Conrad567

Joined on Feb 3, 2012

Comments

Total: 275, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Did they say 12 megapixels....WTH???

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 20:04 UTC as 108th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

rbach44: The really ups the ante in the current "great lens attached to crappy sensor" fad.

LOL

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2018 at 20:09 UTC
In reply to:

nachos: Lighting evolves pretty slowly; no need to return only 8 months later with the same products as before.

I would suggest doing some research on the GODOX before you start knocking them. I have owned Elinchrom, ProFoto, and Norman. A, the GODOX is just as sturdy as any of them. B, GODOX flashes have a removable head and the monolight can sit on the ground if you want as an auxiliary battery. That's how I use mine. They also sell different smaller units that are very light. But hey, you all just keep spending the price for these other units...don't even bother investigating. Someone has to keep these guys in business. LOL

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

nachos: Lighting evolves pretty slowly; no need to return only 8 months later with the same products as before.

@ Magner W... I guess only time will tell. I think people are used to the fast pace of changing technology. I, for one, fully expect that I will be changing my lighting equipment every 5-7 years. It seems that technology in the cameras is leading to all kinds of tech advances in lighting as well.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 17:46 UTC
In reply to:

nachos: Lighting evolves pretty slowly; no need to return only 8 months later with the same products as before.

I just wonder if GODOX is creating a huge vacuum in the lighting industry. I am stunned by the number of photographers using their stuff. I am one of them, but it seems everywhere I go and all over the internet it is all I see. ProFoto and Elinchrom may have priced themselves out of the market.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: All this tech in a 27" non 4K display. Sure that's fine as long as it's not the only one you're releasing. 32" 4K and same specs and features, for $2K then you're talking, but $2K for this, typical HP.

Yeah, you will definitely see the difference. I can see the colors change on my monitor when I slide the color scales just 3 or 4 points in photoshop. Before I would have to move them 7 or 8 points for my monitor to show any change.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 06:12 UTC
In reply to:

Conrad567: Nikon and Canon have drug their feet because their entire line-up has been built around the DSLR. I hope they are not too late, because they left the window WIDE open for SONY to snatch a HUGE market share from them. Sometimes companies make stupid decisions built on "nostalgia" or short sightedness. This is definitely one of those occasions.

@ Battersea, you must not follow the stock market. Canon's price CAJ has done nothing but fall for the last 12 years. A: your numbers are a claim by Canon, from 2016. B: Most mirrorless innovation and sales boost has taken place in the time since then. But you know what, you just keep rooting them on. While your at it, buy some NIKON shares. Funny that Canon, according to the article, seems to disagree with your assessment though, in that they are building a PRO LINE mirrorless camera, and expect to ship within the year.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2018 at 19:43 UTC

Nikon and Canon have drug their feet because their entire line-up has been built around the DSLR. I hope they are not too late, because they left the window WIDE open for SONY to snatch a HUGE market share from them. Sometimes companies make stupid decisions built on "nostalgia" or short sightedness. This is definitely one of those occasions.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2018 at 15:59 UTC as 264th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

mr_landscape: HP? Pffff, for color check NEC and if it is not sufficient there is Eizo, but definitely not some HP.

I have the same one. Re-read the documentation, it is 8 bit or 10 bit. It depends on the card you are using. If you are using an 8 bit card than you are not covering NEAR the Adobe RGB color space. Read up on it, there is a vast difference between using an 8 bit and 10 bit card.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 19:37 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: All this tech in a 27" non 4K display. Sure that's fine as long as it's not the only one you're releasing. 32" 4K and same specs and features, for $2K then you're talking, but $2K for this, typical HP.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nec-pa272w-professional-monitor,3814.html
Here is another site that explains the difference. Unless you purchased a 10 bit card, you are only getting 8 bit colors. Sorry.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 17:37 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: All this tech in a 27" non 4K display. Sure that's fine as long as it's not the only one you're releasing. 32" 4K and same specs and features, for $2K then you're talking, but $2K for this, typical HP.

http://www.adorama.com/ncpa272wbksv.html?PPC=Y&gclsrc=aw.ds&gclid=Cj0KCQjwtZzWBRD2ARIsAIPenY1SWKhqROZuoXXpUypd_HMNxxf4KAzODWHO783D-af9DzxHhxzhYN0aAqsBEALw_wcB

Go there and look up the specs. If it is only 8 bit, OR if you are using an 8 bit GRAPHICS CARD, it is ONLY 16 MILLION colors. It works like that. Your monitor is capable of 10 Bit. I HAVE the same monitor, only mine is -bk.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 17:34 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: All this tech in a 27" non 4K display. Sure that's fine as long as it's not the only one you're releasing. 32" 4K and same specs and features, for $2K then you're talking, but $2K for this, typical HP.

The article claims almost a BILLION colors. SIMPLE MATH makes it clear that it is 10 bit. Not to mention that all color critical monitors that are sold right now are 10 bit.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 13:44 UTC

Well, this makes me want to run right out and buy another lens for my FUJIFILM.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 13:02 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

thx1138: All this tech in a 27" non 4K display. Sure that's fine as long as it's not the only one you're releasing. 32" 4K and same specs and features, for $2K then you're talking, but $2K for this, typical HP.

Most 4k displays are only 8 bit and have only 16 million colors. This is a 10 bit display, it will cost more than just $2k, because the graphics card will set you back another $1k. The reward is about 1 BILLION colors. It matters far more than size and resolution if you are doing color critical work.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 12:59 UTC
In reply to:

mr_landscape: HP? Pffff, for color check NEC and if it is not sufficient there is Eizo, but definitely not some HP.

Ummm... I have an NEC. Granted it is about 2 years old, but I believe mine only covers 94% of Adobe RGB. I have it paired with a FirePro 10 bit card.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 12:57 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: $2000 for a 27" 2K monitor?
The 28" Samsung 4K UE850 is selling for $340 to $350 at more than one outlet.
Get real, or dream on HP.

I spent $1400 for my NEC 2K 10 bit display, and another $900 for my FirePro graphics card. If you ever spent any time making photos ready for print, you would understand why people spend so much. The Samsung may have giant specs, but sometimes resolution is only a very small part of the battle. The Samsung has only 16 million colors. My NEC and this HP have about a BILLION!

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 12:55 UTC
In reply to:

Conrad567: Meh...still looks like a cell phone shot. Good enough for my kids, good enough for Snapchat, but definitely NOT good enough for my wall.

Better than your wall of cell phone shots. Good grief.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 12:47 UTC
In reply to:

Conrad567: Meh...still looks like a cell phone shot. Good enough for my kids, good enough for Snapchat, but definitely NOT good enough for my wall.

Fuego6 now you are just lying. Of course you meant file size.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 05:10 UTC
In reply to:

Conrad567: Meh...still looks like a cell phone shot. Good enough for my kids, good enough for Snapchat, but definitely NOT good enough for my wall.

Apparently some of you are happy putting any crap on your wall, just as long as the file size is large enough. Good grief.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 05:09 UTC
In reply to:

Conrad567: Meh...still looks like a cell phone shot. Good enough for my kids, good enough for Snapchat, but definitely NOT good enough for my wall.

@fuego6...apparently all you are capable of understanding is 40 mega pixels. It isn't the size of a file that makes a good photo. LOL.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2018 at 04:24 UTC
Total: 275, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »