Impulses

Impulses

Lives in Puerto Rico Puerto Rico
Works as a student
Joined on Apr 7, 2013

Comments

Total: 437, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Travel tripods: Comparing 5 aluminum kits article (109 comments in total)

I know the article states the Cullman model is new, but is it like brand spanking new? I ask because it doesn't seem to be readily available in the US... There's a single 3rd party merchant selling it on Amazon (over MSRP), couldn't find it elsewhere.

Also, when can we expect the other tripod round up review alluded to a few times within this one? Oh and what's up with comment posting from the mobile interface? Seems it's been broken for a couple weeks, at least on my end... Whenever I hit post it'd say "Posting..." and nothing happens.

I logged on and off a few times to no avail, just shrugged and moved on. Just switched to desktop interface and lo and behold it works. Running a stock Nexus 5 & Google Chrome FWIW.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2014 at 08:55 UTC as 51st comment | 2 replies
On Budget M43: Kodak Pixpro S-1 First Impressions Review article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: The main problem for this camera is that Panasonic and Olympus overproduced their early models enough that they have 3-4 years of old cameras filling the "low cost" 4/3 market.

Ehh, the $200 E-PM2 sales would seem to indicate even cameras with newer sensors have also ended up gathering dust on the shelf/retail warehouse. See also the G5 etc. I'm not complaining or putting down those cameras, but the MSRP life of low to mid range M43 cameras still seems pretty low.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2014 at 23:44 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: $589? Good luck to Tamron, they are not going to sell anything at this price, Pana HD 14-140 WITH stabilization is $399, the new Pana 14-140 (with even better stabilization) and Oly 14-150 are about $600.

It is probably the kind of price to quickly take half off and call it a sale. In Japan it is 26,000 yen according to 43rumors, about $250.

It's not even any smaller... Why did they bother?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 20:13 UTC
In reply to:

uuronl: As someone who buys each new version of LR, this strikes me as a decent deal, presuming it won't get much more expensive. At about $120 for a year, it's less than the cost of the new license accompanying each major revision.

Your math is off, LR upgrade licenses are only $80 and they only come out about every year ands a half... Not saying this isn't a decent deal, cause you ARE getting PS too, but it's a poor value proposition for those interested only in LR. Now if they offered just a LR sub for like $6-7 a month...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 19:08 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: $900 for 18-135/3.5-5.6! Fuji is not exactly shy.
For comparison
Canon's new 18-135 IS STM costs $550 (Canon's old $500),
Sony's $500 ,
Nikon's new 18-140 is also $500,
Pentax 18-135WR also $500 - hell, you can buy whole WR k-50 with 18-135 for $900!
And it is harder (more expensive) to reach 18mm on a DSLR!

Among mirrorless, more versatile (longer reach)
Panasonic HD 14-140 is $400 (new 14-140 $630),
Olympus 14-150 $600;
Samsung 18-200 (again much longer reach) $700.

Seems the Pentax is probably the only other one with some weather resistance, from reading the comments below anyway... The new Panasonic 14-140 is impressively small tho, it's no larger than a standard DSLR 18-55 and smaller than some even. Obviously a compromise on other ways but still.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 12:22 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: $900 for 18-135/3.5-5.6! Fuji is not exactly shy.
For comparison
Canon's new 18-135 IS STM costs $550 (Canon's old $500),
Sony's $500 ,
Nikon's new 18-140 is also $500,
Pentax 18-135WR also $500 - hell, you can buy whole WR k-50 with 18-135 for $900!
And it is harder (more expensive) to reach 18mm on a DSLR!

Among mirrorless, more versatile (longer reach)
Panasonic HD 14-140 is $400 (new 14-140 $630),
Olympus 14-150 $600;
Samsung 18-200 (again much longer reach) $700.

How many of those are weather resistant tho? I'm not saying that excuses the very large price premium for a shorter lens (in a super zoom category that's usually about some degree of compromise anyway), but it's something. I'm curious whether the quoted venting and IS are actual advancements of either feature or if it's marketing hype.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 12:09 UTC
On Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

DWM: This camera is huge! What exactly is the advantage of a 1" sensor again? I'd rather have a D5300 and a kit zoom. Or a Nikon 1 and 10-100mm if small size was important.

It's probably smaller, might even be smaller than a G5 with the smallest teles (e.g. new 14-140, 45-150)... The FZ1000 body looks chunky but that integrated lens looks pretty small. Haven't compared measurements, hopefully the camerasize site puts it up and saves us the trouble.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2014 at 06:40 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: I wonder if Samsung included a decent sound card the way HP did with those Beats Android tablets by HP?

I wonder how easily I can pop the case open to replace the battery and flash harddrive? (That's something Lenovo did well with those Yoga Android tablets--not great screens and awful sound though.)

Samsung used to have some pretty decent Wolfson DACs on their phones early on, but they were still using their own SoC back then... They moved away from that at one point, no clue if the same parts mate with the Qualcomm SoC everyone are using these days or what they're using on the tablets though. I haven't found anyone doing even an inkling of decent sound quality evaluation for these kinda products...

Anandtech has been doing some interesting tests, though limited to a handful of phones. Just having X DAC or whatever isn't any kind of guarantee either , particularly if using headphones which will also rely on proper output stages and amplification. I'd dare say that part and the headphones themselves actually matter a whole lot more than the DAC...

Which is why half the time I just sidestep the whole chain and opt for Bluetooth output to a BT receiver that is a known quantity to me (decent DAC / amp), obviously Bluetooth represents it's own set of compromises, but many of these devices these days use a decent enough encoding profile that the compression isn't anywhere near as bad as BT on much older devices.

In a mobile setting the ambient noise or your own headphones are probably the weaker link anyway, unless you're using $600+ custom IEM (as most hifi full size headphones in the range would need better amping to reach anywhere near their potential), and in a non mobile setting I'd rather bypass it all with a Chromecast, Sonos, etc. A decent mobile DAC isn't hard to spec into a product tho, it's just an easy corner to cut or ignore.

Something like a $30 SanDisk Clip Zip could already get you one of the cleanest outputs out there (and it came out years ago)... Obviously it's of no help if the content is on a laptop / tablet but the point is good / clean audio can be had very cheap. Of course when you're trying to race to the bottom with a fully integrated laptop / tablet design, that's another story.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2014 at 06:35 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: I wonder if Samsung included a decent sound card the way HP did with those Beats Android tablets by HP?

I wonder how easily I can pop the case open to replace the battery and flash harddrive? (That's something Lenovo did well with those Yoga Android tablets--not great screens and awful sound though.)

Your tablet, laptop, and a "real" (external?) DAC are all still DACs (or have a DAC)... Not trying to be anal here, it's just that I don't think anyone calls it a sound card outside of the desktop market where we had actual sound cards... Which is just a DAC on a PCI card really (duh), possibly with a headphone amp if you bought a decent one in the last ten years (which still blow away motherboard on-board DAC, but most people could care less in the same way they could care less about dedicated cameras these days). Again, not trying to be pedantic, probably not telling you anything you didn't know either... Just trying to get at some clearer terminology.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2014 at 06:15 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: I wonder if Samsung included a decent sound card the way HP did with those Beats Android tablets by HP?

I wonder how easily I can pop the case open to replace the battery and flash harddrive? (That's something Lenovo did well with those Yoga Android tablets--not great screens and awful sound though.)

If it's just using a decent Wolfson DAC or something similar then it doesn't really have anything to do with Beats, point is they don't make any of it so it's just branding over the top of someone else's engineering. I doubt they even play a major role in evaluating it tbh, the voicing of most Beats headphones is utter crap... Not just bad for their price level, just bad.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2014 at 06:09 UTC
In reply to:

ThePhilips: "they forgot to include a battery in the box."

So, dear netizens, what's the abbreviation/emoticons for "unbelievable", like for example "banging head against the keyboard unbelievable"??

/facepalm ?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2014 at 02:20 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: I wonder if Samsung included a decent sound card the way HP did with those Beats Android tablets by HP?

I wonder how easily I can pop the case open to replace the battery and flash harddrive? (That's something Lenovo did well with those Yoga Android tablets--not great screens and awful sound though.)

Beats is the antithesis of good audio, and usually little more than a software EQ...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2014 at 00:18 UTC
In reply to:

pictureAngst: Some useful reminders - particularly the one about keeping your gear in a sealed bag when moving between different temperatures and/or humidities, I always remember that one just after my lens has completely fogged up.

The whole lens caps thing will be lost on the 90% of owners who buy an SLR with a single megazoom lens.

BTW when using a lens cleaning solution, does anyone else get residual 'rainbow' smearing that then itself needs to be cleaned off?

It always seemed like lens cleaning solutions always made my eyeglasses harder to clean (these days I just use dish washing soap once in a while), so I haven't even tried any for lenses. Dust blower and micro fiber cloth are all I've used so far, might reach for a drop of alcohol on the cloth if I get something smeared particularly bad on a lens... Obsessive cleaning probably does more harm than good anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2014 at 00:15 UTC
On Panasonic FZ1000: Not just another superzoom... article (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

Valentinian: Now as panasonic is about to release also the LX8, with 1" sensor and lens 24-90(equivalent)/F2-2.8, it would have been nice if this superzoom lens were 90-400 instead of overlapping with the LX8. (but that's just my opinion)

Nobody would ever make a fixed lens telephoto camera, much less one with an $800 price tag... Too much of a niche market, some enthusiasts would probably be thrilled with such a setup, just like many enthusiasts carry multiple mirrorless bodies and pros carry multiple full frame bodies... But theyre a minority and this is a consumer model made for a larger majority (even if its a small subset willing to pay for it). Im just glad Sony has SOME competition now, well see what happens with the LX8. Not in the market for either one but competition benefits everyone...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 15:56 UTC
On Panasonic FZ1000: Not just another superzoom... article (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheProv: Please, add to the comparison an aps-c or a u4/3 with 18-200/14-140 lens!

It seems most of the mirrorless alternatives would probably fall behind at continuous tracking unless youre comparing it with a GH4/EM1/A6000 (2 of them, cost significantly more), that will get addressed in time as DFD and on sensor PDAF migrates down to cheaper M4/3 bodies.

Lens wise, from looking at their equivalency graph, a 14-140 (less wide and 100mm shorter) would perform similarly... Maybe a little brighter at the wide end and slower at the long end. But a G5/G6 for $350-550 plus a 14-140 is more expensive, how much more depends on what kinda deal you catch and what body plus version of the lens you go for (as much as 50% more expensive or as little as $0).

Size might be the most interesting comparison, I know a G6 plus the new 14-140 isnt any larger than an small DSLR plus standard kit zoom, so they are probably not far off. Edit: Dang, camerasize.com doesnt have the RX10 (much less this), nor the new more compact 14-140, the G6 probably ends up larger though.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 15:46 UTC
On Panasonic FZ1000: Not just another superzoom... article (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

spitfire31: No headphone output and apparently (not mentioned, anyway) no manual audio (which would be pointless without monitoring, anyway).

At least Sony were smart enough to include these BASIC features on their RX-10.

Pathetic, Panasonic.

I would expect the FZ1000 price to drop in under 6 months too, because well, its probably gonna go unnoticed by a lot of people and anything Panasonic seems to see sharp price drops mere months after release regardless of how its received critically... Im not complaining, Ive bought three Panasonic cameras in the last year (one at MSRP, one at close to it, one with a decent discount), their US distribution/pricing/etc is just wonky.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 15:34 UTC
On Panasonic FZ1000: Not just another superzoom... article (158 comments in total)
In reply to:

W5JCK: Bridge cameras like this one and the RX10 or still what I consider to be sub-enthusiast level. The 1" sensor is too small to deliver quality IQ at any low light level. That f/2.8 lens on a 1" sensor is equivalent to a f/5.0 lens on an APC-S camera. Pretty darn slow for wide open, and thus rather lacking in low light capability. A f/4.0 lens on a 1" sensor is equivalent to a f/7.1 lens on an APC-S camera. So this camera basically has a f/4--f/7.1 zoom lens compared to APS-C DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Meh! For the price of the RX10 you would be better off with a a6000 and a few good lenses. This one is cheaper, but still not worth the price for anyone who wants an enthusiasts level and above IQ. This is a mom/dad camera used to take little pictures to post on the internet. Again, meh!

There is still some relative merit to the equivalency once you factor total light gathered by the sensor tho... I wouldnt put the camera down because of that, because its still a quantum leap over most any other bridge camera outside of the RX10 tho. It may not match an ILC with a brighter lens indoors, but itll definitely blow away many smaller sensor compacts even in daylight. Much more room to crop etc... If DFD has brought the AF up to snuff I could see a lot of people shooting action preferring this over many ILC. Theres room for it in the market, specially if priced aggresively in light of its only competitor.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 15:31 UTC
On Panasonic FZ1000: Not just another superzoom... article (158 comments in total)

The fact that they implemented DFD on this camera is pretty interesting, I hope the AF system and CAF is thoroughly tested to see how much of a difference it makes vs previous bridge cameras or even something like the RX10... Panasonic execs/engineers had said just a week ago they would be implementing DFD across lots of other cameras, even compacts, and sure enough they have.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 15:26 UTC as 30th comment
On Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

JustDavid: is this still a review update or a part of direct advertising? 4 articles and one huge banner for one camera on front page in one day? this will surely break the record of Sony RX100 III :)

Your opinion is that the articles are superfluous, yet you still wasted the time to click thru and comment, thus negating your opinion. You basically achieved exactly what DPR wanted, they grabbed your attention and sold a few more page ads. While I agree that the 4th article seems a bit extraneous I dont really see the point in complaining. Im not interested in this camera but I still find the content worth reading, and if I didnt itd just be an extra click of the scroll wheel to look past it.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 15:19 UTC
On Sony a6000 Review preview (728 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karroly: I do not understand why DPR reviewer is bothered by the vertical black bars on the rear LCD when shooting 3:2 stills. Obviouly, given the body size/layout, Sony designers could not make the screen taller with a 3:2 ratio. So why not use the available space on the left and right sides to display a larger picture in 16:9 movie mode ?

@Karroly, I actually view most of my pictures on 16:10 displays (tablet, PC, etc), sometimes 16:9 (TV), but I'm not always watching it across the length of the display... The tablet is sometimes in portrait mode, the desktop has 3x 1920x1200 displays which are sometimes in PPP mode (so 3600x1920), etc etc. I'm an Android user 100% but Apple still owns a large portion of the tablet market and their tablets are definitely not 16:9...

Regardless of viewing habits, the sensors aren't 16:9, so if mainly shoot stills then a 16:9 display is absolutelya wasteful design unless you're shooting in 16:9 crop mode (in which case you're just wasting a chunk of the sensor's pixels all in the name of not seeing black bars). It's really not about the black bars, it's about the valuable surface space on a small camera body.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2014 at 17:53 UTC
Total: 437, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »