world sample gallery (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: What about Sigma 18-35 f/1,8 Art? Better or worse?

There was a pretty good video out there that tries to answer this question. (having trouble finding the link).

Conclusion: Go canon if you can afford it, otherwise sigma isn't a big step down. Sigma was better bang for the buck but canon had better overall performance with detail. They said sigma had better detail on the edges when at a bigger opening though while the canon in those instance had superior detail in the middle of the image.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 16:40 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark III studio samples published (287 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richt2000: Looks a great great camera. However this won't sell like the 5D2 did:

- Many 5D2 owners won't upgrade like they did from 5D1 to 5D2
- D800/D800e will be more appealing for Landscape and Studio people going into a system from scratch
- More expensive than 5D2 on launch dates

If I was still working a 5D1 and already had L glass, I'd buy it, but as a happy 5D2 / 1DsIII owner, This will be the first time in 10 years I don't crave for any of the latest full frame Canon offerings.

The price for the 5d2 was less than the 5d1, so it also got people from the 20D/30D to upgrade to a full frame.

I gotta say, I'm a lil disappointed in the performance so far.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2012 at 16:39 UTC
On article Canon USA announces Pixma Pro-1 12-ink A3+ printer (21 comments in total)
In reply to:

Carlos Nascimento: Dye or pigment inks? You do not mention this important information in your report.

Pigment.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2011 at 15:04 UTC
On article Canon USA announces Pixma Pro-1 12-ink A3+ printer (21 comments in total)
In reply to:

tman1991: $360 for a set of ink!!

http://www.adorama.com/ICAPGI29K12.html

Looks like you're talking about $.80/ml for ink on this printer. If you get the 4900, it's $1100 for a full set if ink but the cartridges are 200ml as opposed to 35ml on this printer. Therefore, we're talking about $.50/ml for ink. If you do a lot of printing, the better printers are a no brainer but this one is a reasonable middle ground for the serious hobbyest.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2011 at 15:04 UTC
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6