Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Works as a Art Director
Joined on Dec 27, 2003


Total: 84, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X-T1 First Impressions Review preview (1657 comments in total)

Looks and sounds lovely. There are a lot of these X series cameras though and somehow I get the feeling Fuji isn't quite done yet.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2014 at 23:43 UTC as 267th comment

God I love these comments!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2014 at 09:39 UTC as 24th comment
On Nikon Df Review preview (1617 comments in total)

'Retro tax', So true.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 06:53 UTC as 303rd comment

Expensive paperweight

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2013 at 22:49 UTC as 55th comment

I wonder if this applies to reading forum comments...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2013 at 19:11 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
On Niki Feijen's haunting images of abandoned houses article (219 comments in total)

Nice illustrations.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 10:44 UTC as 113th comment
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (554 comments in total)

Cute video.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2013 at 20:33 UTC as 190th comment

Give me two!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2013 at 22:35 UTC as 94th comment

Who cares what kind of images it produces. Nice looking camera, that's all that matters.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 20:17 UTC as 43rd comment | 4 replies
On 6 things iPhone photographers want from Apple post (66 comments in total)

Battery life, battery life, BATTERY LIFE!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 20:15 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

NickR: $16 a roll?
150 rolls or a $2400 DSLR, which would you rather have?

Plus the initial cost of the film.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2013 at 09:10 UTC
On Adobe releases Photoshop Lightroom 5 article (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Sivcevic: Adobe is screwing Australian customers yet again. LR5 costs $149 on the US site and $186 on Australian site. Same product, same server, same credit card gateway, 25% difference.

They've constantly been screwing us up, most notably with the CS6 that is about twice the price here comparing to the US pricing. It is cheaper to board the plane, fly from Australia to USA, buy a boxed copy in store and fly back.

Greedy corporate morons!

Australians get ripped off because they are prepared to pay more (because wages and salaries are generally higher). It's all about demand, not the cost of shipping the product or exchange rates etc. The proof is when you purchase digital content online where there are no transportation fees yet the Australian price is much higher.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2013 at 17:33 UTC

To me it's simple really. Once you come to terms with the fact that a camera interprets light, rather than accurately representing it perfectly, you'll be liberated from so many restraints.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2013 at 15:01 UTC as 20th comment
On Pro DSLRs, Pro Photographers article (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

vFunct: Far too many moronic non-professional photographers that think they are in the same league as professional photographers.

No, you're not as good as a professional photographer because you are using a consumer dSLR. Any editor can tell who is using high-end equipment and who isn't, in addition to be being able to spot artistic talent suitable for their media brand.

The editor defines who is pro. Not you.

I love reading utterly ridiculous comments like those from vFunct. Told with such conviction! Pretty myopic point of view though. A pro is anyone who makes money from doing what they do, not just your 1DX/D4 owners. Anyone who thinks otherwise obviously hasn't been inspired by what some creatives have been doing lately. Also, gear that is regarded as mid-level/semi-pro/whatever today is more 'professional' in terms of technical capabilities than the professional gear used years ago. What does that say about professionals back then? Maybe they weren't 'pro' all along...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2013 at 20:07 UTC

Guessing the Coolpix A viewfinder costs more to manufacture than one of either the sensor or the lens. Interesting.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 22:50 UTC as 18th comment
On World Press Photo announces 2013 contest winners article (298 comments in total)

Winning shot looks like an oil painting. Not in a good way...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2013 at 11:59 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies
On World Press Photo announces 2013 contest winners article (298 comments in total)
In reply to:

Valiant Thor: Proof that it's not about photographic excellence, it's about the message and the agenda.

Yep. And IMO the success of the shot can mainly be attributed to the drama that is already present in the scene.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2013 at 11:55 UTC
On Canon EOS 6D sample images added to hands-on preview article (262 comments in total)
In reply to:

Apewithacamera: I would buy this camera anyday over the D600! It is that good!


Thanks for your input.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2012 at 21:32 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon EOS M preview samples gallery article (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

Adrian Joseph Roy: Meanwhile, cameras like the OM-D and NEX-7 are sporting blazingly accurate and fast AF, superb high ISO, offering up a host of really attractive prime lenses, and all for somewhat reasonable price tags.

Canon, I've been with you since my first EOS-3 SLR. It's been an awesome ride so far. But you're breaking my f*%#ing heart over here.

They will probably still sell loads of them.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2012 at 17:08 UTC
On Photokina 2012: Interview - Dirk Jasper of Nikon article (220 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tomas_X: Why the D300 owner does not want D7000.
I can hold my D300 whole day in my hands, but 3 hours holding D7000 results in right hand pain. Bad grip and smaller discomfort body.
I know the differences between AF MultiCAM 3500 DX (D300/D3/D4/D800) and 4800 DX (D7000/D600). The AF in D300(s) is bettter than the one in D7000. And the reason is not 51 points versus 39 points.
I want the fastness, reaction, buffer, framerate of D300 successor, not the D7000 effort. I want 8-10 fps of the further D400.
I want 3/5/7/9 steps exposure bracketing, I could not make this photo with D7000: http://www.tomx.eu/Foto/Vylety_Cechy_a_Morava/Vyhlidka_Maj_2011/slides/Vyhlidka_Maj_03.html .
I want D300 strategy of exposure metering, not D7000 burned highlites.
I want to connect big flash lights to D300 body connector which D7000 does not have.
I want D300 material quality, not D7000 problems well known.
I want AF-ON, D300/D4 features of AF, not reducted D7000 sets.
I want lossless NEF compression.

Just quickly, the D7000 is a great camera although it does have a few quirks. Metering and AF the main ones IMO. I own one, enjoy using it but understand why people would go for the D300s over it for the aforementioned reasons.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 22, 2012 at 11:33 UTC
Total: 84, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »