mpgxsvcd

Lives in United States USA, NC, United States
Works as a Jack of all Trades
Joined on May 17, 2004

Comments

Total: 2015, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1165 comments in total)

If I could afford this camera then I am certain I could take pictures with it that I couldn't take with any other camera on the market today.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 14:07 UTC as 246th comment | 1 reply
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1165 comments in total)

For once I can't make fun of Hasselblad. Sure the price is beyond what virtually everyone here is willing to pay. However, this truly is a unique product without any competition at the moment.

It is a niche product and that is what Hasselblad was known for when they were a well respected company. I am so glad this announcement wasn't for another rebadged Sony camera with an absurd price tag.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 13:03 UTC as 311th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: A 1000mm F4.0 telescope costs about $650 and weighs about 25 pounds. This lens has a lot of cool history but no way it will be worth the price it finally sells for.

That would be a 10" diameter telescope just like this lens.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 19:13 UTC

A 1000mm F4.0 telescope costs about $650 and weighs about 25 pounds. This lens has a lot of cool history but no way it will be worth the price it finally sells for.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 18:16 UTC as 79th comment | 4 replies
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (472 comments in total)

This truly is a ground breaking camera. The cost is the only thing that would prevent me from buying it. However, if I had that kind of money to spend on a camera like this then I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 14:34 UTC as 174th comment
On article Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review (1083 comments in total)

It seems like this is a great camera for what it is designed to do.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 18:05 UTC as 163rd comment

It almost seems like they can sell anything these days as long as it has the shape of a camera and has greater than 10x zoom with 20 or more megapixels.

Those are the only specs the average consumers seems to care about anymore. Nothing else seems to matter.

I fully expect to see 100X zoom cameras with 1/3" sensors and 100 megapixels one day. They will have an F30.0 focal ratio but no one will ever care about that because it has 100 megapixels and they think that automatically makes it "Sharper".

Link | Posted on May 11, 2016 at 18:09 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Marty4650: Who could have possibly dreamed ten years ago you could buy so much camera with so many features and capabilities for $279?

Sure, the Sony RX and Nikon DL superzooms are "better" but they cost four times as much. For what it is, this is a pretty amazing camera at it's price.

What features does it have that are so amazing? 1080p @ 30 FPS video? An F3.2-F6.6 Focal Ratio? 2.5 FPS Burst? No RAW? Max ISO 3200 range?

All it has going for it is that it can reach to 625 mm. That is it. It simply is a small camera with an overtaxed sensor and a long reach.

They sacrifice the aperture to give you the reach and leave out all of the features like fast burst or better video to hit their size and price targets.

Long Zooms are the new megapixel wars. It sounds great on paper but in the real world it just takes a closer up picture with equally bad results.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2016 at 18:03 UTC
On article The Canon that can: Canon EOS 80D Review (680 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: No camera company should be satisfied with a Silver award for a camera that has a significant placement in their lineup.

If you don't get a gold award now you aren't doing enough to stay ahead of the competition.

Canon's last Gold award was the Canon EOS 70D on Oct 31, 2013. I think that was before the "Gold" award standards were raised though. The "Gold" award means a lot more now than it did back then.

Sony has had 9 Gold Awards since then. Even Panasonic has had 5 Gold awards in that same time frame. Olympus has had 2 Gold awards since then for crying out loud.

This is just pathetic for Canon and Nikon shouldn't be applauded in that regard either. Nikon has only had 2 gold awards in that time frame.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews?category=cameras&utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

The gold award isn't meaningless anymore. They changed how they hand it out and now it really differentiates the cameras that are nothing really special from the ones that stand out among their competition.

Since they made that change Canon has not made a camera that is deserving of the gold award.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 22:01 UTC
On article Crossing the Bridge: Canon XC10 Review (261 comments in total)

I will sum up this camera in one sentence.

"It is terrible and overpriced".

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 19:10 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article The Canon that can: Canon EOS 80D Review (680 comments in total)
In reply to:

surlezi: Seems like a good mid-range camera.

I was thinking it would make a good budget interchangeable lens camera. Its price disqualifies it from that category though.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 19:05 UTC
On article The Canon that can: Canon EOS 80D Review (680 comments in total)

No camera company should be satisfied with a Silver award for a camera that has a significant placement in their lineup.

If you don't get a gold award now you aren't doing enough to stay ahead of the competition.

Canon's last Gold award was the Canon EOS 70D on Oct 31, 2013. I think that was before the "Gold" award standards were raised though. The "Gold" award means a lot more now than it did back then.

Sony has had 9 Gold Awards since then. Even Panasonic has had 5 Gold awards in that same time frame. Olympus has had 2 Gold awards since then for crying out loud.

This is just pathetic for Canon and Nikon shouldn't be applauded in that regard either. Nikon has only had 2 gold awards in that time frame.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews?category=cameras&utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 19:04 UTC as 165th comment | 4 replies

Now is a bad time to be counting on camera sales to support your business. Those companies that make money on other things will do better in the long run.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 02:20 UTC as 68th comment | 2 replies
On article Crossing the Bridge: Canon XC10 Review (261 comments in total)

A log profile does not increase your dynamic range. Increasing your bit depth or decreasing the noise profile of the sensor is the only thing that can give you a "Real" increase in your dynamic range.

Log profiles give you the "perception" of increased dynamic range by increasing noise. Noise is a component of dynamic range so it is misleading to say that you are increasing the dynamic range without increasing the bit depth or changing the noise characteristics of the sensor.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 15:52 UTC as 87th comment | 1 reply
On article Crossing the Bridge: Canon XC10 Review (261 comments in total)

The camera is $2K. The memory cards are $300+ and the thing weighs more than two pounds. The Panasonic FZ1000 is less than $700, weighs less than 2 pounds, and its memory cards cost about $80. No one in their right mind would ever buy the XC10 over the FZ1000.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 15:47 UTC as 90th comment | 2 replies

It sure beats the mirror-less offerings from Canon.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 11:52 UTC as 24th comment | 4 replies

I just love how Panasonic updates the camera I already have for free with all of their latest technologies. Some other companies only give you the new features when you buy a brand new camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 18:18 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: The GH4 is such a great camera. It still fits all of my needs so many years after it was first released.

New camera technology comes out about every 6 months. Therefore almost two years is actually quite a long time in camera technology terms. The fact that Panasonic has kept the GH4 up to date with current day technologies for almost two years is quite an accomplishment.

Canon lets some of their cameras go for most of a decade without any real technology advances. They still think 1080p @ 60 FPS is a “premium” feature for some of their cameras.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 18:16 UTC

The GH4 is such a great camera. It still fits all of my needs so many years after it was first released.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 11:59 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
On article Canon announces budget-friendly EOS Rebel T6 (1300D) (895 comments in total)

If people continue to buy their outdated cameras they will continue to make them. Simple as that.

It is clear from the comments that pretty much everyone here knows there are better options out there. However, the people on this forum aren’t the ones that buy cameras blindly based on the recommendation of the kid in the blue shirt at Best Buy.

If it makes you mad that Canon sells these cameras in ridiculous quantities then simply make sure everyone you know understands why their rebel products are inferior.

In the end I now realize that it doesn’t matter to me. So what if someone else pays too much for an inferior product? They may get lucky and still get great images or videos. Who am I to tell Canon that they should change their business model that appears to still be making them money?

It is great that Dpreview stands up to Canon. Doreview gives an unbiased view of each and every camera. That allows me to make informed decisions on which camera works best for my needs.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 14:48 UTC as 148th comment | 2 replies
Total: 2015, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »