Marty4650

Marty4650

Lives in United States NC, United States
Works as a Retired Industrial Engineer
Joined on May 20, 2005

Comments

Total: 1098, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Otherworldly? Lomography introduces Jupiter 3+ lens (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

ybizzle: Who in their right mind would pay such ridiculous price when you can just buy the original for much less? Better yet, just get the much superior Canon LTM 1.4 which blows this thing away at half the cost. Must be an early April fools joke. ;)

In Russia.... camera shoots you!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 15:33 UTC
On Connect post Panasonic to launch Lumix DMC-CM10 without phone functionality (132 comments in total)

Surely this is some sort of joke! A cell phone without any phone capability!

And it is the exact same device as their CM-1, but it won't include a phone. But it will still cost $850, thus proving that "less is more" or at least "costs more."

Didn't Samsung already do this with their Galaxy NX camera?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2016 at 16:33 UTC as 21st comment
On article GoPro's poor holiday sales lead to staff layoff (124 comments in total)

Anyone remember "Flip Video?"

These were small, cheap, dedicated video devices that seemed to be growing by leaps and bounds between 2006 and 2011 until smartphones drove them out of business.

It was a fad that grew fast, then flamed out fast. The same thing could happen to GoPro, as they get squeezed by much cheaper clones.

When you can buy a tiny weather sealed HD action camera for $100, then who will pay $400 for a slightly better one?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2016 at 15:47 UTC as 26th comment | 4 replies
On article GoPro's poor holiday sales lead to staff layoff (124 comments in total)

I think GoPro's biggest problem is competition from very similar cameras selling for much less.

As always... the marketplace will sort this out.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 23:10 UTC as 47th comment
In reply to:

Marty4650: I guess DPR pushes equivalence because they assume that all their readers are idiots who don't realize that they are using crop sensor cameras. And we need constant educating.

Either that, or they just want to keep the equivalence cult happy.

This is 2016 now.

Digital sensors smaller than a 135mm film frame have been around for almost two decades now. And they dominate the market by a large proportion. It is time to let go of the full frame obsession and embrace the present.

We really do get it. We understand that an APSC sensor is smaller than a FF sensor. It is high time to give the site members some credit for knowing the difference.

I doubt newcomers are shopping for $1800 lenses. And anyone even remotely interested in this lens already knows it isn't designed for a full frame sensor.

In fact, constantly expressing every focal length and aperture in "equivalence terms" might confuse a lot of newcomers more than it helps them.

Full frame isn't the most commonly used format and it isn't the best image quality either. The only reason it is used extensively as a "standard" was because it was very popular in 1975. Long before most newcomers were born.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 15:21 UTC

I guess DPR pushes equivalence because they assume that all their readers are idiots who don't realize that they are using crop sensor cameras. And we need constant educating.

Either that, or they just want to keep the equivalence cult happy.

This is 2016 now.

Digital sensors smaller than a 135mm film frame have been around for almost two decades now. And they dominate the market by a large proportion. It is time to let go of the full frame obsession and embrace the present.

We really do get it. We understand that an APSC sensor is smaller than a FF sensor. It is high time to give the site members some credit for knowing the difference.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 14:46 UTC as 19th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Marty4650: And now... the elephant in the room.

$75 for 2.5 minutes of low fidelity video. Making it into "high priced motion lomography."

Is this a serious tool, or just another toy for hipsters?

Stu.... what a great deal! 2 1/2 minutes of video for only $75! And that INCLUDES the processing!

Look, if you want this toy, then go buy it. You just can't defend this as a great product.

But don't take my word for it. Wait a year, and see how many of them end up a yard sales and on Craigslist. The market will sort this one out.

It's an interesting curiosity for people obsessed with 1971 technology. But I think that Kodak has blundered again. Even with new ownership, they refuse to accept the present or embrace the future.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 01:44 UTC
In reply to:

Just Ed: Well film IS what KODAK does well, so why not try to relive their past success? Just the fact that it reminds many of the successful years will make this a talked about product in many news outlets, thus reviving the KODAK brand. The fact that there probably aren't any 8mm projectors around will mean it is a total failure. Nothing changes if nothing changes!

Jmo

I think Kodak is trying to relive their past failures.

Super 8 really sucked in 1966. Fifty years later... it still sucks.

There were good reasons the format disappeared long before digital came to the scene.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 19:12 UTC

Google only got this patented to prevent Kodak from doing it.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 16:28 UTC as 14th comment

And now... the elephant in the room.

$75 for 2.5 minutes of low fidelity video. Making it into "high priced motion lomography."

Is this a serious tool, or just another toy for hipsters?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 16:25 UTC as 40th comment | 10 replies
On article Hands-on with the Nikon D5 (401 comments in total)
In reply to:

steelhead3: Where are Allison's hands when you need them? I hope DP changes practice and gives these pro cameras a review. I really want to see the phase1 put through the paces.

Shouldn't the article be titled "Two Hands-On With The Nikon D5?"

You really need two hands to hold this magnificent beast.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 00:37 UTC
On article Vote now for Best Product of 2015! (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: Lets put this into context.

The gear heads voted and decided that Sony is the most innovative and interesting camera maker. And they deserve this honor because they boldly keep pushing the envelope.

Unfortunately, this has absolutely nothing to do with sales, profitability or market share.

But the customers have also voted (with their dollars at Walmart and Target), and this year's camera of the year honors go once again to the Canon Digital Rebel and the Apple iPhone.

Brendon.... you just described the difference between "mass market" and "niche market."

Every camera better than a cell phone belongs in a niche. None of them are mass market any more. The Rebels you see at Walmart and Target come closest to being mass market items, but just barely.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 18:41 UTC
On article Top 5: Hands-on with Nikon D500 (784 comments in total)

I bet this camera will give the Canon 7D Mark III design team something to worry about....

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 17:24 UTC as 159th comment | 5 replies

Thus is like "Uber, for camera rentals."

Someone saw an opportunity to monetize all of that infrequently used camera gear. Theoretically, the renter pays less, the rentee gets a better deal, and the broker makes a profit. Everyone wins!

But there is a downside too. When you deal with an established lens rental business, they will inspect and calibrate their goods. They usually offer insurance. They will do a better job. And you will pay more for it.

I suppose it just depends on how much risk the renter and rentee are willing to take on themselves.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 16:52 UTC as 7th comment
On article Vote now for Best Product of 2015! (130 comments in total)

Lets put this into context.

The gear heads voted and decided that Sony is the most innovative and interesting camera maker. And they deserve this honor because they boldly keep pushing the envelope.

Unfortunately, this has absolutely nothing to do with sales, profitability or market share.

But the customers have also voted (with their dollars at Walmart and Target), and this year's camera of the year honors go once again to the Canon Digital Rebel and the Apple iPhone.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 16:44 UTC as 7th comment | 5 replies
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

landscaper1: No, Dzacco, it isn't just you.

Why would any semi-intelligent person think that tens of millions of consumers, having been exposed for a decade or longer to the convenience of "digital film" would now be convinced to want to return to celluloid to make their family movies?

This smells like a desperate attempt at Kodak to revive a section of their business (making consumer-grade celluloid image recording materials) that technology has clearly left in the dust.

If I were a Kodak stockholder, I'd be howling for someone's hide to be nailed to the big yellow barnyard wall.

Do you honestly think Super 8 is "aimed at film makers?"

Do you believe that high end films will ever be shot with this low end video system?

This is squarely aimed at hipsters. People who are nostalgic for a things that came and went long before they were born. You can't call it nostalgia, because they never experienced it before.

Merely emulating the film emulsion look isn't good enough for them. They want it all, complete with the high costs and the long wait for processing. They want the whole experience.

You just won't see anyone who actually used Super 8 film back in the 1960s buying one of these gadgets.

This is strictly a toy for hipsters. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing. We also have our own high tech toys. They are entitled to have low tech toys if they want them.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 16:35 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)

Next.... the Kodak 110 Instamatic makes a comeback!

12 shots for $75... with free processing thrown in!

It will be nice to bring back "retro blurred photos" with that "nostalgic magenta color cast."

The hipsters will love it!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 10:11 UTC as 112th comment | 7 replies
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)

That last photo looks like a muffler from a Mini Cooper....

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 08:54 UTC as 131st comment | 1 reply
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)

Seriously..... why?

The camera will cost between $400 and $750. The film will cost between $50 and $75 per cartridge (for what, three and a half minutes of video?) and you will still need a projector and a screen! And at a time where every smartphone and camera can take pretty decent video... for free.

This product wins the "Solution Searching For A Problem To Solve" Award for 2016, and we are still in the first week of the year.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 00:54 UTC as 162nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Neodp: These size sensors have had their day. Move on canon. Move on. We have. Even ultra zooms need about m43.

Better a bigger (more sensitive) sensor than EXCESSIVE mega pixies and max "X-factor".

It's just more selling to the uneducated. Bad plan Canon. You can do better and that's a fact.

What we have here people is a resistance to putting well balanced cameras as COSTING LESS. As long as buyesr waste money on these then they will keep making them.

There will never be a 40x superzoom camera with an APSC sized sensor. At least, not one that you can carry around in your backpack.

The manufacturers understand the weaknesses of the format, and this is why they are moving up in sensor size to 1 inch sensors. They will give up some zoom range, in exchange for better image quality.

But there are limits to how big a portable camera can get if you want a large zoom range.

We seem to have gone full circle. We started out calling 12X cameras "superzooms" and then it grew to 40X, 50X, even 80X zoom lenses. But this it is only possible to have such large zoom ranges with very small sensors.

So today we are returning to the 10X and 12X zoom ranges with much larger sensors. If you need more than that, then either crop or buy a camera with a tiny sensor. Either way, the image quality will be severely compromised.

I don't think anyone actually expected a 800mm bridge camera to equal an 800mm prime lens for APSC.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 21:32 UTC
Total: 1098, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »