sandy b

sandy b

Lives in United States Southern Minn, United States
Works as a tech writer
Joined on Jan 4, 2002

Comments

Total: 721, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Great loss. Spent much time at his site when I first got into the hobby. Condolences to his family, RIP Michael.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 20:16 UTC as 144th comment
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: TC's should go no further than 1.4 and still you have to use excellent glass as a basis. It effectively blows up the middle part of your lens so sharpness is going to give. Also because it darkens your image AF is going to deteriorate.

I wouldn't use a 2x, even with quality glass. Seldom a 1.7. A 1.4 is usually good to OK, even then there is inevitable degradation, usually in the corners and resolution. This is only a general rule, but I think most wildlife shooters who use good glass would concur. Now, if all your after is getting the shot, well, sure. But to me putting a $400 dollar TC on a $2000 lens to get marginal shots just isn't worth it. Get longer glass or more megapixels.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 15:10 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: Probably the only suitable lens in the Fuji system for this is the 90mm/f2, giving you a 180/f4. Not really much better then the 50-140/2.8, and no better when you as the 1.4x to that lens, but a little bit smaller, anyway.

2x TCs just degrade quality so much, I don't really know why they've introduced this other than to say "we have one."

But hey, maybe it signals the intro of a 200 or 300mm/2.8 soon enough?

Just physics. Look at any good test of the quality of an image with no TC, a 1.4 TC and a 2.0 TC. Will it work? probably. Worth the quality degradation? Probably not. If you need a 2x TC, get a longer lens or a camera with more mp.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 15:04 UTC
On article Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review (1118 comments in total)
In reply to:

endofoto: This is a very good camera for birding and sports. However this high ISO lie still goes on, if you are not a paparazzi, beyond ISO 1600 image quality is not acceptable for art.

See the D500 forum for Hi ISO bird shots, incredible detail at astronomical ISO's. They are processed, but wonderful.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2016 at 15:55 UTC
On article Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review (1118 comments in total)
In reply to:

steelhead3: I hope the reviewers will get into the few problems that the 500 exhibits and not whitewash the hiccups that seem to be happening with cards etc. I would hate to see a recall just as the review comes out. It seems like a great camera.

LOl, you would hate it , eh Steelhead? what a laugh, you would hate it as you posted it 400 times. And as much as you want it to be a Nikon problem, it's a Lexar issue. Again.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2016 at 13:17 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $900-1200 (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

pannumon: Are "pro-level features like a wide-coverage 51-point AF system with -3 EV low light capability for all points" mentioned in the conclusions really benefits for D7200 compared let's say against GX8 or other mirrorless? In this price range and within these cameras, this kind of functionality seems like the standard. Am I missing something?

Yes, this kind of functionality is remarkable for a DSLR. Just as the AF performance (including C-AF) is remarkable e.g. on GX8 and EM-5 II, considering that they are mirrorless.

"We recommend Camera X, because it is (almost) as good as the others in terms of low light focusing / focus points coverage / continuous auto-focus / whatever". I don't get it, especially not in a roundup like this. I try be constructive, but I guess I already failed.

And still not as good as the Nikon.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2016 at 18:36 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $900-1200 (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

pannumon: Are "pro-level features like a wide-coverage 51-point AF system with -3 EV low light capability for all points" mentioned in the conclusions really benefits for D7200 compared let's say against GX8 or other mirrorless? In this price range and within these cameras, this kind of functionality seems like the standard. Am I missing something?

Yes, this kind of functionality is remarkable for a DSLR. Just as the AF performance (including C-AF) is remarkable e.g. on GX8 and EM-5 II, considering that they are mirrorless.

"We recommend Camera X, because it is (almost) as good as the others in terms of low light focusing / focus points coverage / continuous auto-focus / whatever". I don't get it, especially not in a roundup like this. I try be constructive, but I guess I already failed.

They all strive for that functionality. The point is none of them can match the Nikon for AF or IQ.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2016 at 14:40 UTC

Looks like a nice new camera, and time for some new lens.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2016 at 13:25 UTC as 60th comment
In reply to:

darngooddesign: Always entertaining to read comments from Leica-haters.

And defenders.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2016 at 14:45 UTC
On article Video: Meet the Nikon D500 (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

DukeCC: Big news for Sigma, with big sales of their f/1.8 ART DX zooms on the horizon thanks to the D500.

Also for all Nikons F1.8 primes, lightweight with excellent IQ. I also like Nikons 70-200 F4 on my D7100. Owning both FF and crop, I am not really interested in carrying/owning 2 sets of lens. I would like to check out Sigma's 18-35 1.8.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 16:05 UTC
On article Video: Meet the Nikon D500 (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tobamory: i do like it. GAS attack incoming

ttran88 speaks, one of the biggest Sony Fanbois and lately trolling the Canon release.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 15:30 UTC
In reply to:

tecnoworld: There are only two real competitors to d500. One is canon 7d mk2, the other is samsung nx1. You didn't care to include the latter in your comparison. Pity, since despite being 2 years older, it has 28mp bsi sensor, more fps, lighter body, real 4k downscaled from 6.5k, 120fps in video @1080 and much more.

And...it fares so well that I still prefer it even from your samples:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=nikon_d500&attr144_1=samsung_nx1&attr144_2=sony_a6300&attr144_3=fujifilm_xpro2&attr146_0=100_6&attr146_1=100_6&attr146_2=100_6&attr146_3=200_5&attr177_2=off&attr177_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=345&x=0.07241991365205853&y=0.672699151044089

Now, some ppl will moan that it's discontinued and such usual things one says when he's without real arguments. But you can still buy it,at prices well below d500.

Close, D500 still looks better. and a "new" NX1 is $2700, with a mediocre selection of glass compared to the Nikon. NX1 was an exciting camera, too bad Samsung dropped the ball.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 13:58 UTC
In reply to:

lensberg: You're sure this is "class leading" ...?!

Can't really says its any better than the A6300 ... Reminds me of their image processing from their J5 ... except on an APS-C scale...

Low light setting raw the D500 is clearly better.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 12:02 UTC
In reply to:

bakhtyar kurdi: Front-runner?
For DR the d500 in identical to d7200, no difference at all.
For high ISO noise, if you look at JPEG, d500 looks better, but RAW they are the same, probably the d500 is 1/4stop better, and that is due to the higher MP in d7200.
So the only improvement is the JPEG engine in the d500.

Turn on lowlight. Its better than the D7200. Maybe half a stop.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 12:01 UTC
In reply to:

bgbs: Verdict: Canon 80D does better in DR than D5

And nothing else.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 18:17 UTC
In reply to:

sandy b: A couple of Notes. Worst NIKON. Better than the 6D, which is considered in Canon land a very good camera indeed. Probably as good or better then ANY Canon, up to this year. For a sports/Photojournalist camera that may be the best in the world at what it does.
This is a conscious decision by Nikon based on who buys this camera. Not by those who would never buy this camera for any reason, much less a Nikon, and who wouldn't know how to expose or push a shadow if it hit them in the face.
And considering that Nikon sells 4 other cameras that are in the top 5 of DR, a D5 owner probably has that covered. But then most of you complaining the loudest probably don't even have a camera as good as Nikon DR.

The same idiots who are savaging this camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 14:08 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: While this is slightly surprising at first glance, I think what it actually shows is that you can't optimise for everything at once.

What other models can shoot at 14 fps with the image quality and incerdible AF of this camera?

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: As with Canon's news/journo/sports cameras, it makes perfect sense that it's optimised for low-light. For these purposes, DR isn't the issue.

I really can't see why people are critical of this. Everything is a tradeoff and this is an obvious tradeoff in the right direction.

Use your D800 for landscapes, and D5 for other stuff.

If you shoot this, you probably did.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 13:58 UTC
In reply to:

Azathothh: But if you want a comment, the D5 looks much worse than the Canon 80d in the shadows which is hilarious.

Comments are nice, but better if they have any value.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 13:57 UTC
In reply to:

Mark K: I have foreseen this shortly after announcement by showing dynamic range curves between D4s and D810. Obviously I was laughed by locan Nikon fanboys.

Still laughing.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 13:49 UTC
Total: 721, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »