vadims

Lives in Russian Federation Moscow, Russian Federation
Joined on Mar 10, 2006

Comments

Total: 542, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II? (370 comments in total)
In reply to:

luben solev: How about if you are still using a 5DII? I can't be the only one, right? Right? Anyone? :-)

<gets ready for lots of replies about people looking to upgrade from a Kodak Brownie>

Few more things.

Of course, there are always some trade-offs; it's all complicated, and it would take a BIG article to properly compare 5D to a6000 even from a single person's standpoint.

For instance, I wrote that "a6000 even turned out to be better for microphotography". True. But Canon't remote control utility wipes the floor with Sony's counterpart -- it has live view, i.e. you see sensor's output on *computer* screen. So I have to flip out Sony's screen, and rotate the camera mounted on top of the microscope (it's TALL: pro metallurgical one) to see it. But everything else (lack of 4x adapter, messing with MLU etc.) makes Sony a clear winner.

For portraits: Canon's 85/1.8 (that I never had) would be probably better than Sony 50/1.8, but you can't beat the size AND face/eye AF.

I can go on and on, but hope you got the idea.

Most important things for me are Sony size & AF system. There is no coming back to focus/recompose once you try it. With 5D, you would feel handicapped.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 17:27 UTC
On article Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II? (370 comments in total)
In reply to:

luben solev: How about if you are still using a 5DII? I can't be the only one, right? Right? Anyone? :-)

<gets ready for lots of replies about people looking to upgrade from a Kodak Brownie>

> You are comparing a full frame DSLR to
> a APSC mirrorless?

Hmm... I don't even know what to say to this. It surprises you that APS-C mirrorless can be better than FF DSLR?

> And what do you use your a6000 for out of interest?

For everything I was using 5D (original, and then MkII) for. And for everything it's better.

Or rather, it's better "for almost everything". Like, say, one thing I do miss is 16-35/2.8 MkII on 5D for candid indoor shots. Yes, Sony 10-18/4 is wider (and better for outdoor, or even architectural indoor shots), but it's noticeably slower. But that's an exception.

Travel companion? No contest.

Wildlife? My 70-300 DO became longer all of a sudden, which helps.

For *me*, even for portraits it works better with Sony 50/1.8.

a6000 even turned out to be better for microphotography. I had to use adapter with 5D, but I could use a6000 directly, getting much higher quality (ended up buying a dedicated camera with Peltier cooler though...)

YMMV.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 17:10 UTC
On article Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II? (370 comments in total)
In reply to:

luben solev: How about if you are still using a 5DII? I can't be the only one, right? Right? Anyone? :-)

<gets ready for lots of replies about people looking to upgrade from a Kodak Brownie>

> How about if you are still using a 5DII?

I own a 5D2, but do not use it any more. Once you try a mirrorless with a good spread of AF points, there's no coming back to the travesty that is focus/recompose.

Then there's 100% viewfinder (and other niceties). Yes, I know that later 5D iterations addressed VF coverage, but now they're crippling video. Crippleware is the name of Canon's game, so screw it...

Overall, I'm so much happier with Sony a6000 + Zeiss 16-70/4 than I ever was with Canon 5D[2] + 24-105/4L that the thought of shooting a DSLR again never even crossed my mind.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

Juck: Jeebus,, why all the hate? DPR isn't some peer-reviewed journal on Nuclear Bionics,,, nothing wrong with a giggle now and again. Go home.

> Are you saying this site's mission till the end of time
> is gear reviews only and that photography is only a
> loosely related topic?

Why would you say that?

Let me quote myself: "times have changed, gear is not as important as it used to be, so policy changes are inevitable." I also gave example of a great non-gear article.

Many of us come to DPR for *expert* photography-related reviews/portfolio selections/technique discussions/you name it. NOT for cheap laughs. And the key word in last sentence is "cheap". Laughs as such are welcome -- if above certain level.

There are tons of interesting non-gear-related stuff out there; e.g. look at Peter Bendheim's message, below.

DPR can't possibly please everyone, even though that's what they're trying to do, apparently. They can't publish in-depth article on ISO invariance one day, then "Look, ma, I pulled film to sunlight, then developed it, and see what happened! It's all black, ha ha!" the next day, and avoid... objections.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 00:46 UTC
In reply to:

Juck: Jeebus,, why all the hate? DPR isn't some peer-reviewed journal on Nuclear Bionics,,, nothing wrong with a giggle now and again. Go home.

> is trivial to ignore and not remotely controversial

Of course it's not controversial. But it is essentially OT, just like those controversial articles I mentioned.

And yes, individual articles might be easy to ignore. Problem is, their ever-increasing flow is becoming unmanageable. Yes, times have changed, gear is not as important as it used to be (in that even worst is arguably good enough), so policy changes are inevitable. Look at this article: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3533759912/photographer-duo-captures-incredibly-creative-architecture-portraits Not about gear, great one, very welcome. But guess what, while writing a comment to it, I tried to find another article (for reference), and it took some time -- even though it was also "new".

My perspective is clearly very different to yours. I started reading DPR almost from its inception, and registered in 2006. And, to me, it is currently drifting towards becoming yet another "portal" far quicker than I would have liked.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 01:05 UTC
In reply to:

Juck: Jeebus,, why all the hate? DPR isn't some peer-reviewed journal on Nuclear Bionics,,, nothing wrong with a giggle now and again. Go home.

@techjedi

I'm afraid life is a bit more complicated than that.

Few years ago, DPR published an article about photog's "documentary" of what was essentially staged domestic violence. There were other examples of highly controversial (for the lack of a better word) articles. Yes, huge numbers of clicks, and yet that sort of cr@p appears on DPR much less often these days, thank goodness.

Was that because many users (including me) expressed their contempt? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe just a coincidence, who knows. One thing is for sure: it's not due to the lack of such stories on the web.

It's not always possible to know in advance what kind of story is "behind the click". In this particular case: I genuinely thought some sort of HW failure was to blame... Turns out it was just subject movement. How f*** unique. OK, I already clicked, now what? Just call a spade a spade.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 22:14 UTC
In reply to:

FilmDigital: Incredibly creative? Not really. A very good eye for design and composition perhaps.

And I hate to be the one to break the news, but this has been done before by many a photographer ... some not as well, but others quite a bit better, with more "soul" and depth to the imagery.

> this has been done before by many a photographer

What wasn't?

> others quite a bit better, with more "soul" and
> depth to the imagery.

News flash: I bet there were people who found those images you refer to as having "too much soul and too much depth", and not creative and playful enough. And don't tell me there weren't ;-)

I love images in this article, and find them creative and very well executed.

Also, this article goes together well with the recent "Ten ways to shake 'photographer's block' for good". One way to "shake the block" is to look at more images like these... And inspiration might as well strike.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 21:08 UTC
In reply to:

Juck: Jeebus,, why all the hate? DPR isn't some peer-reviewed journal on Nuclear Bionics,,, nothing wrong with a giggle now and again. Go home.

> why all the hate?

Hate? I'd say hate is in the eye of beholder.

What I see so far are polite notes that this is not the kind of contents for which many people come to DPR. BTW, I'm one of them.

What else people are supposed to do, vote with their feet? "Go home"? Yeah, that might as well become a viable option at some point.

There's smart entertainment (e.g. https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0653116619/2-bit-astrophotography-using-a-game-boy-camera-to-shoot-the-moon-and-jupiter), and then there is... this "article", which IMHO does not belong to DPR.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

parcheesi: PETA is a bunch of vegan a**holes. They, and the whole vegan movement, give vegetarians the worst name possible.

> PETA is a bunch of vegan a**holes

More like a bunch of loonies. That does not make them automatically wrong in this case though.

Just like the Slater is not a "greedy b@stard", he's just a not-so-smart person who should have capitalized on his luck instead of pressing it. Free worldwide publicity for what was essentially sloppiness with the camera? I'd take it.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 09:57 UTC
In reply to:

BrightTiger: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli
That's the issue I have with these DPReview CIPA regurgitation articles. It's so "just now" to be pointless except to ignite flame wars. This is on top of whether a camera has a piece of glass in it or not. Really? It's not film vs digital. That was a huge culture shift. Why don't we have the great lens shift vs in-body shift sales differences? It's marketing you Pavlovian suckers. Just gotta work you up so you salivate over mirrorless and get you to spend money today before you even come close to wearing out your DSLR gear. Ring! Ring!

@AbrasiveReducer

I can tell you what that "real world idea" will look like.

There's an Indian fable about seven blind men meeting an elephant; none of them had any idea of what the animal looked like. The mahout allowed them to approach and touch it... And everyone touched just one part. The fable ends with the blind men fervently arguing about elephant's shape: a wall, a column, a lotus leaf, a piece of rope...

As bad as statistics could be, alternatives are still worse.

It is interpreting statistics that is often a problem. Prime example: in WWI, British generals notices that once they introduced helmets for field troops, number of head injuries registered in hospitals went up, sharply. Luckily, before they revoked helmets, some bright mind figured it out: those who sustained injuries, would be just dead w/o helmets...

So, you see, numbers (including CIPA stats) *are* correct more often than not; people just tend to jump to conclusions w/o giving them enough thought...

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 05:36 UTC
In reply to:

BrightTiger: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli
That's the issue I have with these DPReview CIPA regurgitation articles. It's so "just now" to be pointless except to ignite flame wars. This is on top of whether a camera has a piece of glass in it or not. Really? It's not film vs digital. That was a huge culture shift. Why don't we have the great lens shift vs in-body shift sales differences? It's marketing you Pavlovian suckers. Just gotta work you up so you salivate over mirrorless and get you to spend money today before you even come close to wearing out your DSLR gear. Ring! Ring!

What sources of information do you use when assessing market shares? Companies' reports? Blog posts? Anything else? What's better than CIPA numbers in your opinion?

Yes, "flame wars" are incredibly stupid and unnecessary. But knowing market share changes is useful for things other than silly bickering.

Shift towards mirrorless means that more third-party lens manufacturers will address MILC [firts]. We already see some examples: as I write this, SainSonic's 50/1.1 is on DPR's front page, and it's available for mirrorless mounts only.

My personal interest? I'd like to see more primes from Sigma, as well as Tamron's 16-300 for Sony EF APS-C. I bought that Tamron for my daughter's Canon 100D, and I can tell you that it's way better optically than Sony 18-200 (also based on Tamron, BTW) that I have -- I simply stopped using it once I got 16-70/4 Zeiss.

If you're not interested in any of that... maybe it's just wrong site for you.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2017 at 03:34 UTC
On article SainSonic launches 50mm F1.1 lens for APS-C cameras (243 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marti58: I do see 11/12 blades in this image

https://f.ptcdn.info/646/044/000/oathgyuv7AbCEwGAQk5-o.jpg

I counted exactly 12 (not sure why you say 11/12...).

But then again I can't discern markings. Is that really 50/1.1? Kamlan make three fast simiar lenses...

The plot thickens! :-)

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 00:48 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: It actually is the same as this, available for existing smartphones
-> http://mopic3d.com/iphone-7-page/

I aquired one of those and it actually does work! And prety cheap too.

The quality of course would be much improved with a higher genuine resolution of the underlying 2D screen and if the grating is applied to the reverse side of the screen glass itself. But to call it nano technology still is a gross marketing lie.

> But to call it nano technology still is a gross marketing lie.

Yeah.

I had a look at that mopic3d.com page you linked, and guess what: marketing lies all over the place as well. I'm talking about all those "diagrams" showing butterflies etc. stretching beyond screen limits (for POV).

The famous quote about marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation (from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) comes to mind...

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 12:13 UTC
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: "nanotechnology"

Okay Hollywood. Sounds like someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid down there at RED.

@maxnimo

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid, "In popular culture" -> "Drinking the Kool-Aid".

> Does it have alcohol, LSD or pot?

No, in doesn't.

The brain fade is caused by the theory/dogma/etc. that those "drinking Kool-Aid" are following.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 11:07 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: We need Thom Hogan to translate this. As for Americans preferring cameras that are more expensive pre-tax, hardly suprising since sales and VAT taxes are so much higher outside the US.

> We need Thom Hogan to translate this

Well, uMad said it :-)

Seriously though, Thom's prediction for this year was that the bottom hasn't been reached yet, so he expected further decline in sales. He expressly disagreed with numerous forecasts of flat sales.

His recent "explanation" of DSLR vs mirrorless sales left me scratching my head...

IIRC, about a month ago, he was "explaining" CIPA numbers that quite clearly showed that mirrorless sales were up, and DSLRs down. His take? Something to the effect of "No no no, you should *not* compare whole months, you should take 12 and a half days of this month, 7 of previous month, 11 days of the same month five years ago, and divide it by moon phase." After that, he happily arrived at *flat* mirrorless sales.

If you're fan of that sort of math, you'd have to wait till August, as Thom is offline this month, as io_bg said.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 04:59 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: it seems to celibrate just how bad a projects output can be .... it confuses poor low res low information output with some kind of rediscovery of ancient technique or method

while i admire the effort ... i would have more enjoyed seeing output from some decent point and shoots along side these super low res images

its like "quagmire " having sex with a 1990s dot matrix printer .... funny for about 10 seconds ..... ok 20 seconds

> is flippant better?

Generally, no, but everything has its place.

A bit of trivia: anyone who's using even best DSLRs for astrophotography (Nikon D810a, or Canon 60Da) essentially just plays with it -- a "serious" amateur would tell you that, yeah, they also started like that, but quickly discovered that anything but a dedicated B&W CCD with Peltier cooler is just child's play. And they would have a point. (I went from Canon 5D to dedicated Peltier-cooled CCD myself -- in microphotography).

GameBoy? That's "play" taken to the extreme. I just love that the output instantly looks like a scene from a video game. Since it's a play, everything is a fair game, pardon the pun. Entertainment, with no "rights or wrongs". To suggest that something could be better than something else means (to me) missing the whole point.

That's what I meant. Din't mean to offend you, and sorry if I did.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2017 at 22:59 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: it seems to celibrate just how bad a projects output can be .... it confuses poor low res low information output with some kind of rediscovery of ancient technique or method

while i admire the effort ... i would have more enjoyed seeing output from some decent point and shoots along side these super low res images

its like "quagmire " having sex with a 1990s dot matrix printer .... funny for about 10 seconds ..... ok 20 seconds

Why so serious?..

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2017 at 20:38 UTC
In reply to:

Shangri La: What's the point?

The point is to have some fun, Shangri La.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2017 at 18:02 UTC
In reply to:

M Chambers: I was one of users affected. I found that any newly uploaded images were also struck with the same problem.

However when I opened a new account for free the newly uploaded images link fine.

Hence this really is "blackmail" because they're not saying, "Moving forward we're charging users for new uploads and linking." Instead they're NOT charging new users for new linking. They're only charging their existing users for images they've had for YEARS! They're saying, "If you want years worth of work back you have to pay $400."

Maybe it has to do with the total volume of the images linked by the account (i.e. they are specifically targeting bulk linking).

Note: I'm not saying that's "OK"... In fact, that's just as bad in my book: lack of transparent policy/explanations would have totally killed my confidence in them if I was their client.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2017 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

txsizzler: No offense to the author of this, and while Photobucket really SHOULD have warned users of this upcoming change, DPR should also recognize there are other plans you can use on Photobucket.

Plans start at $5.99/mo for 52gb storage, $9.99/mo for 102gb, and $39.99/mo for 502gb (or you can save a bit by buying an annual cost of $59.99/$99.99/$399.99 respectively). DPR is sensationalizing this by only showing the most expensive option, which is really a bunch of BS.

Clickbait? Or 66% fake news.. you choose.

Hey DL Cade, txsizzler was surely confused, but so was I (and, judging by comments, many others) after reading your article.

"What once was free will now cost users a whopping $400 per year" -- that reads as if free hosting suddenly turned $400/yr, not just linking option. I had to dig into it myself to figure out what's really going on (never been a PB user; I host everything I need myself).

Bottom line, you could do a better job -- as a journalist. (I'd admit that, as a DPR employee, you did fine: lots of over-agitated people in comments; click, click, click...)

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 23:30 UTC
Total: 542, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »