Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Works as a IT Director / Engineer
Joined on Jul 29, 2009
About me:

Current Cameras:
Nikon d750 with a number of lenses.
As well as a Panasonic Gh3 and Sony RX10 which I use mostly for videos.
Previous Cameras:
A few Minolta film cameras (and 1 Film Canon). Several DSLRs including Nikon d90, d300, d700, d800, a Minolta 7d, Canon 500d (aka T1i), and a close to a dozen bridge and pocket cameras. My favorite was the Minolta 7i.


Total: 152, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

There was a question about the compatibility of the electronic diaphragm. From Nikon:

The lens incorporates an electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism. The following cameras are compatible with this lens:

D5, D4 series, D3 series, Df, D810, D810A, D800 series, D750, D700, D610, D600, D500, D300 series, D7200, D7100, D7000, D5500, D5300, D5200, D5100, D5000, D3300, D3200, D3100, Nikon 1 J1, J2, J3, J4 with FT-1, Nikon 1 V1, V2, V3 with FT-1, Nikon 1 S1, S2 with FT-1

So it supports both my d750 as well as my 8 year old d700. Some pro-sumer cameras seem to have been dropped, like the d90. But who is going to buy a $2800 lens and put it on a 8 year old "pro-sumer" body worth around 5% as much. The d90 is not weather sealed while the d300 (same archaic sensor) is. So if you want a state of the art lens on a old crusty body, it is possible even if a bit strange.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 23:25 UTC as 5th comment

You cherry picked some might old lenses to avoid AF on your d750. It will AF lenses from 1986. For example the ever popular 50mm af-d. Meaning older than Canon's mount.

Maybe this will help you out.

Just what AF Canon lenses were you trying to replace that got you so jammed up?

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 23:12 UTC as 6th comment

You should include weather sealing on the feature comparison list. For some of us this is THE feature. It is the reason I went with a Sony rx10 for video. Sports are played in the elements.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 20:59 UTC as 94th comment
In reply to:

Jura S: Design wise they've copied Sigma C.

I disagree. It looks quite a lot like the original Tamron lens which pre-dates the Sigma.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 20:23 UTC

I really like the combination of in body and in lens stabilization being combined for greater effect. The claimed 6.5EVs is astounding.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 21:52 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Contra Mundum: It's time to release this lens in Sony E-mount. Yes, it's likely the same as Sony 90/2.8 macro, but it's much cheaper.

The Tamron Macro lenses have always been top shelf stuff.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2016 at 00:22 UTC
In reply to:

stratplaya: Looks like a camcorder mated with a point and shoot. What was the retail prices on this electric brick?

msrp was 600 in 1999

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 16:10 UTC
In reply to:

photosen: They both look good but it's a marketing coup for Canon, as we can now expect dynamic range improvements to trickle down to cameras most people can actually afford: 7DIII, 90D and eventually the Rebels.

There is nothing in the camera other than the sensor which plays any role in DR.
The site you linked to is not a recognized subject matter expert. It is just another generic "tech" site like many others I occasionally read. In fact they were using tools written by DXO, and I'd guess incorrectly due to their lessor familiarity with the subject matter. For example they measured the DR not in RAW files but jpeg or TIFF (converted) files, while. You don't measure DR that way and get as reliable results.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 16:02 UTC
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: But what about color accuracy at low and high ISOs? I looked over this story and couldn't find anything about whether colors fall apart at higher ISO values. Is this not a problem anymore? Or is it that color doesn't matter?

Even if you happen to use a color correction chart (and thereby have perfect color) the range will still be hampered by the relatively low DR at the higher ISO levels.
But it is not a question of shooting portraits at 50k and expecting perfect color rendition it is a question of can I get usable photos which I would otherwise not be able to get. A photo of a critical moment in a game is worth having even if the DR is 1/2 as much and the color rendition is 10-15% off (compared to studio lighting).
Increased capabilities doesn't change what is ideal, it just adds options, choices and shooting possibilities you would not otherwise have had.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 18:20 UTC
In reply to:

photosen: They both look good but it's a marketing coup for Canon, as we can now expect dynamic range improvements to trickle down to cameras most people can actually afford: 7DIII, 90D and eventually the Rebels.

The DR improvement (and general sensor improvement) in the 80d is nice but it is still well behind Nikon and other aps-c camera's capabilities. Here compare the 80d vs the d7100
The 80d has a much lower base DR (nearly 1.5 ev) and remains close to an ev lower across the board.
So still some work to do in that department, but at least the 80d has closed the gap somewhat.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 18:13 UTC
In reply to:

Stollen1234: good comparsion and review..but at the end, typical Dpreview, If you need the world's best AF system, and a camera that can shoot forever and literally see in the dark, then the D5 is the better option.

who needs to take Photos near dark..seriously...

You need high ISO for more than just shooting in the dark. You might be surprised at how fast ISO climbs up when you're shooting indoor sports (for example). And you can't always shoot at f/2.8. In some frames you're going to want some DOF in which case your ISO can go really high really fast. Relative performance in these situations is interesting to know even if you have no plans to shoot indoor tennis, bowling or club scenes (dancing, bands, and such).

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 17:17 UTC
On article D500 owner formally accuses Nikon of false advertising (473 comments in total)

Nikon fan and current owner of several Nikon cameras and maybe a dozen Nikon lenses. I admire and may buy a d500. But I agree with the complaint. The d500 can hardly be said to have WiFi capability given the current hoops that need to be jumped through to get anything to happen. I say they should fix this via a firmware update so that it has the same functionality as other cameras which are accepted to have WiFi capabilities or they should have to advertise what connectivity capabilities the d500 actually has.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 18:55 UTC as 183rd comment | 3 replies
On article 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 2: Full-Frame (368 comments in total)

Why was the d750 not included? It is just under $2000 (1996.95 at both amazon and b&H). Clearly including multiple cameras from the same brand was not the issue (3 Sony's).

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2016 at 19:06 UTC as 81st comment | 5 replies
On article Video: Meet the Nikon D500 (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

tripler6: Call me crazy but I think the target market for a D500 already owns an FX body, so I'm not too sure pro-DX lenses are what's called for. I'm just using lenses that have crossover potential like the 70-200, 35s, etc.

@old cameras: The Tamron 150-600 is do-able hand-held. It is much easier to handle than its competition.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 16:39 UTC
On article Video: Meet the Nikon D500 (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

DukeCC: Big news for Sigma, with big sales of their f/1.8 ART DX zooms on the horizon thanks to the D500.

Since you are talking the d500 I have to assume you are talking at least a little sports. For sports the lack of IS is not a big deal as shutter speed will take care of that.
Similarly if you are buying the 50-100 for portraiture, then you are buying it for DOF control. In that scenario you will have plenty of shutter speed available as well since portraiture involves good, controlled light.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

Beckler8: This is so expensive I'd probly rather have the a6300 w/lens because I rarely need 24x zoom, so it's more of a specialist's camera. But more importantly the video quality I see on RX10ii youtube samples has none of the a7 type wide dynamic range look to it, whereas 6300 has more of it. It looks a bit too much like cheap home video.

I don't want this one, but there is a market for it.
For example, Have kids in sports? The only weather sealed options are the rx10 mk1, 2 & 3. The only other options are a gh3/gh4 w/ 35-100 f/2.8 lens, a better setup but no where near as flexible & changing lenses in the rain can be a challenge & if you do your video won't contain the full game.
The mk2 was interesting, but not worth the upgrade from the mk1 as I didn't need 4k & video/image quality was largely unchanged. The mk3 on the other hand takes me back to the fz1000 which I didn't like enough to keep. If I had to buy a new one today, I'd look at the mk1 & mk2 for the constant f/2.8 lens
I own a gh3 and a rx10 mk1, neither will replace my Nikon DSLRs, but neither will my DSLRs replace my more video capable devices. I don't see the a6300 as as interesting as any of them. Awkward ergonomics. Video not up to gh*, it can't replace the rx10 due to lens limitations, and not a match for a DSLR either (Ergo, controls & lenses)

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 16:50 UTC
In reply to:

Konstantin Mineev: I compared my Canon 6D and Sony A7 with Nikon D5 on ISO 6400.
ISO 6400 is more then sufficient to take portraits with artificial light
(wedding & birthday parties, portraits against the backdrop of the city at night, etc.) with a sufficient exposure time and apperture 1.4-2.8.

and I'm sure that Canon 6D can be used and compared without any problems with D5. I do not see the real benefits from Nikon in this ISO 6400 mode.

Sony A7 has visible ISO problems there, but not critical, I noticed more noise in the images when I bought it, I'm using it with manul lenses, because of EVF for coolest bokeh.

Nikon D5 is a topest cool camera, but I do not see in it an urgent need.

I find that I go well above 6400 all the time now that I have a camera capable of good results there. Before I would most typically not take the shot or make some compromise (insufficient shutter speed or perhaps an overly thin DOF and occasionally a very noisy shot and spend hours trying to clean it up).
I've no use for a d5 personally as the d750 meets my high ISO needs. But compare the various areas in the sample picture (use RAW) to the d5, 6d, etc and you will see a consistently lower level of noise.
It seems to have a full stop or maybe a bit more of an advantage over the 6d and at least 1/2 stop better than my d750. I also think the Sony a7s II does better than at high ISO noise but drops more DR at the higher levels.
The 3.3m level though seems hard to understand except as a marketing move. Too noisy and too little DR to produce useable shots IMHO.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 18:12 UTC
On article Here at last: Nikon announces D500 (1174 comments in total)

It's funny isn't it? You will whine and complain and pick it apart. You'll suggest strongly that it isn't as good as your d750. You'll state you'll see if the dxo reports are worth a hoot. But you already know you're gonna buy one.
2 grand is a steep price, so I'll wait a bit. Maybe by the time football season starts anew, that way I can pretend I was being prudent and doing my due diligence.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 02:09 UTC as 164th comment

The image quality seems pretty good. I like the bokeh, the very flattering perspective too (from that FL as a long portrait lens). The lens looks like a real beast. It might balance a little better on Nikon or Canon full-frames with their larger bodies. A MF lens with that weight, bulk, and thin DOF really demands good support to give you a chance.

Two negatives jumped out at me one was the many of the photos seems a little soft and/or front focused. I suppose working with such a thin DOF must be very challenging. I've used 85 1.4 and 200 f/2.8 and both can be a challenge to nail focus with. This being a manual focus lens no doubt makes this even more of an issue.

The other was cold tone and seemingly poor DR of most of the images. Part of that would be the lighting used and/or what natural light is like here in the PNW. This was more of a style thing, and not lens related.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 03:10 UTC as 32nd comment

The negative reviews are not (for the most part) "bad people" or "bad comments". They are frank and honest.
I love kids. I love the photos my kids take (3 boys, which have all had their own cameras since they were very young). But their photos like the cute tykes above are generally bad photos which are precious to me as their father. However I am not exploitative nor manipulative to pretend stuff worthy of a refrigerator showcase is worthy of being mentioned on a site like this or in a book, etc.
What the father is doing is, in my opinion, not right. But then youtube is full of equally exploitative people just like him who are also trying to trade their kids "cuteness" for money.
Let kids be kids. If you are going to post about a photographer, post about one who is noteworthy for their skill not their age.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2015 at 22:45 UTC as 24th comment | 11 replies
Total: 152, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »