Antony John

Lives in South Africa Cape Town, South Africa
Works as a Divisional Manager/Polymer Chemist
Joined on Nov 16, 2007

Comments

Total: 387, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Having read through the comments below one wonders what the comments would be like if it were a Russian or Chinese based internet company that were taking these pictures?

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 15:15 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

alatchin: This is the only category of camera I own outside of my m43... I have given out to my toddler sons, taken ity on vacation and on hikes and tough mudder challenges... a valuable extortion to my picture taking.

Mind you, it could be useful for extortion ...

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2016 at 01:15 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7R II Review (2159 comments in total)

Congratulations Sony on raising the bar yet again.
It's insightful to read this review against DPR's D810 review for comparison.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 17:07 UTC as 146th comment
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: "Having used cameras like the Nikon 1 J5, that can fire off full-res bursts with continuous AF and no black out, I was really expecting more out of the RX10 II."

Can you print that out and pin it to the wall of dpreview offices?

Every camera you review should be brought to a soccer game and tested like that. Every. Single. Camera.

Richard,
".. mean every review takes even longer ..."
You mean like the Nikon D810 review, right?

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 04:49 UTC
In reply to:

ogl: Made by Cosina in Japan or China?

MJ,

In Timbuktu, not by ...

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2015 at 16:20 UTC
On article Meet Milvus: Hands-on with Zeiss's Milvus lenses (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

DuxX: Expensive lens without AF... again... no thanks Zeiss!

Yeh, telephoto lenses weren't available before AF became available.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 17:33 UTC
In reply to:

ogl: Made by Cosina in Japan or China?

If they're made to the correct tolerances, standards and materials in Timbuktu who cares?

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 17:23 UTC
In reply to:

Cane: Zeiss loves manual focus.

@ Cane,
Yes, but they have a short throw (as compared to an MF lens) designed to increase AF focus speed and are thus far less accurate when used as a MF lens (and not altogether that convincing when used in AF mode either - and AF is far from infallible)
People took marvellous photographs before AF was invented.
I assume you didn't know this?

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 17:18 UTC
In reply to:

Cane: Zeiss loves manual focus.

Some people love Zeiss because they're MF lenses (in addition to build quality and image rendition).

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 06:38 UTC

The 50 and 85 F1.4 lenses have been considered the 2 weakest of the range. Nice to see the new range has (hopefully) taken cognizance of this.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 05:00 UTC as 32nd comment
On article Bang for the Buck: Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Review (715 comments in total)
In reply to:

topstuff: I think people are so easily suckered into always wanting "bigger, better, faster, more !!".

Sometimes sufficiency is perfect.

The simple truth is that for many of the keyboard warriors on DPR banging on about full frame, the 16mp sensor on the Oly is perfectly good enough.

I bet a lot of you only look at pictures on an iPad anyway... in which case, pixel peeping over FF is a ridiculous waste of time and money.

Take a look at Robin Wong's web blog, and I would wager that many people would be perfectly happy with the IQ he gets from the Oly 16mp cameras....

Robin's portraits in particular are excellent. Many people even with the 'best of the best' equipment would be well satisfied to achieve what he can.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 11:53 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: Is anyone else surprised that this new lens wasn't an f4 instead?

No. Nikon needed to update their old 24-70 for the Pros.
However I agree that they're missing a potential market without an F4 version. As they've been developing a range of good quality affordable lenses then maybe we'll see an F4 variant in a year or 2.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2015 at 07:35 UTC
In reply to:

MarioV: That was awesome. Nicely captured. I assume that retardant exposure is non-toxic..

SmeggyPants. In theory (officially) they should be non-toxic but there's a history of chemicals that get moved from non-toxic to toxic classifications.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2015 at 14:48 UTC
In reply to:

MarioV: That was awesome. Nicely captured. I assume that retardant exposure is non-toxic..

If they are using mercaptans (thiols) as free radical scavengers they're probably non toxic - may just smell very unpleasant.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2015 at 04:21 UTC
In reply to:

Antony John: Lots of negative comments but:
1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).
2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)
3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.
It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.

@Photomonkey. Sense is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent on DPR.
Also have been under therapy - wondering when it'll wear off :-)

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 04:37 UTC
In reply to:

Antony John: Lots of negative comments but:
1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).
2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)
3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.
It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.

Brendon1000 - 400 is short for birds and wildlife. I'd guess the 200-500 has better IQ than the 80-400 @ 400 also - in fact I'd be surprised if it didn't.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

Antony John: Lots of negative comments but:
1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).
2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)
3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.
It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.

abortabort - Agree. Easier to make a decent 2.5X zoom than a 5X zoom like the 80-400.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 15:12 UTC

Lots of negative comments but:
1) Nikon has provided probably a better performing 24-70 for professionals (albeit at a higher price, size and mass - but if that's what's required for IQ/usability improvement then so be it).
2) Nikon have again replaced ageing prime optics with (assumed once more) a better quality solution at an affordable price and F1.8 (c.f. Nikon 24 F2.8 AF-D)
3) Nikon have developed a new 200-500 lens at an affordable price. If it has similar IQ to the 70-200 F4 then it'll be a winner. Perhaps not as good at 200 & 500 as the Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if one only needs 250 - 450 then my guess it will be equivalent if not slightly better (based on the premise that the extremes of the focal lengths are always the weakest) than the other 2.
It's taken some time but hopefully Nikon have nailed it with these lenses at their respective price points.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 10:21 UTC as 66th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

RichRMA: Still amazed at how relatively inexpensive the 200-500mm lens is. If it's good optically, it's a bargain.

And doesn't have a new set of 'issues' as Nikon has been prone to lately.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 04:25 UTC
In reply to:

Cheng Bao: 200-500 is steal

At 2.3 Kg, 95mm filter size and $1,400 I guess compromises must have been made somewhere?

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 04:18 UTC
Total: 387, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »