GodSpeaks

GodSpeaks

Lives in Thailand Bangkok, Thailand
Works as a Retired
Joined on Sep 6, 2002
About me:

Livin' la Vida Loca

Comments

Total: 377, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Metz mecablitz 26 AF-1 Quick Review article (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

Muqdad: Something doesn't sink in here guys. The review and the pictures imply that at 0° position the light direction points downwards at a certain angle, this being supported by the reviewer saying that the flash becomes on the "normal" position when it gets to 40°. I assume by "normal" the reviewer means straightly forward for direct flash illumination. Now someone help me get this: starting from this angle of 40° at which the flash is sending light straightly forward, when we tilt it up an additional 50° to reach 90°, how could it now direct its light straightly upwards? Don't we need a stroke of 90° to change from horizontal to vertical? If the reflector sends light horizontally while the body is tilted to the 40° position because it is built at an angle with the flash body as the pictures show, if the flash body moves the remaining 50° of its 90° stroke the light should now point to 50° upwards, not vertical. Am I missing something here?

Nope, you got it.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2015 at 22:05 UTC
On Metz mecablitz 26 AF-1 Quick Review article (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

straylightrun: This looks huge for a compact external flash. For m43 users, the Olympus FL-LM3 (that comes bundled with the EM-5 II) is a much better size.

Actually, it is quite small.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2015 at 00:07 UTC
On Metz mecablitz 26 AF-1 Quick Review article (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

Calvin Chann: Owning several brands of mirrorless cameras, it would have been really nice to have one gun fits all. Oh well.

Agreed. Whatever happened to those Auto Thyristor flash units we used to be able to buy? Now everything is TTL and hence brand specific.

Good for manufacturers, I suppose, but not good for consumers.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2015 at 00:06 UTC
On Metz mecablitz 26 AF-1 Quick Review article (70 comments in total)

I just received one for my Panasonic cameras. It is a nice little unit. The biggest problem is the 2xAAA batteries as a power source, especially if you want to do more than occasional shooting.

The unit has a microUSB port for updating firmware. It would be soooo nice if one could attach a LiIon USB battery pack to supply power in lieu of the AAA's. Unfortunately, not possible.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 23:56 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

jrkliny: It does not seem possible that Canon's QC procedures would have missed this defect occurring in a large percentage of cameras. More likely the defect occurred as the glue dried. Perhaps vibrations or temperature changes during shipment revealed the defect. If this is true, Canon needs to recall every camera and start over.

Canon might want to consider using sensors from Sony. The initial reviews of the Canon sensor have shown that the dynamic range is still lagging. It is sad to see how far Canon has fallen from their former leadership position. For quite a few years I have regretted being a Canon user. Unfortunately I own a lot of lenses and switching would be very expensive.

@Black: Agreed

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 15:38 UTC
In reply to:

HaroldC3: Shoulda went with a Sony sensor Canon.

Lest you forget, a number of years ago, Sony had a batch of sensors that when bad also.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 15:32 UTC
In reply to:

aris14: Αt the bdsm (before developing social media) times we all wanted small cellphones.
Then came the smartphones and we all got some plates to serve coffee with which we can make a phone call.
Phones had a decent camera 3 to 5 Mp and then up to 8 Mp quite capable for an sm post, allowing an acceptable A4 print even for mags.
It seems they follow the same curve as ultra compacts some 5-5 years ago with a tiny sensor and a zillion Mps.
There is no reason to have zillion Mps for sm nor bigger sensors. There is no need for that except for companies marketeers just for selling phones. Nothing but with that if their phones were good enough to last 2 days heavy use.

Personally, I am in favor of MILF :-P

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2015 at 02:18 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: APS-C smartphone :
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7641/17078756579_b1626efec9_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7657/17078756529_e33652c25d_o.png

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8578/16114141495_619fe19449_o.jpg

Are you serious, or just taking a pi$$?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2015 at 02:15 UTC
In reply to:

Nukunukoo: The Studio version has 4k but no SD. Dammit.

Carver: Why would that be?

The Panasonic GH4, FZ1000 do and the Sony ActionCam X1000V records to microSD. I have all 3 and absolutely no issues recording 4K video to SD/microSD with any of them.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 22:48 UTC
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: Very interesting camera, and at a very good price.

However, what I was hoping for was a 4K version of the BMPCC (or even a 4K version of this), priced under $2000, or better yet, under $1500. Now that I would buy in a heartbeat. 1080 is just so last century. :-)

Just read about the Micro Studio Camera 4K on the BlackMagic site. Very interesting and an excellent price. But the biggest gotcha is no internel recording. Too bad the Video Assist addon does not record 4K. If it did, it would be the perfect addon for this camera.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 00:56 UTC

Very interesting camera, and at a very good price.

However, what I was hoping for was a 4K version of the BMPCC (or even a 4K version of this), priced under $2000, or better yet, under $1500. Now that I would buy in a heartbeat. 1080 is just so last century. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 01:41 UTC as 20th comment | 3 replies
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

John C Tharp: Some goofy points:

-305Mb/s is still possible on the faster SD cards
-That baseplate looks like it will get in the way of gearing for zoom and focus pulling
-The type of AF motor used isn't mentioned- if it's a USM-type with direct manual override, cool, but if it's an STM-type, focus pullers will likely be frustrated!

SD cards are capable, but the problem lies with the manufacturers in that they push the READ speeds, while either not listing, or listing in very small print, the WRITE speeds.

If there is a standard committee that oversees this they need to change the standards in such a way that the manufacturers MUST make the sustained WRITE speed be prominantly listed as the primary criteria.

Add to that that Canon is more than capable of working with SD manufacturers and publishing a list of cards that DO work.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 01:19 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: an FZ1000($746 current Amazon price) AND an RX10($998) AND an LX100($759). That would be $2503 in total. I rest my case.

Not to mention to just use any glass you want.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 23:07 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

John C Tharp: Some goofy points:

-305Mb/s is still possible on the faster SD cards
-That baseplate looks like it will get in the way of gearing for zoom and focus pulling
-The type of AF motor used isn't mentioned- if it's a USM-type with direct manual override, cool, but if it's an STM-type, focus pullers will likely be frustrated!

The BMPCC captures RAW video onto SD cards. By my calculations the bitrates on raw are around 60 MB/s or 480 Mbps. So capturing 305 Mbps onto SD is eminently achievable.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 23:02 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thomas Kachadurian: Hmmm. Is it a $2,500 home video camera for wealthy people. With it's 1" sensor it won't appeal to Photographers. 1" is great in a sony RX100, but this fella is way bigger than that.

Video folks, is this your dream?

No, not my dream. For $2500 I would want interchangeable lenses and a larger sensor.

Now that sounds like my GH4, only for far less money.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 22:53 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Canon XC10: who votes for the most overpriced compact and ugliest camera of 2015?

I mean at $300 they would find a buyer or two plus the usual number of Canon fanboys (called brittons in forums ;-)) but at anything beyond $500? Really?

Using this short F16 equivalent zoom lens?

Fail.

I agree, at about $1200 it would be a contender. But not at $2500.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 22:41 UTC

Somewhat pricey for a 1" sensor, otherwise quite interesting.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 22:37 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

Steve in GA: I think most of us will agree that our phones, cameras and the storage media inside them should never be destroyed or confiscated without a warrant.

However, Brittany Hillen's description of the proposed Texas law as having, "...a draconian slant..." because it would require that photographers keep at least 15 feet away from ongoing police actions seems reasonable to me.

If you want to photograph an incident, that's fine. But, if you want to get so close that you interfere with a search or arrest, that's not fine.

Tugela: would you like to test your theory?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 01:06 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Excellent step into taking the US away from the police state it has become.

(...but, Brittany, before you classify Texas option as "a Draconian slant" think about what 15ft actually are and how citizens photographing within that range may actually be interfering with the actual police work...farther than 15ft is perfectly suitable to still record inappropriate or illegal action that might be occurring.)

And when a police officer approaches you because you are recording them, you must now stop recording.

Sorry, no. Limit the distance someone recording may approach, but NOT when the police approach you.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 01:00 UTC
In reply to:

DaveClark: We don't need more laws, thank you very much. How about enforcing the ones we already have?

In this case perhaps we do, if only to a) protect our rights, and b) to keep the police accountable.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 00:58 UTC
Total: 377, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »