Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Dec 22, 2008


Total: 78, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

A few years ago I asked for such a feature on a Canon forum along with a flip-screen. Both were soundly rejected by the fanboy zealots. It's nice to see Nikon is proving that both are exceptionally good ideas on the D300s replacement. Too bad Nikon didn't openly consult with us here on DPR about how we'd like to see the auto AF fine-tune to function. The feature seems to be designed in the lab without much input from the user base. I'm confident Nikon will improve it over time...

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 05:43 UTC as 69th comment | 2 replies
On article Beta: try out our new 'light' color scheme (570 comments in total)

As crusty, old, never satisfied photographers, DPR should give us all an array of color intensity sliders that we can individually adjust the site to our own particular taste.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 05:04 UTC as 191st comment

Trying to appease these grumpy old men is a futile task. The delivery is a bit dry and a bit disjointed but it was still well worth watching.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 13:19 UTC as 6th comment
On article Delayed: Nikon Japan pushes D500 to end of April (139 comments in total)

It'll be a real disappointment if after the delay(s) the product has any QC/design defects. Fingers crossed..!

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 16:02 UTC as 10th comment
On article X-Factor: Canon's EOS-1D X Mark II examined in-depth (623 comments in total)

So, will DPR provide a proper in-depth review of this flagship camera?

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 07:13 UTC as 112th comment | 1 reply
On article Here at last: Nikon announces D500 (1175 comments in total)
In reply to:

sunnycal: No built-in flash is a bummer. Now photographers need to carry an external flash or the wireless module for wireless control. Having a built-in flash is great advantage in a lot of scenarios.

Why do you have to tape down the built-in flash?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 06:25 UTC
On article Happy Holidays from dpreview! (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

BeaverTerror: Another vote for the black background. The reason you only hear complaints about it is that people who are satisfied with it do not write to you.

The black background is best. Please do not change it. My eyes hate white background.

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2015 at 13:31 UTC
On article Happy Holidays from dpreview! (119 comments in total)

Seasons Greetings to all at DPR. Thank you to everyone for all their hard work.
May I suggest one resolution for the new year? Please review flagship cameras. There are enough non-professionals who believe nothing but the best will do, who have purchased them in the past. Prospective buyers should be able to look to DPR for such reviews. At the very least, it develops and subsequently shows a broader depth of maturity towards the upper end of camera users. Even the flagship models need critical performance reviews.

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2015 at 13:25 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

NeilJones: It's a shame that drones will pretty much be banned in most airspace by end of 2016!

My understanding is that there are new FAA rules (which only apply to USA), but nothing about banning drones in most airspace. Likely other countries will have similar rule restrictions but certainly not a ban in most airspace. How did you come up with that statement?

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 16:25 UTC

It's nice to see the giveaway contest includes countries where the giveaway is permissible by law.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 15:57 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

The Photo Ninja: You can pay for a lot of professionally printed photos for the price of this.

With 11 ink colours at $60 each plus Chroma Optimizer, that's over $700 in consumable ink. That's $1300 + $700 = $2000. Wall space is a premium resource given that most prints will hang at eye-level and usually only a few will occupy each wall. However, if I manage to require at most 50 prints for the walls, the cost per print is over $40. That's not too bad a deal. If I crank out more prints, the cost per print significantly reduces. I wonder if the unused ink cartridges or print head will clog up with infrequent use?
Owning a printer makes sense if the amount of printing exceeds a professional print service and the quality is comparable.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 14:19 UTC
In reply to:

PORTRAIT: Crap!, Samsung we need one of these "Ditch Day event" up-here in Canada as well! I also have a clonker to trade in;)...

Too far away for most as in my case, no extra $2000 to budget for such an extravagance.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2015 at 13:11 UTC
In reply to:

electrophoto: The one thing I find always utterly lacking with print manufacturers is listing a figure for cost of print...
I know that the EXACT figure can't be given as it will depend a tad on what and how you print.
But say a base average on highest quality, including the manufacturer recommended ink + paper.

Because buying the printer is one thing - but knowing how much it will cost to OPERATE is another figure entirely and incredibly inefficient to figure out, especially as the cartridge figures (XXX-Pages per cartridge is usually way overstated.)

Also that pure ink-figure alone, doesn't take printing heads, etc into account.

If I need anything larger than my A3+ can spit out, I get it printed by a speciality printing lab.
so far I could never justify cost of ownership & operation of my own large printer vs. outsourcing that part. cheaper and yet higher quality than this.

"...and yet higher quality than this."
What kind of print technology does the specialty print lab use?

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2015 at 13:09 UTC
In reply to:

Antonsrkn: There's no denying its a nice shot. However as a wildlife photographer I'm always annoyed when I see zoo shots labeled as wildlife photography. Its not wildlife when its in a zoo! I feel that by definition wildlife has to be wild... not captive animals in a controlled setting. I'm not familiar with Sony's rules, if they allow photos of captive animals then all power to the photographer. But lets not call it something its not.

For anyone unfamiliar with Orangutans, there are two species the Bornean orangutan and the sumatran orangutan, neither of which are now or ever have been found in the wild in Bali, Indonesia.

Still a nice shot though, just not WILDlife.

You're correct that it's not wildlife in the strictest of definitions. If we were to apply such strictness as the animal living completely in the wild, I daresay most of us shooting in a National Park or game preserve would also need to say the same. Bird sanctuaries would also need to be excluded.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2015 at 07:19 UTC
In reply to:

Jcradford: Grreat shot. But a 500th (or faster?) and didn't freeze the rain drops? Altho I don't recall he tipping point on that motion it 'seems' closer to a 60th-100th.

About 2 cm according to "The Weather Guys";
So to freeze the fat raindrop so that it appears "like a hamburger bun", which is likely about 1/4 inch across (0.635 cm) and maybe then 0.5 cm tall, the shutter speed would need to be four times as fast, or about 1/2000 of a second.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2015 at 16:41 UTC

This is an excellent photo with all the right components. Great wildlife photography is all about unocrhestrated special moments. Well done! Your honesty in describing the scenario illustrates how everything must come together including perhaps a wee of luck and more importantly, seizing the moment. Congrats!

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2015 at 16:00 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply

By losing its emphasis on the square format, Instagram may yet become another boring flickr. I'm not surprised that the emphasis is to increase acceptance by all those who felt it was just too restrictive a format. Something will be lost and something will be gained by this change.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 13:48 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies
On Connect post 500px launches redesigned iOS app (11 comments in total)

Yet another app I won't put on my phone. Gawdawful...sigh.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 18:37 UTC as 5th comment
On article Analysis: Sony a7R II and RX100 IV autofocus systems (752 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: Why are all the shots focused on the nose? Seems a bit gimmicky to me.

Yes, autopoint selection on DSLR doesn't do eyeball recognition and doesn't do any better with tracking. I rely on "stickiness" of AF point selection to track object where I initially started the focus tracking. On DSLR's I use (7DII 5DIII), it works ... kinda OK but not as reliably as I would like it to. I expect more from Sony A7II. I want to continue to use my Canon long telephoto lenses on the Sony and expect as good as or better than Canon PDAF performance. I that asking for too much? :)

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 19:08 UTC
On article Analysis: Sony a7R II and RX100 IV autofocus systems (752 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: Why are all the shots focused on the nose? Seems a bit gimmicky to me.

So continuous AF with 3rd party lens can have only the nearest part of the subject tracked? That's useless...

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 18:12 UTC
Total: 78, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »