Chuck Fralick

Chuck Fralick

Lives in United States Ashburn, VA, United States
Works as a Ocean Engineer/Manager
Joined on Aug 16, 2003
About me:

Retired Navy officer, bubblehead (submariner)


Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9
In reply to:

Franz Weber: Why does nobody make a 12-50mm 2.8-4.0 lens?

Well there is the Oly 12-40mm 2.8 and mine is superb. I'd like a tad more length on the long end, but sure like the constant aperture.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 18:26 UTC
On P1010273 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

rick decker: Most of the mountain shots have halos or other digital artifacts from over-sharpening. This does not look like a very good camera for landscapes.

Take a look at the mountain shot with the D750 in its sample gallery. In addition to what you guys are calling "gritty sky noise" there's also an oil or dust spot on the image. I'm not trying to stir anything up, rather I think it's silly that you guys are so quick to jump on a camera without even seeing the real test results. I have yet to see a camera that produces completely flawless images - except maybe that new Pentax medium format job that I can't afford. These images are so much better than film ever thought about being. Ease up.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 23:30 UTC
In reply to:

G3User: Number 14 is a Photoshop fail! How can water just bend like that when coming out of the bucket? Another example of the how the judges have no idea what they are doing. Oh, that's right, this is Sony, I should have known. The death of true photography continues.

The water isn't bending (water doesn't "bend"). There is nothing unusual about that picture other than its comic value. Water is composed of water molecules, and in liquid form each molecule acts independently with some interaction due to surface tension, etc. Each undergoes accelerations and has its own trajectory. I have seen much more odd looking plumes than that (I'm an ocean engineer and see weird stuff all the time related to water).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2014 at 13:45 UTC

I agree with kev777zero. Gosh the forum has gotten so techno-babble cynical about everything. This camera has the potential (emphasis on potential) to have DSLR IQ in a small, light package with an f2 pancake lens. So if you're stepping up from a P&S and don't want the bloated hardware a DSLR entails, this looks appealing. Throw in that it's compatible with some very good EOS lenses and it has potential. I'm not a mirrorless guy (like OVFs) but if I was in the market for one I'd certainly consider this. I'll bet it sells well contrary to all the marketing genius opinions. If it's IQ is good and there are no weird, dysfunctional issues, what's not to like?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 10:56 UTC as 287th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

wkay: whoopee, mediocre IQ, poor contrast, hi CA, and soft corners.


Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2012 at 19:48 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon D3200 preview samples gallery article (499 comments in total)

I don't like plasticky, cheap cameras. That said, and contrary to what photo nuts posted, I think the high iso quality is exceptional for a camera at this price. If you're a photographer younger than 30 years old, you can't possibly understand how much better even the lowliest DSLR today is compared to the best 35mm cameras of only 10 years or so ago. I remember arguments back then about how long it would take digital to equal film. That was rubbish. As soon as the D2X, 1DS and later models came out it was game over. Add to that the HUGE advantages in modern digital workflow over film and it's ludicrous that we (me included) are so critical of some digital models today. I mean come on, ISO 12,800!! I remember when ASA 800 film didn't look that good. I wouldn't trade any film camera today (and I still own an F4, FM2 and Leica M6) for even my Canon G12. We're so lucky and so spoiled. I can't wait to see what comes out in another 10 years (if I'm not broke from buying new toys).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2012 at 00:47 UTC as 145th comment | 4 replies
On Preview:canong1x (1032 comments in total)

OK, folks. I'm at a loss here. I've always been able to see pics on DPR before. I have now tried 3 browsers on the Mac side, IE8 on Windows and no joy. I've got the pop up blocker turned off, and security settings at minimum. Any ideas? I can see everything else but the comparison pics.

Posted on Feb 16, 2012 at 12:22 UTC as 79th comment
On Preview:canong1x (1032 comments in total)

Carlos, I have tried Safari, Chrome and Camino on my Mac and can't see the pics. It's not you.


Posted on Feb 16, 2012 at 12:08 UTC as 81st comment
On Preview:canons100 (323 comments in total)
In reply to:

ag93: Can someone help me decide between the G12 and the S100

If you like pocketable, it's the S100. G12 makes no pretense towards being a pocket camera. I have the S95 and just sold my G12. I loved the quasi-retro aspect of the G2, but image-wise they were just so close there was not discernible difference. If the S100 is as Canon claims (less noise, higher dynamic range) you can't go wrong with it. I kept the S95 simply because I could put it in my pocket. One note though. If you have large hands, the G series is much more comfortable to use. I have average hands so neither was a problem.

Posted on Oct 3, 2011 at 12:33 UTC
Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9