Lives in United States United States
Works as a Software developer
Joined on Oct 2, 2008


Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5

This guy is a joke, his rectangle at most hit two of the line on the image

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 03:39 UTC as 62nd comment

You seem to be lumping the mount in with the focus technology, are they inextricably linked? Could Nikon keep the current 'mount' allowing the use of existing lenses and for new lenses use the existing mount but upgrade the focusing technology? I think they do this for backwards compatibility with Nikon lenses that have the older drive motors.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 14:21 UTC as 130th comment
In reply to:

mr moonlight: I know this is just the Beta version of the software, but wow! Image quality on the Xpro1 looks like it blows the other cameras out of the water at all ISO's

Despite all the fanboy clamor and pants wetting, the images that this camera produces are mediocre. I was waiting for this test and it proved my point.

But talk to a fan boy and their copy of the camera produces 'stunning' images, color nuances that we mere mortals can't see, please....

I think the Fuji flavor of fanboy seems to be the strongest and most offensive of the lot these days. I am just saying.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2012 at 01:02 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): What an ugly camera. And way too expensive for what you get. I think $133 is a fair price. And why aren't there any sample pictures of hot blonde girls dancing in dark night clubs? I mean, without that particular shot how in the world can we tell how good this mid-20th century radio....I mean camera really is? It looks like the upper left corner is 1/8th stop darker than the bottom right corner. :) LOL Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Looks like a fascinating camera. I wonder if people will insist the AF speed of this camera match other $1,700 cameras.

Very confused, why didn't DPReview take their standard cheezy studio shot?

Without side by side comparisons as in Image Resources, it is with out question impossible to asses the abilities of a piece of photographic equipment. I believe that's the rational behind standard test charts.

Nothing to learn about the image quality here.

Really, why wasn't the standard studio shot taken????

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2012 at 20:42 UTC
On article Nikon D4 overview (839 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lando79: Hey guy’s I’ve been reading your comments on this Camera. It seems there are quite a few of you are disappointed about the D4. It seems to be on the basis of Image Resolution and FPS. Think about what the pros want i.e. the journalists and sports photographers. If I was one, then I would certainly welcome the increased sensitivity to capture images at low light and low resolution… Imagine being abroad in a war zone, the last thing you’re thinking about is sharpness and image details – it’s all about capturing the story. Also, think about uploading a 26 megapixel vs. 16 megapixel image via satellite or 3g connection. It could mean an extra minute to transfer, and if your sports or news shot isn’t sent to the editor on time without hassle – its money lost. This camera makes sense to the pros not us hobbyist.
The camera is more focused about the work flow and post productivity that allow photographers who work in fast paced environments. How many of you were willing to spend £4.5k anyway.

I don't shoot sports or weddings, this to me was a non event.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2012 at 20:09 UTC
Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5