samfan

samfan

Joined on Sep 20, 2012

Comments

Total: 279, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

samfan: Just my personal opinion: I don't see the point. If you like photography, you most likely want to use other lenses than just 28mm.

Okay there's the advantage of being able to post photos instantly, but where do you need to post pics instandly? Facebook, Twitter, Instagram? Why do you need any kind of quality for that? When I look at reviews of this phone on typical phone/gadget sites, they just post small snaps of the typical stuff: food, blown out sun shots and details unsuitable for a 28mm lens.

And the price: it costs one grand. You can buy a RX100III and a comparable phone for that or less. The RX100 will definitely last longer, while phones get switched every year or two.

So the only use for such a device is a backup camera for cases where you don't have the regular camera... But with 2 cm thickness and 200 grams in this phone, it's definitely not 'going light'.

I still doubt there's a very big intersections between:
1) people who care about image quality
2) people who want to carry a huge, heavy, super expensive phone
3) people who're fine with a fixed 28mm lens, crap battery life and phone-like controls.

I just can't see much appeal. If it was smaller and lighter, sure it would make sense. As it is, nah.

As for the replacements, I'm not talking about myself here, I still use a couple of phones for 2006 (I like small phones, plus smartphones were much better back then). But I see people replacing ip5 with ip6 everywhere.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 13:21 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: Just my personal opinion: I don't see the point. If you like photography, you most likely want to use other lenses than just 28mm.

Okay there's the advantage of being able to post photos instantly, but where do you need to post pics instandly? Facebook, Twitter, Instagram? Why do you need any kind of quality for that? When I look at reviews of this phone on typical phone/gadget sites, they just post small snaps of the typical stuff: food, blown out sun shots and details unsuitable for a 28mm lens.

And the price: it costs one grand. You can buy a RX100III and a comparable phone for that or less. The RX100 will definitely last longer, while phones get switched every year or two.

So the only use for such a device is a backup camera for cases where you don't have the regular camera... But with 2 cm thickness and 200 grams in this phone, it's definitely not 'going light'.

What is the disadvantage of 2 devices when together they are cheaper, have as much size and weight, no compromises and much more practical battery life than the one composite device?

We're not talking about a small phone with a great camera, this thing is a brick.

Who really cares about RAW in a phone? People who post 512*512 instagrams?

No, nothing wrong with 2-year old phones, but go beyond that and for most people it's completely obsolete. And good luck getting any resale value.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 02:37 UTC

Just my personal opinion: I don't see the point. If you like photography, you most likely want to use other lenses than just 28mm.

Okay there's the advantage of being able to post photos instantly, but where do you need to post pics instandly? Facebook, Twitter, Instagram? Why do you need any kind of quality for that? When I look at reviews of this phone on typical phone/gadget sites, they just post small snaps of the typical stuff: food, blown out sun shots and details unsuitable for a 28mm lens.

And the price: it costs one grand. You can buy a RX100III and a comparable phone for that or less. The RX100 will definitely last longer, while phones get switched every year or two.

So the only use for such a device is a backup camera for cases where you don't have the regular camera... But with 2 cm thickness and 200 grams in this phone, it's definitely not 'going light'.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2015 at 14:03 UTC as 10th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Lassoni: crowdfunding projects generally tend to either fail or are extremely slow to deliver. I've noticed this with some of games taking "ages" to come into fruition.

Taking broken ages to deliver, right?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 23:11 UTC

Happens. People need to realize that funding a KS project is not placing an order, it is making an investment which may pay off really well or collapse.

I can't really blame them. If they've spent the funds developing the thing, they obviously can't make full refunds because new money doesn't grow on trees (unless you're a bank). If it did, there would be no need for KS in the first place.

So they could go bankrupt trying to deliver the product, or go bankrupt trying to refund, or not go bankrupt and annoy some people who should've known what they are getting into.

Then again, there was probably some mismanagement in place and I do wonder how come they couldn't get a real investor involved considering they already have a working company. Something may not be as well as it seems, but we'll never know.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 23:09 UTC as 37th comment

Now that's what I call a c*ckblocker.

1) FF rangefinder? Hell yes!
2) Click to open the article
3) WTF is this crap?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 15:06 UTC as 53rd comment
On Opinion: Canon EOS 750D and 760D article (316 comments in total)

Nikon has been doing this for years with the D3x00/D5x00 series. Usually same sensor, only some extra bits and pieces for much more money. I think what Canon does here is more sensible (e.g. the top LCD, which is still not on D5x00), however in typical Canon fashion they also felt the need to remove features from the lower model to differentiate.

Either way, what Sony does with 12/24/36 MP cameras makes much more sense I think. Ideally the customer could chose from say 6 to 9 cameras from one maker: low-end/enthusiast/pro, each one in hi-sensitivity/hi-speed/hi-res variants.

Shuffing pixels down everyone throats like Nikon and Canon are doing with every 'upgrade' is irritating to say at least. I still don't need more than 10 MP; I don't even WANT more than 16 MP, not before I can have a 40" or something 8k display to edit on, with CPU power and drive space to match.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 18, 2015 at 06:30 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

samfan: 600mm is certainly very practical without a built-in EVF.

But you know what bugs me most about these supposedly high-end compact cameras? An on/off BUTTON. Press, hold = delay.

I don't know why they don't use instantaneous mechanical on/off switches like on DSLRs and (these days, fortunately) MILCs. Anything that makes you wait in a camera is imperfect design, not to mention access in gloves etc. Besides everyone is going crazy with mechanical elements anyway.

Kawika some bridge cameras that try to look like DSLRs have mech on/off switches, but generally compact cameras don't. And yes sure there's usually some delay either way, but holding the button takes extra time and also you can only use it while you're holding the camera in certain ways, while mech. switches can be flipped while you're raising the camera to your eye.

morepix - HCB was the only person in the history ever who had the right to have a fast and responsive camera?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 15:47 UTC

600mm is certainly very practical without a built-in EVF.

But you know what bugs me most about these supposedly high-end compact cameras? An on/off BUTTON. Press, hold = delay.

I don't know why they don't use instantaneous mechanical on/off switches like on DSLRs and (these days, fortunately) MILCs. Anything that makes you wait in a camera is imperfect design, not to mention access in gloves etc. Besides everyone is going crazy with mechanical elements anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 21:35 UTC as 29th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Julienrl: To answer author's question, yes raw is supported (in the API documentation).

Extra specs:
ISO 200-12800 + a 100 (illuminated) mode

Also seems to be 8fps limit in the API, not 10.

If anyone can help me find the answers to the following questions:
1- will it have in body imiage stabilization?
2- can it work without a phone? (would be nice to be able to pull it out, turn it on and take a picture near instantly using the last input settings or a default to auto for quick unexpected snaps)

"can it work without a phone?"

I'm sure it can. How else would you do selfies?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 19:00 UTC
In reply to:

AD in KC: OK I really don't get this. It's a camera that sticks to your phone? So your phone is what then, the viewing screen and controls?

It's something which sucks the battery and acts as the most clumsy camera control imaginable.

Good for the teens I guess.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 18:59 UTC
On Olympus 8mm F1.8 'pro' fisheye in development article (29 comments in total)

Love the thumbnail on the homepage.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 18:57 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On Canon 7D mirror box filmed at 10,000fps article (175 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: Even the DSLR haters have to respect such precise mechanics, especially if it works flawlessly after such abuse as this guy puts it through. I really like DSLRs.

Well practicality is relative. For example something based on mechanics requires less or no electricity. Hence you can look through the DSLR viewfinder waiting for the shot without having to worry about battery life. Not so with EVF. And the look and feel of OVF vs EVF is a personal choice too.

And don't forget that digital cameras still need to rely on mechanics - a lens and mounts cannot be just cobbled together. Apertures and their control, image stabilization systems and most shutters are mechanical too.

But regardless I was talking about respect to such mechanics, not practicality.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 18:54 UTC
On Canon 7D mirror box filmed at 10,000fps article (175 comments in total)

Even the DSLR haters have to respect such precise mechanics, especially if it works flawlessly after such abuse as this guy puts it through. I really like DSLRs.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2015 at 17:35 UTC as 3rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Sdaniella: I'm with Nike
Why? Simple.
JR's shot of Jordan was just one shot of a classic Jordan B-jump amongst any number of shots EASILY taken by JR's contemporaries BEFORE or AFTER JR's shot.
For all we know, that same OFT REPEATED Jordan jump was taken inumerably mind-numbing times by every photographer shooting Jordan before and after JR's specific shot.
That JUMP is NOT UNIQUE to JR's shot, but rather a distinction EXCLUSIVE to the MAN, Michael Jordan, and taken untold number of times by any others, BEFORE and AFTER, JR's ONE shot.
Frankly, JR, like any of his contemporaries, have umpteen more of the EXACT same easily REPEATABLE Jordan jump (by none other, than Jordan, of course) taken BEFORE/AFTER that one shot.
Plus, if Jordan ever were visited by his fans, likely seen, and captured that very same Jordan jump that varies little one from another.
Even any logo artist could redo an idealized concept logo drawn from umpteen similar Jordan jump shots by ANY sports photographer familiar with MJ

I don't know squat about basketball but if it's true that the photog directed the player to jump in a particular way, and that way is not completely common, then there's enough creativity involved.

Just as importantly, the image was quite obviously recreated by Nike on purpose. "See this photo, mr. photog #2? Do the same thing."

I dunno I don't like copyright claims much because anybody can claim similarity with anything but this looks like an obvious copycat.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 06:06 UTC

Seems like a solid case. Photographer creates an image (not just pushes the button, but directs the action).

Nike likes the image, licenses it, then makes pretty much the same photo with the same player. I don't think the intend was to rip off the photog, they probably wanted to enhance the image for the logo. But still, it's "we want the same just a tad better".

Question is, why wait 30 years, with Nike of all things. Was the photog in a coma? Unless he couldn't afford to pay the copyright or court fees (which may be prohibitive, admittedly), he had no reason to 3 decades. Business probably isn't going well.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 06:01 UTC as 48th comment | 1 reply
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF7 flips for selfies article (387 comments in total)

This selfie craze still isn't over? Geez.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 07:13 UTC as 112th comment | 7 replies
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (208 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: In the past few years, both Google and Microsft introduced their replacement formats and both failed miserably.

It's weird. Is there any other file format as old as JPG still so widely used? Besides plain text I mean.

JPEG became standard in 1992. Same year as Intel Indeo came into existence as a video format. Remember Intel Indeo? We've probably had 20+ major video formats between then and now. That's how old JPEG is in computer terms.

Well, considering that even GIF is still a thing, I hope for an image format that can replace JPEG, GIF and PNG all at once. Heck ideally it could have some compressed RAW capability, maybe that would give it traction at least in cameras.

True, mp3 as a format has existed for a long time, but the actual compression algorithms have evolved significantly. The old mp3 algorithms are a far cry from what is achievable today. As far as I know, JPEG algorithms haven't changed much in all that time.

Furthermore, mp3 isn't actually as ubiquitous. Apple's AAC at some point rivaled mp3, OGG has a lot of momentum where compression is needed and FLAC/ALAC is pretty popular too.

If you have any decent video player on your PC, I can send you a OGG, FLAC or whatever and you'll be able to play it. If I send you a photo in LWF, probably not.

Now that I think about it, ZIP still exists as a go-to solution for compressing stuff though also not by far as ubiquitous as JPEG.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 18:15 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (208 comments in total)

In the past few years, both Google and Microsft introduced their replacement formats and both failed miserably.

It's weird. Is there any other file format as old as JPG still so widely used? Besides plain text I mean.

JPEG became standard in 1992. Same year as Intel Indeo came into existence as a video format. Remember Intel Indeo? We've probably had 20+ major video formats between then and now. That's how old JPEG is in computer terms.

Well, considering that even GIF is still a thing, I hope for an image format that can replace JPEG, GIF and PNG all at once. Heck ideally it could have some compressed RAW capability, maybe that would give it traction at least in cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 08:43 UTC as 34th comment | 3 replies

You know what, I think this particular camera looks good in silver with the grip. For a reasonable price, I'd dig it.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 15:57 UTC as 30th comment
Total: 279, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »