Ahmet Aydogan

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 15, 2008

Comments

Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

GinoSVK: What is the keymission of the next president?

OE, if that is really the mission I don't think he is up to task of getting rid of closed minded, ignorant savages like you.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 04:39 UTC
In reply to:

PeaceKeeper: Maybe not the best bit of PR, but in retrospect I think it will be an important piece of documentation. It's journalism. It isn't supposed to be all rainbows and unicorns.

The rise of this man into a position of power is the most prominent(if disheartening) piece of political news that has happened in the US in decades, and it may turn out to be even more important as time passes. Documenting and understanding history as it happens will help the future make better decisions.

No sense in recording what the giant bag of puss has to say.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 04:34 UTC
In reply to:

jimkahnw: Why bother? I remember shooting skiers. One batch the snow had a cyan tint, another batch, magenta, a third blue. Scratches, dust spots and storage. Oh, and the cost of film and processing and waiting at least a week for turnaround. And, then you have to scan and process the scan. I don't have the time or the money. No wonder Kodak is a zombie.

The proof is in the facts. Kodak is gone, Fuji is still here. The overwhelming majority of photojournalists used Fuji Press 800 when film was still being shot. The overwhelming majority of nature photographers used Velvia. Only the portrait/social/wedding photographers kept trying to make horrible products like VPS work (and were saved by pro labs who had to deal with the photographers' incompetence).

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: Kodachrome was a lousy film with a quirky process. Does anyone in their right mind want to bring back horrifically complex K-14 processing?

Slide film lost to negative film long before the end of the film era, and Kodachrome was unspeakably bad in terms of quirky color rendition. If I despised Ektachrome, Kodachrome was worse in every respect.

At this point, if someone still want to play with slide film, Fujifilm Velvia was much better in quality than anything that Kodak ever produced.

For normal people, Fujifilm's Superia color negative film is professional quality film stock at an amateur price, although those prices keep creeping up. Kodak fell behind Fujifilm in the 1990s, and quite frankly, I really can't see any reason to buy Kodak film, other than "Buy American" patriotic sentimentality, or nostalgic "lomography" style low fi photography.

From its introduction Velvia dominated nature and landscape photography. It has the most vivid, saturated color and was the sharpest film produced. I liked Kodachrome, but I loved Velvia.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 20:19 UTC
In reply to:

bossnas: This is the best photographic news I've heard in a long time. What a great start to the year and 2017 has only just started. I've always loved looking at slides on a lightbox and never get tired of it. Meanwhile thousands of RAW files sit on hard-drives never being looked at. Use what you enjoy. I for one will be using this new Ektachrome film. Thanks, Kodak.

This is what I just don't understand. If you loved transparency shooting so much, why do you mess around with RAW shooting? Transparency shooters had to be absolute masters of exposure because there was no post production. What you shot is what you got based on the manufacturers specs. These days that's what I would call out-of-camera JPEGS. RAW is like shooting neg film and hanging out in the darkroom forever. I appreciate the work that darkroom artists do (did), but the modern workflow that is analogous to shooting chrome is working within the manufacturers' JPEG engines' parameters and creating something within the camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 02:09 UTC

This really must be a "hipster" thing. Crap colors that fade. Wow . . . what a great product - not!

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 02:04 UTC as 81st comment | 2 replies
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (765 comments in total)

Kodak Instamatic 150 - is was a 126 format camera with a spring "motor" wind. First SLR was Minolta SRT-101. First DSLR was Fuji S3. First MILC was Fuji X-Pro 1.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 22:37 UTC as 320th comment

While I am happy for those who are going to find some employment for the kickstarter campaigners, I am dismayed that they chose to revive this clearly inferior brand of film. Ferrania was supplier for most of the "house brand" film brands sold at the end of the last century. Color, contrast and grain were fair to awful. Fuji is still producing film, although in much smaller quantities to meet the demand. I'm not sure the revival of Ferrania is anything more than a feel good program for those who are nostalgic.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 18:32 UTC as 61st comment | 1 reply
On article Samsung launches Galaxy K Zoom with 10x optical zoom (114 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: With 5.62x crop factor the lens is equivalent to f/17.4-35.2 -- probably enough to shoot from 3ft with a flash, but useless for anything else. There is a reason smart phones have fixed lenses with f/2 or so, because even f/2 (FF equivalent f/11) is only good in daylight or with flash.

You just don't seem to get it. The light gathering ability and the effective depth of field are not related. from the light gathering ability the lens is f/3.2 to f/6.3. From an "effective" depth of field point of view, you are right, the near to far focus is very deep, no isolating "bokeh" from this lens sensor combination.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2014 at 20:18 UTC
On article Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent (321 comments in total)

Here's a another instance of a laws being written by people with little or no understanding of the matter in question. I think an appropriate response could take two different forms. One method would be immediately eliminate any distribution of any images from Hungary. Another response, my preferred way, would be for everyone to shoot photos of everything and everyone in sight. Fill every social media site with as many photos of as many Hungarians as possible. The Hungarian legislative body has proven its complete incompetence in this matter.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2014 at 18:49 UTC as 131st comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

MrTaikitso: People are spending on small things. I got to play with a Canon EOS 100 (the ultra compact DSLR) and it feels superb in the hand - mine anyway.

However, although the Sony RX100 was revolutionary due to it's sensor size, it's handling is awful (you don't want to use it when you pick it up, unlike say, the Pentax MX-1), so it is not consumer friendly.

What is needed is a groundbreaking development in lens miniaturisation so that someone can produce a pocketable compact camera with both the handling and IQ of a DSLR. A mix of the Pentax MX-1, Samsung EX2f (which I have), RX1 sensor (yup, the 1, not the 100!) and Fuji X series controls, but for under $400.

The Panasonic GM1 comes close from an IQ angle, but it lacks exposure adjustment dials and an articulating display, and is too expensive.

So, who's going to accept the challenge?

I agree about the otherwise very capable RX100. When I picked it up, it felt fussy in my hands. My XE-2 and X-20 models, feel really intuitive, especially the XE-2. Obviously, everyone has there own preference, but I've been shooting for over 40 years and some camera "feel" right and other "feel" clunky. As for the price point of $400 for all of the features you've mentioned, I think it is attainable except for sensor size. For a sensor with good low light, low noise and high resolution, m43 is the bottom limit and APS-C is just about right. It's tough to make a full feature camera in either system for $400.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2014 at 21:14 UTC
On article Sony A3000 First Impressions Review (620 comments in total)

More like a sheep in a wolf's clothing.

It's probably already been said, but I didn't want to read all 370 comments.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 20:38 UTC as 104th comment
On article Gorgeous color photos of America in the 1930's and 40's (109 comments in total)
In reply to:

Benarm: Interesting, but many of them look staged.

@graybalanced, thank you for thoughtful informative comments. I find these photographs completely engrossing, "staged" or not. They are slices of a time and of time long gone. We are so lucky to be able have them available at all, let alone online for everyone to see. Thanks to DPReview for bringing them to our attention.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2013 at 21:47 UTC

As a pilot, I am always a little saddened by the sight of machines that were designed to fly after they are finally grounded. The dead bird on the seat may a bit heavy handed, but it still works, too. There is a haunting quality to these photos. Thanks to DP review sharing them. I'm looking forward to seeing the whole book.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2013 at 21:03 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: It was nice of them to wait until after Roger Ebert's death to do this.

People want video content because they don't have any attention span. They don't have the ability to read, analyze a still photo nor do they really care about anything other than a soundbite or tweet. It's a shame that the medium of commercials, video, a passive, highly manipulative vehicle, is now consumed by the illiterate masses. The same criticism can be applied to photos, but at least with static images there is time to contemplate and revisit.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 05:22 UTC

For the folks who use it to stay in touch with family and a few close friends, FB has some functionality at the cost presenting information to company with utterly questionable business practices. For the rest, it is nothing more than a colossal waste of time and resources.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2013 at 05:04 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
On article Just posted: Our Fujifilm XF 14mm 1:2.8 R lens review (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: First and foremost worry for Fujifilm, in my opinion, should be to get complete software support for their RAW files; it seems that they're getting there, at last, but they have lost precious time and this delay has given their cameras a questionable name that, unfortunately, will take time to be erased. Their lenses also seem to be very good albeit not enough to warrant the name of a system quite yet. Last, the pricing needs to be a bit more aggressive in favour of the consumer; currently, lenses and bodies are a bit expensive.

First, RAW is not an issue for Fuji because the camera produced JPEG's are superb and work for most workflows directly from the camera to the client. Second, the lenses are some of the best optics produced recently (Not surprising since the same company produces all the Hasselblad optics and broadcast TV glass, too.) Finally, the target customer is not the consumer. The target customers are professionals seeking a system with great color, dynamic range and full control with minimal size and weight. The other target customers are advanced amateurs. By selling at higher prices, theu can continue to develop the system despite the niche product.

I think Fuji is definitely on the right path. The days of having to rely on Nikon hand-me-down bodies are, thankfully, gone.

Have you ever wondered why not one single mainstream manufacturer makes a camera that just records in RAW? Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, etc. all spend millions on developing in-camera processors for a reason.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 05:09 UTC
In reply to:

Benarm: Nikon D600: Aperture control in LiveView mode. Can someone check if it was actually fixed? Maybe Nikon didn't mentioned it in the release notes.

I just installed the update on my D600. Yes, there is now aperture control in LiveView, but only in still photos, not in video. Boo!

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2013 at 18:20 UTC
Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »