aris14

aris14

Lives in Greece Athens, Greece
Joined on Jan 3, 2005

Comments

Total: 705, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

aris14: A convenient solution for paparazzis especially for summer days if paired with a tele-converter, who still believe they need a Dslr no matter if their images destination are the tabloids or gossip magazines for which an 8 Mp image is just fine.

C'mon guys, I am referring to paparazzi shooting not hi end commercial shooting...

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 08:52 UTC

A convenient solution for paparazzis especially for summer days if paired with a tele-converter, who still believe they need a Dslr no matter if their images destination are the tabloids or gossip magazines for which an 8 Mp image is just fine.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 09:04 UTC as 75th comment | 3 replies
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (691 comments in total)

A connoisseur's tool...

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2017 at 08:31 UTC as 50th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

beavertown: This pricing non sense is going to help 3rd party manufacturers to generate more an more profits by being way cheaper than Cankon but expensively affordable.

The funny thing to me is: Who can tell the difference between the Zeiss Otus comparing to this glass as well to the affordable Nikon's 1.8 version and all these between them after some basic/serious post processing..?

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 08:33 UTC

Exceptional work..!

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 08:29 UTC as 10th comment

Mercy..!

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 10:07 UTC as 71st comment

Who designed this thing?

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 07:56 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies

I think that the design of something new from a blank sheet of paper is far more expensive for manufacturers with a long history and consequently culture. In some cases suggests an obsession more or less...
Either way this is not a welcomed cost .

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 23:43 UTC as 54th comment | 5 replies

Looks "something is rotten in the state of Danmark" or should I write Leicamark..?

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 01:24 UTC as 37th comment | 4 replies
On article Nikon reshuffles management structure (248 comments in total)

At least they made clear to themselves what they really like/aim to do as a company.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 09:43 UTC as 34th comment

Communication is a very difficult matter!
Especially if you try to make a living out of it.
More specifically if you find it harsh to explain even to yourself the meaning of what you claim/propose...
If u cannot make clear the parameters of what you want to compare.
If the side parameters of what you compare are mixed with the main ones just "because"...
Then you 're ending up in an article because of which the vast majority of readers looking at you rather suspiciously. And the editors are posting in less than 24 hours, 30 replies apologizing or clarifying...
And readers write bad bad things about you...
Don't you feel ashamed DPR..?
(It is the third time, or fourth, in less than 18 months you received a barrage of bad critics, sheer masochism cannot stand as an excuse any more, I guess)...

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 09:36 UTC as 77th comment
In reply to:

aris14: I 'd like this hands-on to give me a hint on how they managed the weight reduction.

C'mon guys, Sony's engineers managed weight reduction up to 50% to the competition, not 50 grams...

Link | Posted on May 19, 2017 at 08:33 UTC

I 'd like this hands-on to give me a hint on how they managed the weight reduction.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2017 at 09:39 UTC as 11th comment | 10 replies
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (382 comments in total)
In reply to:

GabrielFFontes: Seriously, this format of review is the most confusing and unprofessional choice I've seen made by dpreview. Please revert back to the old style.

I think it's enough for cams which come as a batch in every brand's range for marketing reasons.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 09:22 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: the absurdly small 1/2.3 sensor with its poor performance lousy iso latitude and sub par pixel area about 28 sqmm for its 12 mp seems rather ungenerous for a camera costing 450 usd before taxes... i do understand that these tough
amphibious cameras have special needs and limitation related to hermetic sealing and a long history of using these tiny sensors [as do many superzooms] ....but i think its time to move forward and use a 1 1.7 [43 sq mm] or 2\3 [ 58 sq mm] at a minimum

these refreashes are meaningless untill advances in resolution and image quality start appearing .... this class of useful cameras deserve better

The niche for these cams seems to be a mixture of gadget fans, outdoor activities enthusiasts and amateurs who like underwater photography. No manufacturer is going to invest in this niche. Consequently this cam is overpriced, as all cams alike in this class.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 09:06 UTC
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: That's Jane Bown. People keep misspelling her name, calling her 'Brown' or 'Bowen', but that's wrong. It's Bown.
You can't praise Sir Cecil Beaton highly enough. Some of his portraits are simply mesmerizing. Unfortunately, no photographs by him feature in this article (nor by Jane Bown, which is a shame).
To end my moanings in style: I wish I could unsee Rod Stewart's picture! The 70's were such a terrible era to live.

@Arastoo Vaziri

And bushes weren't only in hairstyles...

Link | Posted on May 14, 2017 at 10:59 UTC
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: That's Jane Bown. People keep misspelling her name, calling her 'Brown' or 'Bowen', but that's wrong. It's Bown.
You can't praise Sir Cecil Beaton highly enough. Some of his portraits are simply mesmerizing. Unfortunately, no photographs by him feature in this article (nor by Jane Bown, which is a shame).
To end my moanings in style: I wish I could unsee Rod Stewart's picture! The 70's were such a terrible era to live.

70's is the mother of what we actually experiencing in our life today, no matter if we like it or not as such... Under this point of view u r absolutely right!

Link | Posted on May 13, 2017 at 11:12 UTC
In reply to:

aris14: No matter if photography is the subject in this forum, it is bad manners, to say the least, to show pictures w/o the appropriate caption for the viewers to understand what those people were trying to do at work...

Dear all,
I know exactly what these were people were doing when these pix were shot. What I am saying is that no matter if these pix are hosted in a photography site, facilitating readers/viewers to comprehend what they see thus to make both images and their content approachable in the era context, is a valuable journalistic practice. Producing more clicks for visiting the hosting site may be profitable for all in our days, but it is not a good practice. Of course you don't have to refer in a caption the "story of your life" but something to intrigue the real interest of the viewer, Thx for your interest.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2017 at 11:03 UTC
In reply to:

aris14: Great scientific purposed tool.
Icons produced really add in what human eye can see.

As for the comments of "usual suspects"...
1. Digital cameras see better than the human eye back from the Canon Mark I days in 2003 (I am not a Canon fanboy)
2. Apart some special films for scientific and military purposes no film can produce the quality of a descent digicam.
3. Drum scanners in most cases are over appreciated. Slide scanners such as Nikon D Series, for example, deliver excellent results comparing to some drum dinosaurs by far. The same stands for flatbeds such as Epson V Series for scanning printed images.
4. I am not mentioning some more expensive digitizing set ups that put in disgrace all drum scanners (also far cheaper than drum scanners) which setups were also used in the pre-digital era for reproduction purposes both for artwork and slides/negatives (excellent pieces of manufacturing and dinosaurs too as for size).

Così è se vi pare....
(Ιt is so if you think so)...
I really enjoyed your arguments..!
Cheers!

Link | Posted on May 13, 2017 at 10:54 UTC

Great scientific purposed tool.
Icons produced really add in what human eye can see.

As for the comments of "usual suspects"...
1. Digital cameras see better than the human eye back from the Canon Mark I days in 2003 (I am not a Canon fanboy)
2. Apart some special films for scientific and military purposes no film can produce the quality of a descent digicam.
3. Drum scanners in most cases are over appreciated. Slide scanners such as Nikon D Series, for example, deliver excellent results comparing to some drum dinosaurs by far. The same stands for flatbeds such as Epson V Series for scanning printed images.
4. I am not mentioning some more expensive digitizing set ups that put in disgrace all drum scanners (also far cheaper than drum scanners) which setups were also used in the pre-digital era for reproduction purposes both for artwork and slides/negatives (excellent pieces of manufacturing and dinosaurs too as for size).

Link | Posted on May 11, 2017 at 10:27 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
Total: 705, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »