Dazed and Confused

Dazed and Confused

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on May 23, 2002

Comments

Total: 61, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Simion1: I'm not sure why UK is dark green, as it too has stupid restrictions.

For example Lulworth Cove and Durdle door have photography restrictions and that's just ummm... land in it's most natural form. Also, I think places like Trafalgar Square, Parliament Square and the Royal Parks have bylaws restricting photography too?

Lulworth Cove and Durdle Door are part of the private Lulworth estate, though, so that's totally different.

You are effectively in someone's garden. It's nice of them to let you in in the first place, let alone let you take pictures!

And if you took a photo of it from a public spot, then you're fine anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 21:03 UTC
On Sony: An eye on focus article (758 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dazed and Confused: Looks great.

Can you choose which person's eye to focus on if there are more than one in frame, or even which eye for really shallow depth of field lenses?

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/78488269-woman-archer-aiming-bow-and-arrow-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=f8KUrixgdIc%2Fs5Dw3Lg5W5DP0tTHPfhegGMDNlp%2F5zt9mI5miL3OAxfYiBN4VDN6

(Not a great exmaple, but the first idea that popped into my head. It's a bit hard to tell exact focus point at this size, and d.o.f. isn't crazy shallow, but I think it illustrates how it could be useful.)

Or maybe a person aiming a gun at the camera. Their eye in line with the sight might be further back, but you'd choose to focus on it to draw attention to the fact it is the one being used to aim.

You might not personally like the output, and there's always manual focus point selection, but I see nothing wrong with giving the photographer control over how they use their tool, for those looking to achieve a specific result.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 15:31 UTC
On Sony: An eye on focus article (758 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dazed and Confused: Looks great.

Can you choose which person's eye to focus on if there are more than one in frame, or even which eye for really shallow depth of field lenses?

@Zeisschen:

>You will always want the close eye in focus for a portrait

Mostly, yes, but not always. Photography is an art - there are no hard and fast rules.

@Rishi Sanyal:

>Seems so obvious to me.

Agreed. Just using the same controls as used for cycling focus points in 'normal' modes to cycle between every detected eye in frame seems like the most obvious implementation.

Even if the auto implementation is used in the vast majority of cases, it would still be nice to be given the option to choose.

This is very much why I'm likely to sit out any major purchases for another year or two (let's not forget how good the stuff already out there actually is), to give this sudden jump in technology time to mature and settle.

Exciting times!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 12:22 UTC
On Sony: An eye on focus article (758 comments in total)

Looks great.

Can you choose which person's eye to focus on if there are more than one in frame, or even which eye for really shallow depth of field lenses?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 15:33 UTC as 123rd comment | 9 replies
On Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR article (329 comments in total)
In reply to:

GearJunkie: No weather sealing??? ...and for that price??? Really, Nikon, what the heck are you thinking??? They truly are dazed and confused when it comes to DX. No weather sealing on this class of lens seems like yet another Nikon blunder.

I resent that remark!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 08:40 UTC
On Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge article (732 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tommot1965: the major advantage to me for Mirrorless cameras is the WYSIWYG through the viewfinder ....this is a huge step up from a optical VF..my Oly EM1 allows me to exposure compensate on the fly and see in real time the effects..that alone is a very useful feature ...

@brycesteiner

>The people who complain about EVF and the superiority of OVF have never used an EVF.

That's an utterly ridiculous assumption to make.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 08:50 UTC
In reply to:

Scales USA: expect lots of lawsuits. They will likely go bankrupt as a result.

@Digital Shutterbug

Good to see you aren't over reacting at all....

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 09:50 UTC
On Nikon announces Coolpix AW130 and S33 rugged compacts article (31 comments in total)

Shame - I was considering the S33 for my kids as a replacement for their S31. It's a neat little camera, and it's great fun at the beach or just to give to them at parties knowing it won't get broken, but suffers from having such a small sensor and slow lens. It only has an auto mode, and it's not aggressive enough with bumping up the ISO (presumably because results would be horrible), so too many photos are blurry.

However Nikon seem to have kept the same lens, same size sensor, and added no VR. The only thing it seems to be is thinner - pretty much the only thing kids don't need, where chunkier is easier to hold.

Seems like a pretty low effort 'refresh'.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 09:58 UTC as 15th comment
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Review preview (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThePhilips: "Panasonic's JPEG high ISO noise reduction continues to disappoint us."

Hehe. A trait typical to female writing: "I like it" but "it disappoints us". For positive or neutral opinion - "I", but for the (esp strong) negative one - "we". :)

Considering that it is your only slip on the whole "Shooting Experience" page, I think it highlights the biggest disappointment with the little camera you had.

The fact that your comment got so many likes before being called out has reminded me why I visit DPReview so infrequently nowadays.

I'm going to hang out with my 4 year old now for a much needed dose of maturity.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 13:47 UTC
On Manfrotto launches Off Road camera gear article (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

chriscotec: Wow, I can't imagine a more vulnerable place to have your camera in a backpack, in what looks to be a soft compartment with the LCD screen right at the bottom, on the outside corner. Brilliant thinking there Manfrotto!

That's exactly how Lowepro do it on their equivalent packs like the Photosport series, with no issues whatsoever as far as I'm aware. I'm pretty sure I've seen Primus, Kata and MindShift bags with the camera in that position too.

Cameras are a lot tougher than most people give them credit for, and I expect the padding will be fine too. Cameras are designed to be used - not treated with kid gloves.

I get the impression that people just want to hate this bag.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 17:07 UTC
In reply to:

Dazed and Confused: Are the lenses with OS built in going to come in unstabilised versions?

I'm not that keen on buying a camera with OS built in, then still paying the cost and weight penalty of a lens with OS too.

(I know some lenses are not stabilised, and the stabilisations 'add up', but it'd still be nice to have the choice.)

@sjredo and abortabort

>Right , so you're expecting them to do TWO versions of each stabilized lens.

>So you are keen to pay MORE for lenses with less?

Well I know Canon and Tamron do this already for many of their lenses, and unstabilised versions cost less than stabilised equivalents (within the range and across manufacturers) so I don't see why Sony couldn't do the same.

>Why don't you just buy a camera w/o stabilization if you're not that keen?

Because I want in body stabilisation for the lighter, smaller and cheaper lenses it usually brings, among other things. Those points are nullified if many of the lenses have OS built in.

>And what if you decide that you want to use your lens on a different camera, one that doesn't have IS in the body

Then I probably won't decide that. Because I'm more than capable of making decisions by myself - I don't need Sony to look after me.

I really don't understand the desperation to leap to manufacturer's defence on this forum....

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 22:28 UTC

Are the lenses with OS built in going to come in unstabilised versions?

I'm not that keen on buying a camera with OS built in, then still paying the cost and weight penalty of a lens with OS too.

(I know some lenses are not stabilised, and the stabilisations 'add up', but it'd still be nice to have the choice.)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 22:06 UTC as 101st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Dazed and Confused: Does anyone know how he funds his trip? Is it based on savings, or does he make income from his blog/photos as he travels?

It's also great to see how positive most of the comments are on here - deservedly so.

That's really great - well done. I wish you the very best, and will look out for more of your photos and articles.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2014 at 23:53 UTC
On WaterWeight rethinks the sandbag approach to stability article (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

jdc562: In the illustrated position, this Inspired water bag raises the center of gravity of your tripod setup--making it more top heavy. Ask any photographer whose camera has gear toppled over: it makes a bad day. The many recommendations in these posts to dangle a pack, rock, or water container below the tripod head are lowering the center of gravity--a better alternative for adding weight.

I think you're confused - the water bag definitely lowers the centre of gravity, just not a much as a weight hanging underneath.

For it to raise the c.o.g. then the c.o.g. would need to be below that point without the bag there - i.e. not even at the top of the legs.

That would mean that the majority of the weight of the entire set-up - tripod, camera and lens - would need to be in those 3 legs to counteract the leverage of the camera and lens at the top. Unless you're out shooting with an extremely heavy tripod and a very light camera, that's not going to be the case. And in that case you're probably not going to need a weight anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

Mirrorless Crusader: #1: Not a wildlife photo and the horizon is tilted - terrible technique. Not to mention the choice for black and white is baseless.
#2: Should be horizontally inverted in post and the photo lacks detail
#3: Not a wildlife photo
#4: Way overprocessed and photoshopped
#5. Terribly framed. A bunch of negative space on the right and the bird chopped off on the left
#6: Not enough detail, poor composition, should be horizontally inverted, and impossible to tell what's going on.
#7: Not a wildlife photo
#8: Not a wildlife photo, that animal is domestic as you'll ever see.

How is number 1 not a wildlife photo?
For context, Number 2 was taken by an eight year old.
Number 3 is in the Earth's Environments category. I am yet to see a domesticated volcanic ash cloud, so we can be pretty sure that's a wild one.
Number 6 - I'll give you a clue - it's a mouse.
Number 7 - see number 1.
Number 8 is in the 'World in Our Hands' category. The fact the animal has been domesticated is entirely the point.

Your main argument seems to be based on your own peculiar definiton of 'wildlife', while your other arguments seem to be based on aesthetics, which as we all know are personal. Except in your case, where you seem to think that they're simply wrong.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2014 at 13:34 UTC

Does anyone know how he funds his trip? Is it based on savings, or does he make income from his blog/photos as he travels?

It's also great to see how positive most of the comments are on here - deservedly so.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 09:48 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies
On Samsung NX1 First Impressions Review preview (1444 comments in total)
In reply to:

MonoSynth: Right now, there are serious mirrorless cameras from every manufacturer except Nikon and Canon. With decent EVF's and on-sensor phase detection AF, those flipping mirrors and bulky pentaprisms start to lose their advantage and a dSLR starts to look old-fashioned.

With an EVF I can:
- See exactly what the sensor sees, no focusing screen calibration needed;
- Zoom in to precisely focus my f/1.2 lenses;
- See the result of the white balance settings;
- See DoF instantly;
- Dial in every possible overlay, including focus peaking, zebra and histogram;

Lens manufacturers are freed from the burdens of flange focal distance and automatic diaphragms, resulting in more compact lenses and more diaphragm blades (better bokeh).

There are some fields where an OVF has an advantage (fast sports), but those problems will soon be solved too.

I have both, and I still think OVFs have the clarity and dynamic range advantages.

I like seeing all the possible details and opportunities in what I am trying to capture, rather than what the sensor and EVF are capable of relaying. (There might be something of interest in a blown highlight or too noisy an area, that I might miss due to my current chosen exposure values.) I guess it gives me a better understanding of the light that I have got to work with, which the EVF cannot display due to dynmaic range limitations.

EVFs are closing the gap, but for me hybrid viewfinders are the most exciting. An OVF with an EVF overlay for focus peaking, ultra-high ISO or a zoomed area would be great.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:44 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (339 comments in total)
In reply to:

mike kobal: those Otus lenses would make so much more sense on mirrorless cameras with high def EVF, manual focusing one of these properly through the OVF - even on the best DSLR's - is going to be quite frustrating
not a problem for the lucky ones who actually can afford to buy one of these, they can surely afford to hire the best focus puller in the world ;) and a second shooter using an af lens as back up, just in case :)))

Why would it be any harder than any other 85 1.4s?

People have been manual focussing lenses like this on SLRs for decades with no problem. It's not as good as AF in some situations, but that's also the case on mirrorless systems.

A lovely big, bright full-frame OVF and a good focussing screen are still great for manual focussing. Mirrorless doesn't suddenly change that.

(For context, I have both DSLR and mirrorless systems. I miss quite a few MF shots with the OVF - although a lot less now I have a better focussing screen. I miss a similar number on my mirrorless. I don't have accurate numbers, and tests aren't equal due to different lenses and d.o.f.s, but neither stand out as massively better. EVFs and OVFs each have their advantages - but neither make the other redundant or obsolete. Personally, I hope that hybrid viewfinders are the future.)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 11:32 UTC

I wonder how many people will make knee-jerk reaction comments without properly reading the review?

Grabs popcorn...

Edited lots: Because I'm not good with brevity. Or spelling.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2014 at 13:17 UTC as 2nd comment
On Panasonic FZ1000: Not just another superzoom... article (158 comments in total)

404 - Page not found.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 07:03 UTC as 51st comment
Total: 61, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »