nick101

nick101

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Feb 20, 2010

Comments

Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: The article is only about focus. The writer just continuously harps on the fact that the AF doesn’t work in the manner that he is accustomed to. I understand that Sony has an uphill battle converting Canikon users. However, there are so many other aspects that are important for sports shooting than just AF capabilities.

For example the low light capabilities are critical in this type of scenario especially when the photographer tended to use ISO 12,800 as often as possible. Those ISO 12K shots actually looked decent but I can’t help wondering why he didn’t use ISO 1600 and 1/250 instead? Some of the high ISO images were stationary portrait type shots.

Overall I get the impression that the writer of this article went into it thinking that the Sony couldn’t AF like he was accustomed to and he set out to prove that point no matter what it took. He proved his point but it really left me wondering whether he truly explored all of this camera’s capabilities for shooting action sports.

So a pro sports photographer assesses it for pro sports shooting and you tell him he's done it wrong? The guy gets paid on results, not to be a guinea pig for the wonderful new world of mirrorless FF

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2015 at 14:25 UTC
In reply to:

NZ Scott: Cool photo!

Given that Dpreview is primarily a gear site, it seems odd that this story does not mention the photographer's camera gear. Personally, I would like to have known what he was using.

I suspect that the photographer used a non-Sony camera/lens combination, and Dpreview has deliberately kept the brand out of the story to pander to Sony's wishes.

This is not good journalism.

It's so characteristic of DPReview that an item about a great, award-winning image should immediately become a gear debate

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2015 at 10:26 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1594 comments in total)
In reply to:

nick101: I'm struck by the issue of the number of features vs the user interface for managing them. I wish some manufacturers (Sony aren't alone) would recognise that adding to the list of features and options doesn't add value unless we can use them effectively.

It's a shame that such a capable device is sucj a challenge to handle

I agree that firmware, and a menu structure review, could fix this. But I'm not optimisitc - judging by the fact that this has been a problem through many model iterations, and with sveral manufacturers, I just don't think that it's consider a priority.

I hope I'm wrong.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 14:43 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1594 comments in total)

I'm struck by the issue of the number of features vs the user interface for managing them. I wish some manufacturers (Sony aren't alone) would recognise that adding to the list of features and options doesn't add value unless we can use them effectively.

It's a shame that such a capable device is sucj a challenge to handle

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 10:44 UTC as 103rd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

nick101: Ok to take pics for private use? Fine.

Need a licence for commercial use? Fine (-ish)

The issue to me is whether posting to social media is commercial or not. If I post one of my snaps of a London river trip to Facebook, as I am likely to do), am I OK?

I can't accept the idea that it'll be forbidden but not enforced as any kind of protection - that's just ludicrous (who passes laws starting with the notion that they won't enforce them?)

We need clarity and that should come from those proposing this - they're making the change, so they're responsible for explains the effects

Sorry if my point 2 wasn't clear. It was that even the proponents of the legislation don't seem to be clear about its effects. One says you'll need a licence forscoial media posts; another says you won't; a third says that you will but it won't be enforced.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 10:08 UTC
In reply to:

nick101: Ok to take pics for private use? Fine.

Need a licence for commercial use? Fine (-ish)

The issue to me is whether posting to social media is commercial or not. If I post one of my snaps of a London river trip to Facebook, as I am likely to do), am I OK?

I can't accept the idea that it'll be forbidden but not enforced as any kind of protection - that's just ludicrous (who passes laws starting with the notion that they won't enforce them?)

We need clarity and that should come from those proposing this - they're making the change, so they're responsible for explains the effects

@nixda
Your response is typical of the kind of confusion I'm commenting on.

1. Giving Facebook "rights to commercially exploit" is *not* equivalent to "you lose all rights to ...". Posting a picture to Facebook does *not* prevent me from exploiting the image myself.

2. *An* interpretation of the proposed legislation is that, *because* Facebook may choose to use my image for some commercial purpose, I need a licence to post it to Facebook. But what is the *actual* situation.

3. You say the proposed legislation "may restrict you to upload..." - I'm entitlled to *know* whether what I'm about to do is permitted or not permitted. Unless, of course, we're happy to revert to those days in which "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden"

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 10:44 UTC

Ok to take pics for private use? Fine.

Need a licence for commercial use? Fine (-ish)

The issue to me is whether posting to social media is commercial or not. If I post one of my snaps of a London river trip to Facebook, as I am likely to do), am I OK?

I can't accept the idea that it'll be forbidden but not enforced as any kind of protection - that's just ludicrous (who passes laws starting with the notion that they won't enforce them?)

We need clarity and that should come from those proposing this - they're making the change, so they're responsible for explains the effects

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 18:32 UTC as 62nd comment | 6 replies
On article A travel-sized large-format 4x5 camera? (219 comments in total)

Great idea - yes please

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2014 at 18:22 UTC as 92nd comment
On article Chicago-based Calumet Photographic closes U.S. stores (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

gskolenda: Well, I don't miss them, and it's very poor mgmt. that brought them to bankruptcy! No Vision! They should have built a website that was very much like B & H Photo. Run with a business model that is working. Had the CEO done his home work he could have put together a business plan that could have been sold for a strong credit line. Close all the other stores and have One huge showcase/Distribution store in Chicago. with good hard working employees with an incentive plan. I think they they could have had a chance. There loss not our's!

I'm sure all the people who've lost their jobs will feel heart warmed by your sympathy.

If only they'd had you in charge

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2014 at 19:35 UTC
On article Chicago-based Calumet Photographic closes U.S. stores (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

offertonhatter: I spoke to one of the people at a UK branch today. They are unaffected by this. I don't know how this works if your parent company in the US goes under yet the UK arm is unaffected, surely it would be considered an asset. I guess some legal bod in business law would know how this works.

I am glad though, as the UK stores are very good, and I always go there for studio equipment as there is not many other places around.

UK/Europe isn't a subsidiary, apparently, but separate.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2014 at 19:32 UTC
On article Iconic photographer Don McCullin on war and landscapes (74 comments in total)
In reply to:

greypixelz: sad he had to reach this age in order to understand that suffering and horror is not 'photojournalism' or 'the public's right to be informed'.
there is such a thing as human dignity and dying is part of it. photographing death or any kind of suffering for public display is undignified and disqualifies the photographer as a human being.
man should be immortalized on the highest peaks, not the deepest of valleys. this whole culture of decay and death is satanic in nature and goes against what man really is. the spirit of humanity is about rising from the abyss, not falling in it.
God bless you all!

"disqualifies the photographer as a human being"?

Disgusting notion, contemptible statement

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2014 at 08:54 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7 Review (1593 comments in total)
In reply to:

SalmanH: Guys, this is a CAMERA review, no need to take it so personally. If you like the camera, buy it. Why get so upset about what other people think? Once again, this is a camera DPR have reviewed, not your child.

This is DPR, where criticising my camera is at least as bad as murdering my choldren

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 UTC

There are persistent claims that the picture is some kind of fake (it wast staged, or the soldier was simply falling over - not shot). I don't know where the "expert" opinion is these days.

Anyone have any yo-to-date information (not random speculation please)?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 08:32 UTC as 60th comment | 1 reply
Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13