Xentinus

Xentinus

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Apr 4, 2010

Comments

Total: 558, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

JT26: Holy hell that is a huge lens!

bigger and almost twice as much havier than Tamron 60mm f2 macro.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 23:12 UTC

No matter how many fps your camera shoots, tell me how many fps your model is. LOL

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 23:05 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Ben O Connor: 10 year old dslr... HELLOOOOoooo.... IT IS A NIKON D3!!!!!! Not your 10 years old nikon D80.

Ben O Connor
"""Thanks to viagra, my grandpa' still jammin' but grandma's "printer" is out of cartridge... no more uncles ;)"""

LOL peak of analogy.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 22:23 UTC
In reply to:

Xentinus: I really found this as waste of time. As I stated under someone's comment, what is the point of this test? To test how careful we are? There are better tests.
Those photos are pretty ordinary photos (Im not criticizing or judging whoever took them). I mean look at those photos, do you think they are any better if they all are altered?
why would I want to flip someone's face in a photo? Why would I want to remove something distracting on the background, while Im leaving all other distracting stuff there? If we really want to learn something from this test, I think better to discuss over them one by one. But at the end of the test, they don't even show where the manipulations are done. So I wanna spoil the test and share the photos here, maybe this way, I can say "oh I have learnt something new from it".

https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_8caHr00kH7ehJ5P
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_07kdlUGnF25TYKF

search meaning of "rhetorical question".

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 10:21 UTC
In reply to:

MightyMike: I did poorly, 3 out of 10, now reading the comments I can see why, I wasn't looking for meaningless random alterations, stuff that doesn't help the photo, stuff I'd never do to a photo, I was looking for way someone might deliberately alter the image to make it better and ended up imaging things that may never have been altered in the first place or completely drawing a blank when the alteration was pointless. I'm very critical about my photos, I prefer to maintain realism most of the time, I've seen many very poor edits on these forums but i won't call any of the people who poorly edited them bad photographer or poor editors as we all are at different skill levels with different backgrounds and have learned different things. If it was edited and looks good who am i to judge unless its being passed off as a super accurate portrayal. I'll wear my 3/10 gladly as i went into this test with the expectation that the edits were logical and rational. Still feel it was a waste of time.

I can't agree more!

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 03:33 UTC
In reply to:

Xentinus: I really found this as waste of time. As I stated under someone's comment, what is the point of this test? To test how careful we are? There are better tests.
Those photos are pretty ordinary photos (Im not criticizing or judging whoever took them). I mean look at those photos, do you think they are any better if they all are altered?
why would I want to flip someone's face in a photo? Why would I want to remove something distracting on the background, while Im leaving all other distracting stuff there? If we really want to learn something from this test, I think better to discuss over them one by one. But at the end of the test, they don't even show where the manipulations are done. So I wanna spoil the test and share the photos here, maybe this way, I can say "oh I have learnt something new from it".

https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_8caHr00kH7ehJ5P
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_07kdlUGnF25TYKF

And BTW, I really started to think that, we are missing more important news about photography world with these silly posts. Like "Firmware update fixes Sigma MC-11 AF issues with incompatible lenses". I don't say "don't share this kind of stuff", but give priority for more important news.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 03:32 UTC
In reply to:

Xentinus: I really found this as waste of time. As I stated under someone's comment, what is the point of this test? To test how careful we are? There are better tests.
Those photos are pretty ordinary photos (Im not criticizing or judging whoever took them). I mean look at those photos, do you think they are any better if they all are altered?
why would I want to flip someone's face in a photo? Why would I want to remove something distracting on the background, while Im leaving all other distracting stuff there? If we really want to learn something from this test, I think better to discuss over them one by one. But at the end of the test, they don't even show where the manipulations are done. So I wanna spoil the test and share the photos here, maybe this way, I can say "oh I have learnt something new from it".

https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_8caHr00kH7ehJ5P
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_07kdlUGnF25TYKF

https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_0dJfy9jrJ3RIXFH
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_b2wIq9x77wOv3IV
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_2mi71IYuqrVy3I1
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_3xdt5nGQhjzkPBz
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_aXFQvP26jfRlzSJ
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_5dLKXAgyU4uzICF
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_2top5W0cif9tyHr
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_8u21S1zzb71c113

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 03:28 UTC

I really found this as waste of time. As I stated under someone's comment, what is the point of this test? To test how careful we are? There are better tests.
Those photos are pretty ordinary photos (Im not criticizing or judging whoever took them). I mean look at those photos, do you think they are any better if they all are altered?
why would I want to flip someone's face in a photo? Why would I want to remove something distracting on the background, while Im leaving all other distracting stuff there? If we really want to learn something from this test, I think better to discuss over them one by one. But at the end of the test, they don't even show where the manipulations are done. So I wanna spoil the test and share the photos here, maybe this way, I can say "oh I have learnt something new from it".

https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_8caHr00kH7ehJ5P
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_07kdlUGnF25TYKF

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 03:26 UTC as 98th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

ewelch: Stupid test. You say no, and it asks you where you think the photo was altered.

Whoever did that test is not very good at what they're trying to do.

I agree. what is the point of altering those photos. I mean what benefit you get when you flip someone's face in a photo.
This one for example
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_b2wIq9x77wOv3IV
If the aim of the test is to find out how careful you are, there are better tests. Those photos are daily, ordinary, silly photos. to add or remove an item will not make them any better.
for example this one,
https://warwickpsych.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/Graphic.php?IM=IM_2mi71IYuqrVy3I1
what would I do to make this photo looks better? what would you do? If this photo is altered, then why was not being altered more to get rid of distacting objects?

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 03:15 UTC
In reply to:

Xentinus: I just wish to have something like 35mm 1.2 Samyang with autofocus.

I know what you mean, and I agree with you. But Samyang's 1.2 lenses both have a sweet spot @f 1.2...I don't expect a speed demon, but for such wide aperture lenses, it is really a must for me.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 15:35 UTC

I just wish to have something like 35mm 1.2 Samyang with autofocus.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 19:14 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

ADW59: I'm really interested to see how this performs, I haven't ordered one and don't have any vested interest but I wish them every success

Yeah I wish too. This, can really change the game forever. But it still needs a little bit time and experience.

https://petapixel.com/2016/12/07/video-explains-light-cos-fancy-16-camera-camera-works/

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 22:23 UTC
In reply to:

Vinspena: OMG Nikon... Here is how you should do your mirrorless cameras:

1. Release 2 full-frame models!
2.Price one at $1,500 the other at $2,000.
3. $1,500 matches the feature-set of the D610 (or its replacement)
4. $2,000 matches the feature-set of the D750 (or its replacement)
5. Make sure to have 4 lenses at launch two of them must be a standard kit lens (one standard zoom the other is a pancake prime lens)
6. THE FLANGE BACK DISTANCE SHOULD BE SHORTER THAN THE SONY'S FF MIRRORLESS CAMERAS!!! THIS WILL BE YOUR ULTIMATE ADVANTAGE BECAUSE SONY CANNOT CHANGE THIS WITH A NEW MODEL. THIS CAN ALLOW YOUR CAMERAS TO BE SMALLER AND LIGHTER THAN SONY'S!

to make it thinner, might cuase more overheating problems. but on the other hand, if Nikon decided to go with its current FX mount, then they won't have flexibility much to add extra distance between LCD monitor and sensor. Because, the body will already have to be thicker.
Very hard decision to make for them really. Personally I, as a Nikon shooter, would like to be able to use my lenses on a new Nikon mirrorless camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 16:46 UTC
In reply to:

Vinspena: OMG Nikon... Here is how you should do your mirrorless cameras:

1. Release 2 full-frame models!
2.Price one at $1,500 the other at $2,000.
3. $1,500 matches the feature-set of the D610 (or its replacement)
4. $2,000 matches the feature-set of the D750 (or its replacement)
5. Make sure to have 4 lenses at launch two of them must be a standard kit lens (one standard zoom the other is a pancake prime lens)
6. THE FLANGE BACK DISTANCE SHOULD BE SHORTER THAN THE SONY'S FF MIRRORLESS CAMERAS!!! THIS WILL BE YOUR ULTIMATE ADVANTAGE BECAUSE SONY CANNOT CHANGE THIS WITH A NEW MODEL. THIS CAN ALLOW YOUR CAMERAS TO BE SMALLER AND LIGHTER THAN SONY'S!

If Nikon's mirrorless can adapt its native lenses, they don't need anything else.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 18:56 UTC
In reply to:

Xentinus: Anything, less than Sony a6000 is failure. They don't need to discover America once again.

*troll allert*

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 23:22 UTC

Anything, less than Sony a6000 is failure. They don't need to discover America once again.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 19:19 UTC as 151st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Hellraiser: I just hope they are smart enough to ditch the F mount and go with a competent new design.

Not too late, if they can provide a good and reasonably priced adapter for F mount lenses.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 19:17 UTC
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: Probably the best in class, but still with a tiny sensor and it shows, so no thanks. There have been rugged smartphones for a few years now and they do almost just as good for the occasional photo on the beach, while snorkeling or canoing. In a dedicated camera I'd happily sacrifice some or all zoom for a bigger sensor, at least 1/1.7". Olympus should make a "Tough" version of the very good XZ-1 or XZ-2. Or, even better, Sony should make a rugged camera with 1" sensor, even with no zoom. There is a void in the market in this category, with the only option for the enthusiast being the expensive Leica X-U.

and once again, you should check CIZ. I was thinking just like you and I have turned it off on my camera. Now my opinion is changed, because I tested it myself. Of course it is a trick and is not comparable with optical zoom, but really is good to have. ***especially*** while recording video.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 23:45 UTC
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: Probably the best in class, but still with a tiny sensor and it shows, so no thanks. There have been rugged smartphones for a few years now and they do almost just as good for the occasional photo on the beach, while snorkeling or canoing. In a dedicated camera I'd happily sacrifice some or all zoom for a bigger sensor, at least 1/1.7". Olympus should make a "Tough" version of the very good XZ-1 or XZ-2. Or, even better, Sony should make a rugged camera with 1" sensor, even with no zoom. There is a void in the market in this category, with the only option for the enthusiast being the expensive Leica X-U.

Degree of your rudeness is increasing. It is/was so simple actually. Just like your price/feautures ratio, profit and loss is obvious. So logic commands me to give up 100mm, sake of having bigger sensor (better DR-IQ-high ISO performance). So this is a compromise. To be able to have CIZ is just a bonus, or else (obviously) there is no need to compare IQ of optical zoom vs digital or clear image zoom.
Once again I didn't mention resolution. You did, and I needed to remind you that you still have advantage at the wider end. Because you can not calculate profit and loss without including all parameters.
If you can not discuss in a civil manner, yes better to end it. But if you can, then I can mention approximate distance you will need to take a photo at 100mm. Trust me under water you won't need it much. Under other conditions, you can use any other camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 23:45 UTC
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: Probably the best in class, but still with a tiny sensor and it shows, so no thanks. There have been rugged smartphones for a few years now and they do almost just as good for the occasional photo on the beach, while snorkeling or canoing. In a dedicated camera I'd happily sacrifice some or all zoom for a bigger sensor, at least 1/1.7". Olympus should make a "Tough" version of the very good XZ-1 or XZ-2. Or, even better, Sony should make a rugged camera with 1" sensor, even with no zoom. There is a void in the market in this category, with the only option for the enthusiast being the expensive Leica X-U.

No. I never mentioned. I meant if you compare that, then keep in mind that too. And as I said your math doesn't work here. You should search for CIZ first.
Your own words and opinions have too many conflicts.I explained with your own word games.
like<<<want<<<need
You said you can buy a fixed lens with an aps-c sensor, but you want (or whatever word you think is ok for you) to have 100mm even if it is a tiny sensor. Then you explain yourself this conflict!

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 19:39 UTC
Total: 558, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »