DotCom Editor

Lives in United States New England, MA, United States
Works as a Technology journalist, editor, and author
Joined on Apr 4, 2005

Comments

Total: 184, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Wouldn't this make more sense for APReview rather than DPReview?

That said, I sure do miss Panatomic X.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 02:43 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

PhalaNik: Really what is the point? Regardless of brand they all look so bad once the ISO hits the 100k mark that its clear the marketing dept have too much say in the specs. Nikon are simply loosing face here, why do you want your flagship camera to be capable of capturing images at the lowest quality possible by using ISO 3 bloody million. It's a total joke. If you want a real laugh pop over to imaging resource to see the samples at ISO 3m. I can’t see anything on offer from the D5 that would make a D4 or even D3 shooter feel the compelling need to upgrade. Save you cash and get a few lenses.

"Nikon are simply losing face here..."

Not just Nikon, but clearly also the lady in the sample photos. Her face is completely obliterated.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 12:20 UTC
In reply to:

jaykumarr: Engineering Manager: "we fixed the problem that was slowing down the focus by 50%"
Marketing Manager: "Our fix made focus faster by 50%" . So buy dock from us.

Responding to DrunknCoder

Right you are! I hate it when TV commercials say, for example, that you can "take 8 times fewer pills" or use "five times less detergent," etc. The fact is, you can't reduce anything by more than 100 percent. They seem to think you can reduce by 800 percent and 500 percent, respectively. I can understand using only one-fifth as much detergent, but to say I can use five times less is impossible and illogical.

You said it: Marketing has never been any good at math.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2016 at 16:40 UTC
On article Get more accurate color with camera calibration (247 comments in total)
In reply to:

Neodp: Every camera should be sold with an inexpensive lens cap; that is the white lattice-patterned thing that passes light. Each camera should have one single button; that when held calibrates the current color, off of the white-light through the special WB cap.

Don't you Raw shooters get tired of adjusting WB on every single shot? How much time is that? Even with the dropper in ufraw. I shoot Raw only and instantly pull groups of JPEGs fo most needs. Thereby keeping every option (raw exposure latitude) and still "editing" (like JPEG only shooters) before the shot. Know thy camera. This requires nice (adjustable) JPEG output; from in cam. It's cam dependant.

Raw is A-L-W-A-Y-S a "non-destructive" unchanging file! With the unchanging embedded JPEG. You never see a Raw picture; just what it is becoming.

But, the light at my camera position, which would be the light passing through your suggested device or an Expo Disc, may be vastly different from the light falling on the subject. A nighttime sporting event might be an example of that. My seat in an arena or stadium is likely to be lit very differently than that used to illuminate the field of play. Just another factor to consider!

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: It would be very useful if DPR would follow up with a report comparing the cost of printing using these printers vs. printing at professional printing services.

The price of ink (regardless of manufacturer) is ridiculously high, and buying cheap refill ink is not a desirable option for quality prints.

To me, it's not about cost, but, rather, about CONTROL. I have a 44-inch printer and it allows me to tweak to get my images perfect. There's nothing more disappointing than getting a large print back from a service bureau only to discover it's not exactly what you had in mind.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 15:20 UTC

The superb Minolta Diage A1 of more than a decade ago did wireless flash control with no extra hardware needed. Canon still doesn't get it.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2016 at 17:44 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

TriezeA72: Most films have sad endings

A wholly negative experience.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 15:47 UTC

Might not be a prudent choice for those of us who enjoy night photography.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 21:40 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)

I just checked the calendar, and it's January 6, not April 1.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 00:29 UTC as 165th comment
In reply to:

grasscatcher: EVF vs OVF

Just wait, someone will come out with a bi-optic camera.. an EVF for one eye and an OVF for the other eye...look through them like a pair of binoculars.

You have two eyes, might as well use them both!

You have two eyes, might as well use them both!

Good point! But, I note that while we all have two ears yet only mouth, few of us (including me) listen twice as much as we talk!

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 14:42 UTC

That enormous red-and-white Pentax badge is not particularly attractive.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 15:34 UTC as 43rd comment | 5 replies
On article Nikon announces development of flagship D5 DSLR (442 comments in total)

So, a camera company announces it is developing a new camera? And the camera will deliver an "even higher level of performance and image quality?" And every photography website and pundit gets all gushy? Must be a slow news day.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 18:10 UTC as 74th comment
In reply to:

rfsIII: GuraGear acquired Tamrac? It seems like it would be the other way around.

Tamrac filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States in early 2014.

In June 2014, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court approved the asset sale through the Chapter 11, Section 363 Sale of Assets process. Thus, no, it would not be the other way around.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2015 at 22:37 UTC
On Connect post Macro stick-on lens brings close-up capability to smartphones (33 comments in total)

"...made from a soft plastic that is optically similar to glass..."

Can you say #FAIL ? The samples are woefully out of focus. Make this sucker out of high-quality optical glass, like the Canon D500 close-up, screw-in macro accessory and I'd seriously consider it.

In fact, how about Canon itself making this product?

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2015 at 21:59 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies

Looks like it does not accept rolls. (But, neither do Canon's cameras.)

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 17:11 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: $3,299? Fixed lens? Um, no.

Nope. The whole ilk seems unnecessarily overpriced.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 03:37 UTC

$3,299? Fixed lens? Um, no.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 23:50 UTC as 58th comment | 2 replies

Another underlying issue is data storage.

An 8-bay NAS in your home with 32 TB of RAID 5 storage is going to end up being utterly inadequate. Cloud storage won't really work, because the I/O times will seemingly be very, very slow.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2015 at 18:23 UTC as 64th comment | 2 replies

Probably just a Chinese knock-off and not a genuine Leica.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2015 at 01:31 UTC as 86th comment
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alan Williams ZA: Its time for the once-leaders in the field, Corel, to close the gap. I think subscription software is a greedy method of sales. If Adobe reduced subscriptions by x10, I'd probably use it -its way, way, way too expensive.

The problem with Adobe's subscription model is that the software simply stops working if you stop paying. Then you're really screwed. At least with a product like Qimage, if you don't pay the $20 ANNUAL renewal fee, you still have fully functional software forever. You just don't get any new updates.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 19:24 UTC
Total: 184, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »