RPJG

Joined on Nov 4, 2011

Comments

Total: 608, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

DanielFjall: Everyone should at least have one simple 35mm film camera in their bag. Or try shooting a roll in a day.

The thing is, it wasn't snarky *at all*; that was entirely in your mind.

My original post was clear - digital photography is so simple compared to film photography (the time and effort and expense of developing and printing), and hence it is a (gasp!) niche thing these days. Simples.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 14:27 UTC
On article Fotodiox Pro launches five GFX lens adapters (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

ogl: I don't understand...FF lenses at 44*33 mm sensor - for what?

The article said that "...many full-frame lenses longer than 50mm will cover the GFX's sensor, but anything wider will produce vignetting"

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 12:10 UTC

Nvm

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 04:16 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

DanielFjall: Everyone should at least have one simple 35mm film camera in their bag. Or try shooting a roll in a day.

Why are people misinterpreting ther word "niche"?

If you prefer film, more power to you. If you think it has more substance and depth, that's great. I'm not disparaging film by making a simple observation about its penetration in the market. Relaaaaaaaaaaax :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 04:11 UTC
In reply to:

DanielFjall: Everyone should at least have one simple 35mm film camera in their bag. Or try shooting a roll in a day.

As an aside, how did you even come up with that inaccurate and poor analogy? Apart from the fact that I don't have an iPhone, or use Instagram, or listen to Top 40 music, or "snap-shoot", and my musical tastes are beyond awesome, what makes you think you know anything at all about me? It makes you look very silly. I've seen your other posts here, and as I recall they're generally sensible; why does my perceived attack on film (which it wasn't) upset you so much?

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 01:11 UTC
In reply to:

DanielFjall: Everyone should at least have one simple 35mm film camera in their bag. Or try shooting a roll in a day.

Haha, you have an interesting (read: false) perception of the word "rant"! If you knew how I was using the word (i.e. accurately and dispassionately), why would you even comment on it? For some reason it upset you; fine, people misinterpret stuff on the internet every day. But it's a shame you then felt the need to resort to a wildly-inaccurate ad-hominem attack; it makes your post valueless.

It's cute/amusing that you think shooting with film gives someone more sophisticated tastes! Have you informed the majority of excellent professional photographers who now use digital?

I guess this will be over your head, and it shouldn't be necessary, but I'll say it anyway. There's obviously nothing "wrong" with using film instead of digital, it's just a different choice with its own pros and cons. It's just a choice that very few people make these days, because of the cost, the inconvenience, the ability to emulate film pretty well using digital, etc. But you know all that.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 01:09 UTC
In reply to:

DanielFjall: Everyone should at least have one simple 35mm film camera in their bag. Or try shooting a roll in a day.

Wrong, marike.

I say "niche" as the word is intended, i.e. very few people want to use film compared to those who prefer digital. It's not meant as a slight, just an observation. You seem to have a very thin skin.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 14:52 UTC
In reply to:

DanielFjall: Everyone should at least have one simple 35mm film camera in their bag. Or try shooting a roll in a day.

Like I said, niche requirements.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 04:25 UTC
In reply to:

DanielFjall: Everyone should at least have one simple 35mm film camera in their bag. Or try shooting a roll in a day.

I think most of us have done that. What a pain in the a-r-s-e those things were (are)! I understand niche requirements, but for most of us, thank <deity> for digital.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 01:02 UTC
On article iPhone 8 front camera rumored to capture 3D images (76 comments in total)

Are these IR depth-sensing things effective at longer ranges? I'm thinking of the use of depth information to create better "fake DOF" effects with these small sensors/lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 00:59 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
On article Fotodiox Pro launches five GFX lens adapters (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

ogl: I don't understand...FF lenses at 44*33 mm sensor - for what?

To take pictures.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 08:06 UTC
On article Yongnuo YN 85mm F1.8 lens now available (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

rz350: Is DPR going to test this? Does Rishi have a copy yet? More importantly will this lens work with a metabones adapter providing a low cost alternative for Sony E mount users that they can actually afford to mount on their A7R2's?

Eric, are you trolling or are you trolling?

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 06:47 UTC
On article Extremely dramatic video touts Canon's CMOS technology (193 comments in total)
In reply to:

BadScience: who writes this nonsense?

"And it's true that Canon cameras can create usable footage in literal darkness"

does the author know what "literal" and "darkness" mean?

There seems to be a (grating) vogue for using the word literal to mean literally the opposite of literal.

At the end of the article, "literal darkness", which has an exact meaning (i.e. "NO LIGHT") is replaced with "extreme low light" which means nothing.

Come on, this is a tech forum, be precise, use some proper measures like flux or photons per metre.

The standard of writing on this web site is shocking; it reminds me of the NME back in the day. Young journalists doing their time waiting to get a better job, or old hacks that can't get a better job.

Fair enough.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 14:00 UTC
On article Extremely dramatic video touts Canon's CMOS technology (193 comments in total)
In reply to:

BadScience: who writes this nonsense?

"And it's true that Canon cameras can create usable footage in literal darkness"

does the author know what "literal" and "darkness" mean?

There seems to be a (grating) vogue for using the word literal to mean literally the opposite of literal.

At the end of the article, "literal darkness", which has an exact meaning (i.e. "NO LIGHT") is replaced with "extreme low light" which means nothing.

Come on, this is a tech forum, be precise, use some proper measures like flux or photons per metre.

The standard of writing on this web site is shocking; it reminds me of the NME back in the day. Young journalists doing their time waiting to get a better job, or old hacks that can't get a better job.

I guess you didn't watch the video. They said that it was captured "in a setting so dark, that nothing could be seen with the naked eye".

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 13:33 UTC
On article Canon debuts EOS M6 mirrorless with optional EVF (646 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedolf: Does this pricing make any sense?

Tedolph

Huh? He's just making stuff up, like "Canon makes sure they will first and foremost show them their products, and sell them under any circumstance". It's simply untrue.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 13:28 UTC
On article Canon debuts EOS M6 mirrorless with optional EVF (646 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedolf: Does this pricing make any sense?

Tedolph

Triplet, you really have a bee in your bonnet about this completely-imagined forcing of people to buy Canon gear.

You must be fun at parties.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 04:06 UTC
On article Canon debuts EOS M6 mirrorless with optional EVF (646 comments in total)
In reply to:

basis unus: Ordered! It's smaller than the PowerShot G1X II!

Image quality is so good on most cameras, for most people's purposes, that it no longer really matters. Of course if you're doing huge prints for fine art exhibitions it's a different matter, but for 95%* of people, it's more than good enough in most situations.

* this number is based on exhaustive surveys :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 04:04 UTC
On article Canon debuts EOS M6 mirrorless with optional EVF (646 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Canon — Specialising in delivering tech others have developed and marketed 5 years ago. That alone tells how this sorrowful industry works and what users buy in droves. A herd mentality, which Canon masters quite well.

Triplet Perar, I don't know what photo store you go to, but that has never been my experience.

It's bizarre that you seem to think that we have no choice. It's even more bizarre that you think the market should be split evenly. Firstly, of course we have choice, and that is *exactly* why the market isn't split six ways; people are choosing more of one camera than another, because it's "better" for their particular set of requirements.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 04:01 UTC
In reply to:

RPJG: Dumb question maybe, but:

"A 'macro' switch enables the lens to be focused down to 0.57 meters"

Does that mean 0.57m from focal plane, or from the front lens element?

Ah yes, thanks both.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 14:01 UTC

Strange. Why wouldn't they make the level of down-conversion selectable, e.g. 1080p/xx or 720p/xx (or even no conversion, if desired)?

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 08:26 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies
Total: 608, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »