tkbslc

Lives in United States Salt Lake City, UT, United States
Joined on May 30, 2008

Comments

Total: 5888, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Fujifilm GF 45mm F2.8 R WR sample gallery (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Would be interesting to see a Fujifilm faceoff with this lens on the GFX and the 23mm f1.4 on a X-T2.

That's easy to SAY, but it would be interesting to SEE - as I said earlier.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2018 at 22:41 UTC
In reply to:

Blaklynx01: Since rent-a-software is cheap, why not rent ALL software on your PC and see if you can afford it? Anybody care to calculate all their software at say $10ea / month and see how many Starbucks coffees you'll need to give up?

C'mon, let's see some real numbers from you rent-a-software fans...

@chad - if you get a major lung disease, there is certainly a home oxygen subscription you will need just to live.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2018 at 15:54 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Obviously, Adobe made the right decision in switching to a subscription model. Let the malcontents and software pirates howl on.

And everyone still pays, even the complainers. Why change?

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2018 at 15:48 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Thanks Corel for continuing to make a reasonably priced product.
For me, PaintShop Pro and AfterSot Pro forever.

I want to like Aftershot, but the images have several times more noise than any other raw processor I have ever used. It's like my camera's sensor suddenly shrunk two categories. It's only useful when shooting at base ISO.

I do like PSP quite a bit, though.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2018 at 15:47 UTC

I'm happy for them as they are building a big workforce in my home state. I'm not particularly fond of their software, though, subscription complaints aside.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2018 at 15:44 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

Blaklynx01: Since rent-a-software is cheap, why not rent ALL software on your PC and see if you can afford it? Anybody care to calculate all their software at say $10ea / month and see how many Starbucks coffees you'll need to give up?

C'mon, let's see some real numbers from you rent-a-software fans...

There aren't many application that could get away with $10 a month. It's only the ones that have professional history, like Adobe and Microsoft Office.

I use Polarr on my iPad and Chromebook. They want $2.50 a month for the pro subscription. VSCO is $20 a year, I think. If I have a few $10 and a few $2 a month subs, I'm not going broke.

Go ahead and throw out absurd numbers. It's quite obvious that they aren't going to charge thousands of dollars a year for home software.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2018 at 15:39 UTC
On article Fujifilm GF 45mm F2.8 R WR sample gallery (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: They look really good, but so does a 35mm f2 on a FF sensor.

You don't usually get smaller format users whining about equivalence. Rather it is the FF shooters that have to swoop in and tell us that we should be using mythical small slow FF lenses instead of actual fast lenses on mirrorless.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2018 at 05:27 UTC
On article Fujifilm GF 45mm F2.8 R WR sample gallery (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul JM: I just love all the comments on here about how this sensor has "no advantage" over FF. The sensor is actually 66% larger than a FF sensor.
If you are not interested in the compact MF of a Fuji GFX, then dont buy it. But why bother bellyaching on here ? Keep shooting FF, stay happy, and let those who want a larger sensor spend the money.

bellyaching? Just discussing cameras. Like we do every day.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2018 at 05:24 UTC
On article Fujifilm GF 45mm F2.8 R WR sample gallery (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tim Koehler: calling GFX a MF is the same as calling APS-H a FF. not totally wrong, but not true either.

Really it's half way between FF and 645 film size.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2018 at 05:23 UTC
On article Fujifilm GF 45mm F2.8 R WR sample gallery (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: They look really good, but so does a 35mm f2 on a FF sensor.

I don't think it's the same to say m4/3 is equivalent. The Dynamic range and level of detail is very different. But then we are talking a 2.5x crop difference.

FF vs GFX is only 1.25x crop difference. That's the same as Canon APS-C and m4/3.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Are they basically just the regular DSLR lenses with a mount extension built in?

To bad I can't delete my original comment to spare everyone from this "special" discussion.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 19:56 UTC
On article Fujifilm GF 45mm F2.8 R WR sample gallery (206 comments in total)

Would be interesting to see a Fujifilm faceoff with this lens on the GFX and the 23mm f1.4 on a X-T2.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 19:50 UTC as 25th comment | 2 replies
On article Fujifilm GF 45mm F2.8 R WR sample gallery (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: They look really good, but so does a 35mm f2 on a FF sensor.

That and the fact that there's only a 1.25x crop factor difference.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 19:49 UTC
On article Fujifilm GF 45mm F2.8 R WR sample gallery (206 comments in total)

They look really good, but so does a 35mm f2 on a FF sensor.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 18:25 UTC as 27th comment | 8 replies

Are they basically just the regular DSLR lenses with a mount extension built in?

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 17:37 UTC as 45th comment | 14 replies
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Cool tech, but even if they got it perfect it won't look good. The ~30mm FOV doesn't really lend itself to flattering portraits or smooth backgrounds. Even the ~45mm FOV they impose is only "okay". I think the best way forward would be a sensor array with a collection of shots for superresolution and depth mapping. Crop down to short telephoto and make something from there.

"flattering portrait" has to do with the shooting distance. As long as you are going for maybe half or full body portraits, it's great. And then you'll actually have some bg to blur.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 17:15 UTC

For the mass market, the typical output medium has always been pretty small. We had 3x3 instamatics, 4x6 photo prints, Polaroids and now most view on a 5-6" phone screen (which is about 3x5").

So all the discussion about pixel level issues is pretty moot. It will never be seen. And at 3x5" the fake blur can look more impressive than the real stuff.

Obviously you aren't going to replace a wedding photographer's kit with this, but it's just moving "real" cameras farther away into niche land.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 17:12 UTC as 6th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

Eric Glam: So, that means that Canon, who owns the patent for Dual-Pixel AF, also has access to this tech. I wonder what their next mirrorless will be like...

Implementing fake bokeh is at odds with selling lenses that create shallow DOF and real bg blur, though. And why pitch a poor solution when a real solution exists (That they just happen to sell).

Where I think it makes absolute sense is in compacts. If they can do it on a phone, they can do it in a compact. And then they can market more expensive really compact cameras with cheap sensors and lenses. I'd rather have fake bokeh at 100mm optical zoom equivalent anyway.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 17:00 UTC
In reply to:

ZeBebito: For 1000 bucks I rather have the D-Lux 109. At least the sensor is bigger and the lens faster.

Neat.

I'll have the Kung Pao Chicken with white rice.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2018 at 04:46 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: Better buy now guys before the price goes up another $150 dollars since Trump has hit Chinese goods with $50 billion in tariffs 😳

Made in China doesn't mean its a Chinese product.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2018 at 04:45 UTC
Total: 5888, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »