Impulses

Impulses

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

Comments

Total: 679, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

CNY_AP: It only weighs 7 ounces with the 14mm F2.5 lens. GM1 bodies are still selling for $200+ used on ebay.

So are you arguing for the GM1 or the value proposition of this? I'm confused... :p I'd buy one of these for <$150, already bought a GM1 for $320!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 18:01 UTC
In reply to:

canonpro: Biggest problem of this over the Sony, the Olympus does not have a removable battery, its built in. So when your battery runs out (or when it final craps out) your kinda of screwed.

I think DxO had a better idea than Oly or Sony, a prime lens is more fitting of this kinda contraption... Sure you can attach a prime to this Oly but even with a pancake it ends up pretty bulky, though I realize it's more of an experimental platform than anything. I'd like to see something like the DxO but with a wireless connection or a less clunky looking attachment method... They could probably build in a clamp and just use a short retractable cable.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 18:00 UTC
On Beyond the table top: 5 mini tripods reviewed article (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

Impulses: A rough diameter or circumference at the mid section of the folded form of these tripods would be useful to have, that's the one measurement most manufacturers don't provide and if you're carrying one of these then every inch probably counts...

Some of these look twice as bulky as others across their mid section but it's hard to judge from numbers. There's a big difference in carrying something that's 10" long but 1" across vs 8" long but 2-3" across... Their weight and appearance sort of indicate how that pans out but still.

Nice review btw, I like that you're comparing this kinda thing since it's often impossible to find someone that's handled more than one or two of any of them. Looking forward to the roundup of the more basic/smaller and/or non adjustable ones. I've actually got or have had a few of those (Benro's, Pixi, Copter, Joby Micros & GPod Magnetic, etc) so I'm pretty curious to see how you break it down.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 17:52 UTC
On Beyond the table top: 5 mini tripods reviewed article (157 comments in total)

A rough diameter or circumference at the mid section of the folded form of these tripods would be useful to have, that's the one measurement most manufacturers don't provide and if you're carrying one of these then every inch probably counts...

Some of these look twice as bulky as others across their mid section but it's hard to judge from numbers. There's a big difference in carrying something that's 10" long but 1" across vs 8" long but 2-3" across... Their weight and appearance sort of indicate how that pans out but still.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 17:46 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply
On Beyond the table top: 5 mini tripods reviewed article (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

Phil Askey: Great round-up but you missed out my personal favourite (and often used), the Leica Tabletop tripod, not as flexible certainly but amazingly well built.

http://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Technical-Equipment/Tripod-Accessories/Tabletop-tripod

I like the clever rotating leg design (which Joby kinda copied for their tiny tiny Micros), the odd V shape when collapsed is more awkward to pack than other similarly functional options out there tho.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 17:38 UTC
On Beyond the table top: 5 mini tripods reviewed article (157 comments in total)

Kirk makes a small 1" clamp that's very comparable (from the looks of it) to the $90 one quoted throughout the review, only it's $40 instead... There's some $30 Chinese ones on Amazon too (tho more of the mechanism is exposed on those usually, so possibly less reliable). Just saying, there's much cheaper ways to make any of these or other mini tripods compatible with Arca QR plates.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 17:28 UTC as 54th comment
On Beyond the table top: 5 mini tripods reviewed article (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Banas: What? No Manfrotto/Benro/RRS/My-Favorite-$5-Brand?

Oh, these are "mini-tripods" that are *height-adjustable* and can *hold up 4kg or more,* yet can pack into a small bag...

(Just thought I'd get that out there first!)

Oops, already made a similar comment before seeing this one... Being height adjustable to such a small degree seems of questionable value to me but I'm sure they're the perfect in between solution for some. I spent a while looking at that Sirui myself... Don't forget the tiny Joby Micro(s) for the other upcoming mini roundup! (that and the Copter were my favorite after trying a couple out)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 17:10 UTC
On Beyond the table top: 5 mini tripods reviewed article (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

white shadow: Not comprehensive enough. Where are the most popular mini tripods from Manfrotto?

You mean the Pixi? Or some of the older models with the detachable column? I think either are even more mini than most of the ones depicted here, I prefer the Cullmann Copter or the Benro knockoff of the Pixi over the Pixi (lack of a portrait drop slot and stiff mechanism)... Their older models are pretty pricey for what they are (pretty simplistic).

The Cullmann Magesit Copter should've been included if nothing else because it's also useful for flashes (the little plate on the head reverses unto a cold shoe) and because it's easy to slap a QR clamp on it. I've been tempted by the Sirui depicted here but ultimately decided it was kinda bulky, might as well carry my full size Sirui.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

Class A: Good to see some balanced discussion in the article. DSLRs are by no means the "dinosaur technology" that they are often characterised as.

One point that rarely gets made is that image quality is largely determined by the lens and that lenses that provide high-quality images even in bad conditions tend to be large (that's just physics that no engineering can get around). A tiny mirrorless body more often than not then just provides an inadequate grip for such lenses, yielding a combo that is imbalanced and not well-matched, with the overall size of a quality kit negating the small body size and weight advantage a mirrorless camera offers.

Surely mirrorless cameras have their perfectly matched application areas, but so do DSLRs. This sustained hailing of mirrorless cameras as the future technology that is still misunderstood by customers got old quite a while ago already.

That's a pretty large over simplification of lens design challenges and logistics...

A shorter flange distance also helps make some lenses smaller, giving mirrorless an edge sometimes, not to mention the fact that most mirrorless systems don't suffer from the dichotomy that APS-C DSLR users face where most lenses aren't actually designed specifically for them but for FF.

On the other hand there's no denying the economies of scale and huge R&D budgets for Canikon, which enable things like Canon's $300 UWA zoom (like 50% cheaper than any other system's UWA) or their newest ultra UWA.

Taking all that into account, minor quips about balance would probably be the least of my concerns when looking at the different lens libraries, unless you're a wildlife shooter or something like that.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 03:20 UTC
In reply to:

Camley: Thank you Richard for a good and well balanced article. It's time to chill out on the endless DSLR versus Mirrorless wars.

We also need to get away from a "Mirrorless must be small" and a "DSLR must be large" attitude.

What we need is equipment choice and financially successful camera and lens manufacturers. The loss of any supplier is a negative for our hobby.

Well, there's no escaping the fact the mirrorless bodies can be as small as a P&S (Panasonic GM, etc) or as large as a DSLR (GH4, NX1, etc) to suit your preference, often within the same system mount... Whereas DSLR can't scale quite as widely, the smallest one (SL1?) still being the size of a mid sized mirrorless body (without even taking into account lens size differences). Whether that matters or not is subjective, it's probably more relevant for enthusiasts with multiple cameras or those seeking utmost portability.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 02:57 UTC
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

DStudio: "That was remedied with the borderline ridiculous $1,600 lens made from what has to be glass from the fires of Mordor; the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 Nocticron. That much bread for a Micro Four Thirds lens goes against everything (we think) the system stands for, which is why the Olympus 45mm F1.8 still stands as our studio lens."

Isn't this hypocritical? Top 85/1.4 and 1.2 lenses go for between ~$1000 and $2000 (and tends toward the higher end of this range, if you only count prices for new lenses). But this 85mm (equivalent) f/1.2 lens is outrageous at $1600?

[does double-take]

But wait - this is the *same* article where you praise the $4500 OTUS?!

*** double-standard alert ***

I haven't used the lens (and don't shoot m4/3), but it's as if this was thrown in there just for the purpose of being hypocritical. BTW, it's $1400 and is only one star short of a perfect user rating (94 of 95, with a lone 4-star review) from NY's biggest camera retailer.

The new Panasonic 42.5/1.7 might be worth comparing against the old Oly...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 17:40 UTC
In reply to:

Lawrencew: If you don't like a contract, don't enter into it.
Is it that hard?

There's actually a guy in the DPR boards that has shot T Swift events and concerts from the press pit etc, can't remember his handle or who he works for tho but it'd be interesting to hear his perspective. Pretty sure he's even linked to samples and posted a couple here. Way too much discussion and public back and forth from both parties without really disclosing everything that's going on, makes it hard have a solid takeaway let alone stance.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 10:51 UTC
In reply to:

Random Photographer: In the future, fanboys will wonder what this "Canikon" was as they partake in the Samsony wars.

You think the way it'll shake out is Samsung/Sony over Fuji/Pana/Oly? Or just going for comedic effect? Personally I think it's too early to call, but there'll definitely be a shake out on the long run. Then again, none of those brands are solely dependent on their camera business so who knows... With the entire industry becoming more of a niche there might indeed be room for more players, ironically.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 06:23 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: The nice thing about these camera brands (Samsung, Sony, etc), that are definitely NOT Canon and Nikon protocol, is that outstanding improvements come via FREE upgrades through software.

The big C and N will deliberately throttle the improvements on the next model down the line...

Good onya Samsung! and the other brands too!

.

Impossible, a TV/toaster brand can't possibly be doing anything better than Canikon.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 06:20 UTC
In reply to:

Lassoni: Luckily I don't listen to pop music (which I despise), so I don't have need to use spotify or other streaming services (since they most probably don't have all the songs I want to listen). Been much better listening to free or subscription based internet radios!

The catalog of what's for sale across iTunes/Amazon still tends to outstrip streaming catalogs where stuff mysteriously vanishes and pops back in existence as deals are struck, contracts expire ands are renegotiated, etc. I don't think I could stand building long term playlists on a music service with such a fickle existence, which is all of them.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 06:07 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Supply and demand.
There would literally be thousands of photographers out there who are willing to shoot Taylor Swift for free and give up their rights. It's not totally the clients fault if photographers themselves (as an industry) have been undervaluing themselves. Where one disagrees and declines to shoot, another 5 will pop up and offer themselves up to be eaten.
In contrast, there is only one Taylor Swift.

How is there only one Apple? They almost had a monopoly, almost, over digital distribution pre streaming but Amazon and others were gaining market share... Post streaming they aren't even the major player anymore.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 06:04 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: I understand there is skill involved with concert photography, however you are recording a show put together by other people. They created the set, scene, ambiance, provided the models and lighting. It's not like you are creating art organically when you photograph it. The musician and her concert team did the bulk of the work and the photo would have no value if not for the musician. It's more of a collaborative work, for which both parties must compromise.

There is no such condition when Apple plays a song on a music service. They did nothing and contributed nothing to that work of art. The should not use it for profit (or promotion) without permission and/or payment.

Not sure that horse analogy/comparison is very accurate... iTunes isn't any sort of technological marvel that required this R&D breakthrough, it isn't even as massive a server/backend load as something like Netflix is... There's only really one thing that has ever made iTunes unique compared to the it's competition, and that's Steve Job's business savvy.

Job's ability to convince all major studios to sell their catalogs within the same store front and for the same price per song (even if everyone eventually switched to 0.69/0.99/1.29) IS the one thing that MADE iTunes and gave them a jump on the competition, which translates into a massive market share advantage that still stands.

It was a major coup and when looking back at history it'll probably be viewed with as much awe, if not more, than any actual product launch. Outside of that there isn't anything unique about iTunes, before the store it was (and still is) a buggy piece of code on Windows, and they didn't even pioneer DRM free music (Microsoft of all people and even Amazon had a jump on Apple in dissolving DRM).

Ultimately iTunes had a borderline monopoly on digital distribution that was only threatened by the advent of streaming services, which they're angling to get in. It's less about the tech or the horse than it is about simple business and marketing tho...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 06:00 UTC
On #1 in France: Hands-on with DxO ONE article (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bev81 from France: Note: The editor learned French a long time ago and to a relatively poor standard. As such, translations provided in this article are based on minimal research and may contain inaccuracies.

Not bad Barney. Could have been much worse :)

Just curious where you really did learn french.
Frankly, you knew "une couille dans le potage" ???

Sounds like d'oh, except d'oh needs no translation, just watch one Simpsons episode and you'll get it... :P

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 01:47 UTC
On Sony adds XAVC S and high bitrate video to a6000 article (180 comments in total)
In reply to:

ozturert: It requires an SDXC card. It does not record XAVC-S videos onto my my Sandisk SDHC 45MB/s cards. If it was an SDXC with 45MB/s, it'd be OK :)
But this is very good, finally A6000 gets the XAVC-S codec. And startup time is much better now, and as good as a 5-year-old compact :)

Ehhh, NAND doesn't tend to fail at some indeterminate time, it has a predictable average number of write cycles... Plus as it moves to smaller processes for higher capacities it actually loses some endurance/cycles... So I wouldn't really say a larger card is inherently less failure prone. I've never understood the phobia of losing one large card's contents either tho.

Presumably if you buy a large card it's for convenience, so you don't need to swap cards during a shoot or during day. How does juggling multiple cards actually give you peace of mind in those cases? For starters, from the human side you're increasing the odds of dropping one somewhere or killing it with static etc, and even if you take the clumsy human out of the equation you now have two things that could fail rather than one...

If your images are that critical the thought process shouldn't revolve about mitigating loss but around preventing it entirely with a sound backup strategy. These days it's not hard to offload quickly even to a phone be it via Wi-Fi or USB OTG... I can hook up a camera to my phone (or take out the card and slap it on a reader if I wanna conserve battery life) and have it offload files over a few minutes of downtime while sitting in a bag.

The days of needing to lug a laptop around for backup purposes are way past... There's been other solutions for years that'll read a card and offload to hard drives etc. I just like using my phone and cheap flash drives because it's easier to manage, and often quicker, and cheaper.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 20:52 UTC
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: I've heard from a reliable source that the change was related to issues with the pixie dust.

Too much or too little tho? That's the key.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 19:58 UTC
Total: 679, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »