aliquis

Joined on May 13, 2010

Comments

Total: 48, showing: 41 – 48
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

A little too expensive I think. Why should it cost so much more than Samsungs or Sonys equivalents?

I kinda want it but not at an infinite price.

Price seem more appropriate for a FF camera.

I wonder what the other cameras in the series will cost. Also I hate the stupid "oh we'll cripple and ignore video"-ideas. But the "pros" seem to like it.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 18:02 UTC as 54th comment | 2 replies
On article First full-res Fujifilm X-Pro1 images appear on the web (212 comments in total)
In reply to:

micahmedia: ...looking at the images, the vertical pixel dimension spec matches the Sony 16mp sensor. I suspect this is based on that same sensor, with a different CFA slapped on. That said, the stills look promising.

However, the video looks a bit more jello-ey than the D7000 and Nex5n roll I'm familiar with. This will probably not compete on the video front. Still, with the fast primes it has a shot at competing in low light for stills. Maybe.

The proof of the pudding will be in the tasting.

It's not supposed to compete on the video front. I wish it was though. Stupid not to.

But I know there's plenty of haters for no obvious reason among the "well I'm a photographer!"-crowd.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2012 at 01:29 UTC
In reply to:

Brandon Feinberg: Could you imagine if they made tv's or computers with this display. It would look better than life but cost more than anything.

You mean the same amount of pixels / area size?

Unless it's a shitty laptop most screens already got a higher resolution. It's just that it's silly measured on this display. Just as the amount of pixels on the sensors.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 07:58 UTC
In reply to:

Franka T.L.: 1280X1024 , and probably cost quite a deal , does not sound advance enough. Nice to be seeing such , but we need better than that and which that can better project the image.

Better what really?

Will you really see the individual pixels in that one? Won't it be brighter nicer than an OVF anyway? (lag being the only issue.)

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 07:56 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: By no means am I a luddite, but having used several decent EVFs and OVFs, I can't understand why the photographers on here are so anxious to see the demise of the OVF. Is a mirror-box so large that you must do away with it? Peaking is cool, and WB preview is fine, but I would still rather actually see what the lens sees than have a representation of the image created for me. Reality is always better than virtual reality, especially when the light gets low. :-)

At first I wanted to say that the EVF show what the lens see (didn't got the representation), but then there's the lag I suppose.

So instead I have to change it into:
So what's wrong with seeing what the combination of sensor + lens + algorithms actually will result in?

Which would be more appropriate.

As far as low light goes I assume if not now then at least in some time the light will probably be able to be boosted beyond what you naturally see with your eyes.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 07:53 UTC
In reply to:

Kevin Cheesman: Great products, but aren't these destroying photographers businesses?

As a school photographer and administrator of www.schoolphotopro.com, our members are all suffering because of this type of technology as parents can now easily run off copies of their school photos. When they can make copies so easily why would they want buy more than just a single print?

Who cares?

As if school photos were important anyway?

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2011 at 04:50 UTC
In reply to:

Don Richardson: I've used Canon printers for years and never had a print head clogg. The pring quality is exceptional and printing is cheap and fast. IP4000 since it came out and the IP4700 for the last two years.

I bought the 365 or whatever it was called and it clogged and I never got that many prints out of it.

Ordering from a company is cheaper and results would be better so ..

Imho canon inkjet and ink suck, total waste of money.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2011 at 04:47 UTC

The right printer to choose is none at all*.

Ink-jet printers suck and you'll get better quality and a lower price letting someone else handle your copies so why bother?

(Choosing a laser printer is another option but in those cases the Kindle may be a better choice.)

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2011 at 04:45 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
Total: 48, showing: 41 – 48
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »