extraone

Joined on Mar 6, 2014

Comments

Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

JDThomas: For the price it's not very versatile. I'd stick with my Nikon 16-35 f/4. With Nikon's high ISO performance f/2.8 isn't a necessity and lenses this wide aren't really used for shallow depth of field.

It better be a heck of a lot sharper than the Nikon. My 16-35 is sharp as can be.

absolutely. you say my comments are false I said what I feel is correct based on what I see. many have said it too. ive been following dpreview way before amazon bought you. so ive seent eh changes.

good day Rishi.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 15:42 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: For the price it's not very versatile. I'd stick with my Nikon 16-35 f/4. With Nikon's high ISO performance f/2.8 isn't a necessity and lenses this wide aren't really used for shallow depth of field.

It better be a heck of a lot sharper than the Nikon. My 16-35 is sharp as can be.

this is the internet. if you cant handle any criticism or anything but praise for your work, you really shouldnt have a forum. internet is intl and not everyone will agree to what you say.

you can not give a camera that was recalled an excellent camera rating. a $2300 camera should work flawlessly and not have such a widespread flaw that the mfr has to recall it from the shelves.

and they only issued an announcement after a few threatened to a class act lawsuit (again-besides the D600) by contacting zimmerman/reed. and in fact they denied it first time around. and since I bought a flawed overheating Sb900 and the 24-70 with a stiff zoom cam my bitterness is justified.

rishi just please post untouched raw files when doing the 15-30VC. im moving on.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 14:23 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: For the price it's not very versatile. I'd stick with my Nikon 16-35 f/4. With Nikon's high ISO performance f/2.8 isn't a necessity and lenses this wide aren't really used for shallow depth of field.

It better be a heck of a lot sharper than the Nikon. My 16-35 is sharp as can be.

im bitter with nikon. I have nothing for them anymore. I hate their direction. I hate the way they crap on their (loyal) customers and by their quarterly revenues and stock price many are as well. I used to a be a hardcore loyal fan but their behaviour the last 5 years has made me lose hope in them. I see how they cut corners with trying to recoup heavy loses from their flood in thailand. here in DPr theyre clearly biased for them with no reason. how you reward a camera with a light leak as top camera. thats a joke. everything is about "you rub my back ill rub yours"

and btw its silly to say resale of the tamron is 50% when you buy it. cmon now be reasonable. this tamron will sell like crazy and we both know it.

I had started with all EX sigma lenses years back.
because I believe in credebility I will ask my friend to post a pic of what I mentioned.
heres one but its from last year. hes added a lot since
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=5cc2v6&s=8

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 09:57 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: For the price it's not very versatile. I'd stick with my Nikon 16-35 f/4. With Nikon's high ISO performance f/2.8 isn't a necessity and lenses this wide aren't really used for shallow depth of field.

It better be a heck of a lot sharper than the Nikon. My 16-35 is sharp as can be.

we have to make some drama and controversy for the ratings HAHA JK

VC on the 70-200 is better than the VR on the nikon. no argument there. the VC on the 70-300 is the best out there.

I have no doubt the VC on the 15-30 will be nothing less than stellar and better than the VR. I have a very sneaking suspicion that you will not be so honest with your review though because you are being payed by nikon. its very clear to see it as well.
if you post untouched raw files, I give you credit.

sorry, didnt understand this
"Wait, how did Nikon enter the picture? And just to be clear - are you making blanket statements on performance and durability of lenses from an n of 1, and comments about AF performance from hearsay?"

what af performance am I talking about and what do you mean by N of 1?

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 09:33 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: For the price it's not very versatile. I'd stick with my Nikon 16-35 f/4. With Nikon's high ISO performance f/2.8 isn't a necessity and lenses this wide aren't really used for shallow depth of field.

It better be a heck of a lot sharper than the Nikon. My 16-35 is sharp as can be.

I have a feeling that DPreview is quite biased towards nikon and will not show a fair review. till I dont see full untouched raw files, to me the test will be tainted.

one of the 70-200VR2 failed after 5 years. VR is dead, rubbers are stretched out and needs a mainboard replaced.
the other has focus issues. he just bought the tamron and while the build is slightly less durable than the nikon and heavier vignetting, the VC is superior and it has more contrast. sharpness, the VR2 is just a smidgen sharper in the corners but you need pixel peeping. bokeh is nice and focus is excellent as well. and from what he tells me the tracking in AFC is better with the tamron.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 07:17 UTC
In reply to:

aldrichjennings: could you guys take some pics and upload the RAW files? I'm looking to replace my Nikon but I have to make sure it's as sharp... especially the corners

@barney britton

tripod mount, brick wall at 15mm 2.8/4/5.6 & 30mm 2.8/4/5.6

upload raw images and thats it!

stop with the bullshet creative pictures. I dont care to see the photogs skill level. shooting off center or not head on doesnt give a person an idea how good the lens is.

flare is not an issue and distortion is not an issue and fringing is not an issue.

do it right for once. brick wall for sharpness. raw files. thank you.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 07:07 UTC
In reply to:

JDThomas: For the price it's not very versatile. I'd stick with my Nikon 16-35 f/4. With Nikon's high ISO performance f/2.8 isn't a necessity and lenses this wide aren't really used for shallow depth of field.

It better be a heck of a lot sharper than the Nikon. My 16-35 is sharp as can be.

VC kills nikons VR any day. and 2.8 is way more uesable than another 5mm imo.
its not even going after the 16-35VR. its competiting with the 14-24. from what tamron says, its not going to match the nikon, it will surpass it. well have to see though.

I have no doubt this will sell by the truckloads. why no proper reviews till now.

judging by nikons last 10 bearish quarterly revenues &stock being the lowest in 4 years, they are not doing too well. 3rd party mfr are stealing a huge chunk of nikons sales. flashes/grips/lenses/batteries.

nikon lenses doesnt even interest me anymore. they are way overpriced & inferior to the art lenses. a pro photog can get a whole gear set from tamron and sigma, save tons & get elite IQ. those art lenses are killing it.

If I told you a friend who I shoot weddings with uses 2 D4s and owns 2 (yes 2) 70-200VR2 lenses and just bought a tamron 70-200VC & is happier using it than the 70-200VR2 you wouldnt believe me..Ill get him to shoot a pic of the gear

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 07:02 UTC

BRAVO TO SIGMA!

nikons is close to $2000 and canons is close to $1700

this is half price at $850 and probably better performance. every art lens released was better than the nikon or canon.

more selection more competition better for the public.

im sure nikon and canon are nervous. they will sell like crazy

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 08:27 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Seems like there's a bit of defensiveness and aggressiveness in many of the comments from Canon and Nikon users. You should be happy to have more choices, instead of feeling threatened.

I love my Pentax DSLR, but I wish that more of the new and exciting lenses from Tamron and Sigma were available in my mount.

exaclty. not everything nikon or canon do is the best. and I personally feel pricing for a lot of lenses need to come down.

they still sell the 15 year old 17-35 AFS lens for $1800?
they sold for $1400 when new, if anything it should be selling for less since its old tech. not exactly a great performer either compared to other lenses.

I couldnt be happier I have another option to the 14-24 and 16-35. basically merging features from both in one.

I have a feeling this will be at least on par with the 14-24 if not more.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 14:37 UTC

wow looks amazing. was looking to buy the nikon 14-24 but no way in hell would I now.

VC is better than nikons VR from tests around the net. flourine front element and focuses closer than the nikon.

tamron says its looking to beat the nikon 14-24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlwKq8fiBJE
in the video there is no CA on the letting in the page he shot as well. impressive.

dont care for filters, dont care about bulb front as the nikon has that too.

and $800 less than the nikon WOW im psyched!

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 10:50 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
On article Canon to move camera production back to Japan (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

extraone: the problem I see is not the QC but the work ethics.

out of all the asian countries, japan is the only country that has a very hard work ethic.

they live to work. all the rest work to live.

think what you want it doesnt matter.

tell someone the lens is made anywhere else but in japan and people raise an eyebrow.

everyone know what made in japan means. it is the standard that others are judged by

japan is japan. and all the rest are not.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 16:34 UTC
In reply to:

straylightrun: It's actually quite large: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHJGbsYo8ng

The angle of the promotional pic makes it misleadingly look smaller than it is.

well they deal with photography so they know how to manipulate something to make something look bigger or smaller.

just like when I shoot family formals at a wedding and I turn a heavy set man or women about 30º to the camera and use a longer FL to give a straight perspective.

but yes it is misleading. personally for that money and offering very little id rather get a yongnuo 568 or shanny flash for less than this. more powerful and faster recycling and tons of features.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 16:31 UTC
On article Canon to move camera production back to Japan (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

extraone: the problem I see is not the QC but the work ethics.

out of all the asian countries, japan is the only country that has a very hard work ethic.

they live to work. all the rest work to live.

my wife is a travel agent. weve been around the world. a lot in asia.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 04:06 UTC
On article Canon to move camera production back to Japan (110 comments in total)

the problem I see is not the QC but the work ethics.

out of all the asian countries, japan is the only country that has a very hard work ethic.

they live to work. all the rest work to live.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 17:33 UTC as 8th comment | 10 replies
On article Toshiba announces world's first SDHC card with NFC (52 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: So these memory cards have batteries in them?

@tomber Bravo! im sure this is what OP wanted to know.

internet is international and not everyone knows what NFC is. I didnt know till just recently. didnt come across the tech so didnt know till I bought a bluetooth receiver.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 17:24 UTC
On article Toshiba announces world's first SDHC card with NFC (52 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: So these memory cards have batteries in them?

he means in the card

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 08:20 UTC
On article Nikon D750 Review (1978 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Sooner or later every manufacturer has a camera with a problem they didn't catch. Talking about lawsuits, airbag recalls and other nonsense is not relevant. What is important is how the manufacturer responds and some companies are much better than others. Nikon has the advantage, you could say, of knowing what happens when you don't respond.

Just my opinion but good customer service, no warranty hassles, support and fast turnaround are every bit as important as megapixel count, dynamic range and noise levels.

****What is important is how the manufacturer responds***

absolutely. problem is that nikon only responds when they were FORCED into a corner from a class act lawsuit starting and china media/TV nonstop airing of the problem and ultimate china ban of the D600

now theyve replied to the D750 light leak because they
1-realize this may be another D600 fiasco that will be even worse
2-this isnt an oil issue where you could wipe the sensor clean before a wedding
3-people have threatened to sue. and a few have contacted the law firm that started the D600 class act lawsuit previously.

so nikon arent doing this out of their own good will. theyre doing it because theyre forced to. and that says they dont get a rats ass about the customers. only when things start to escalate do they wake up.

many have contacted them and a few sent the D750 to them and got the ridiculous "its normal and within spec" reply.

nikon doesnt know good customer service if it hit them in the head.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2014 at 05:04 UTC
On article Nikon D750 Review (1978 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: It is actually fairly good for video as well. None of that Canon dullness.

yea the canon does beat the nikon in high iso noise from 3200 onward. nikon are bouncing back with video but the wedding video market in my country is at least 70% canon and sony is on the up. handicapping camera with aperture control in LV was a dumb ass decision. now we need to get focus peaking and faster LV and well be on par with the rest. go nikon!

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2014 at 13:14 UTC
On article ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

extraone: I have LR that I use rarely. its gotten bloated and slow &it always seems to have lag. yes my pc is up to date. W/enough ram ssd, newest processor &all that crap. the software has gotten fat &slow.

Ive been using acdsee pro for 2 years for my wedding pics and its extremely fast and so intuitive. it destroys LR for speed. the fact that the sliders in LR are so small and if you need to make minute adjustments you have to be very accurate. it will give you cramps because youre straining UR fingers so hard for just 1 or 2 notches over. fail!

with ACDSEE PRO the sliders are bars (almost like the google search bar size) & U can simply hover UR move over this bar & make tiny adjustments just by using UR scrol wheel. its amazing. so simple &so quick.

LR got nothing on ACDSEE pro for speed. even loading thumbnails takes forever W/LR. ACDC? its instant. LR has more features, but its things I dont need. I simply do easy editing like exposure,contrast WB etc.
PS for complex heavy editing.

@ BradJudy

I dont have to even lift my arm with ACDSEE PRO. I simply use the scroll wheel. and when youre doing minor adjustments over and over for 2k pics of weddings, it adds up.

LR is not an efficient app anymore. its way too bloated and lags like crazy.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 07:15 UTC
On photo 7DII_beta_ISO100_030A9156-ACR in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

badly exposed images. extreme overexposure. please go back and do more sample. this is a joke.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 05:29 UTC as 1st comment
Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »