120 to 35

Joined on Jul 28, 2013

Comments

Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

Why is there a non-VR version of the 300mm zoom lens at only $50 price difference? This is hardly usable at the long end.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2016 at 13:31 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

120 to 35: Why not revive the square frame? With a larger sensor, 40 x 40 mm is possible as well as 44 x 33. It's nice to see the XCD lens mount does not restrict the frame to a 4 x 3 rectangle.

I think it would cost a small amount (compared to the total cost of camera) to use an existing 53.4x40 sensor and let the camera crop electronically to square or rectangular within the image circle (or the shutter opening to be precise).

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 19:41 UTC

Why not revive the square frame? With a larger sensor, 40 x 40 mm is possible as well as 44 x 33. It's nice to see the XCD lens mount does not restrict the frame to a 4 x 3 rectangle.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 15:44 UTC as 75th comment | 3 replies
On article Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review (1090 comments in total)

Strange. The Video Stills Comparison select list does not include the D500.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2016 at 21:15 UTC as 230th comment | 1 reply
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2154 comments in total)
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: When is Sony going to produce a sensor that does 16-bit images. We're never going to compete with the medium-format people using our mediocre 14-bit pictures.

How can a small camera ever compete with Hasselblad's latest model with 100MP, 53x41mm sensor?

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 17:59 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2154 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonikon: Only a small percentage of buyers of the 6300 will ever use prime lenses with it, so why are only prime lenses used in the reviews of the Sony APS-C cameras?
Answer: The Sony APS-C zoom lenses are junk glass that get terrible reviews.
If Sony ever produces a good quality native APS-C zoom lens for this camera, I would seriously consider buying one, (despite it's poorly designed grip and ergonomics). I keep waiting and hoping Sony wakes up some day and gets the news that optical quality is important to serious amateur photographers and the vast majority of sub FF sensor ILC owners (me included), rarely use or even own prime lenses. Poor lens selection for APS-C is one of the major reasons I left the Sony A mount, and six years later nothing has changed, unfortunately.

Sony could still surprise us with a relatively inexpensive APS-C 2.8 zoom but it doesn't look likely with the new full frame 2.8 zoom at over $2K. It certainly not easier or cheaper to manufacture a top-quality APS-C 2.8/16-70 model compared to the 24-70 full-frame.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 17:54 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2154 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonikon: Only a small percentage of buyers of the 6300 will ever use prime lenses with it, so why are only prime lenses used in the reviews of the Sony APS-C cameras?
Answer: The Sony APS-C zoom lenses are junk glass that get terrible reviews.
If Sony ever produces a good quality native APS-C zoom lens for this camera, I would seriously consider buying one, (despite it's poorly designed grip and ergonomics). I keep waiting and hoping Sony wakes up some day and gets the news that optical quality is important to serious amateur photographers and the vast majority of sub FF sensor ILC owners (me included), rarely use or even own prime lenses. Poor lens selection for APS-C is one of the major reasons I left the Sony A mount, and six years later nothing has changed, unfortunately.

"I'm not sure they could be called "premium" zooms." Premium prices compare to the kit zoom.

A weather-sealed, corner-to-corner sharp 2.8/16-70 would probably cost $2000 and have a small market. Not very likely but who know what Sony is planning.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 15:08 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2154 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonikon: Only a small percentage of buyers of the 6300 will ever use prime lenses with it, so why are only prime lenses used in the reviews of the Sony APS-C cameras?
Answer: The Sony APS-C zoom lenses are junk glass that get terrible reviews.
If Sony ever produces a good quality native APS-C zoom lens for this camera, I would seriously consider buying one, (despite it's poorly designed grip and ergonomics). I keep waiting and hoping Sony wakes up some day and gets the news that optical quality is important to serious amateur photographers and the vast majority of sub FF sensor ILC owners (me included), rarely use or even own prime lenses. Poor lens selection for APS-C is one of the major reasons I left the Sony A mount, and six years later nothing has changed, unfortunately.

Two premium APS-C zooms already exist but the OP is not happy. What about "only a few people would buy f:2.8/16-50 and longer bright zooms for the 6300 as the zooms would cost well over $1000".

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 11:50 UTC

To DPR: What is the cause of image distortion (wave-like image of straight lines) in samples #50-#55, taken at maximum focal length?

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 13:23 UTC as 5th comment

What type of distortion is the wave-like straight lines in samples #50-#55?

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 18:29 UTC as 15th comment
On photo London, UK in the Your City - Kids playground challenge (3 comments in total)

You don't have to try. This is actually one of the best photos

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 21:12 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply

Well done DPR for the live updates on these announcements!

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 15:37 UTC as 413th comment

"which consists of" or "which comprises" more than 73,000 items ...

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2015 at 02:53 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Leo "Zoom": If they seek for truth - then it is impossible. Even straight from the camera picture can lie - it can be staged, can be framed to hide unwanted things, etc. IMO contests should seek evaluate the photos, not the event behind them. That's why manipulation shouldn't be disqualified.

Many photos are 'staged' like the photo above with the red background. Would the man be normally standing there staring at the camera? But what if the photo of the man was taken elsewhere and superimposed on the photo of the background? These are two different issues.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 12:04 UTC
On article Leica M9 users report sensor corrosion issue (378 comments in total)

I have seen the pattern in the left photo on the plastic "glass" of unused slide frames that were stored in unsealed boxes. This is possibly caused by fungus. Any camera should be stored in a dry environment to avoid this.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 00:41 UTC as 91st comment
In reply to:

ZoranHR: Big attention this camera gets. I would like Sony system continue to improve,there is a space. So far I m not interested.
Battery life is poor. Also I would like to have an oportunity and see how it feels in hand with some proper glass. I m afraid FF lenses are heavy and whole package is akward to hold. But that I would have to see.

A 1970's fully mechanical SLR film camera is just the tool for places with lots of sand and wind, etc. Anything with sensors and electronics is likely to break in those conditions.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 18:24 UTC
On photo Early Life in the -Domestic Cats- (Full Colours Only + Border) challenge (1 comment in total)

This is actually one of the cutest entries.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 18:52 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

120 to 35: The photos are conceptual art.

Copyright belongs to the artist. In conceptual art, the artist does not usually create the work himself. He provides the concept, gets his associates to produce the work, and presents the end results as his work. The photographer is the conceptual artist who made the monkey take the pictures with his camera. He therefore owns the copyright.

The essential point is: "In conceptual art, the artist does not usually create the work himself." Apart from works produces by hired assistants, there are works that are created randomly. For example setting up a camera to take pictures which some random changes in temperature or light. Exactly because the monkey cannot claim copyright, it becomes a mere tool in the production of the work by the artist.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 10:10 UTC
In reply to:

120 to 35: The photos are conceptual art.

Copyright belongs to the artist. In conceptual art, the artist does not usually create the work himself. He provides the concept, gets his associates to produce the work, and presents the end results as his work. The photographer is the conceptual artist who made the monkey take the pictures with his camera. He therefore owns the copyright.

It doesn't matter. The release of the pictures by the photographer establishes them as his work.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 22:48 UTC

The photos are conceptual art.

Copyright belongs to the artist. In conceptual art, the artist does not usually create the work himself. He provides the concept, gets his associates to produce the work, and presents the end results as his work. The photographer is the conceptual artist who made the monkey take the pictures with his camera. He therefore owns the copyright.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 22:27 UTC as 243rd comment | 7 replies
Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »