Impulses

Impulses

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

Comments

Total: 450, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

DarkShift: No, I would never use a 12" touch screen for anything as complex piece of software as Photoshop is. Plus the screen would get too greasy already after 30 minutes use.

It's actually not much worse than a 13" laptop with a 16:9 display, just about the same height but less wide, so less room for tools and or secondary stuff around your main workspace but not too terrible given the overall size/weight and secondary tablet use. I think the dimensions are kind of ideal for a very mobile work device tbh, it's tablet use that might be more awkward on such a large slab. P.S. micro fiber is your friend

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 16:14 UTC
In reply to:

Menneisyys: BTW, as for screen size comparisons with the 11" MBA, note that the 12-inch with a 3:2 aspect ratio is actually much larger than the 11.6-inch with a 16:9 aspect ratio. Look at a a visual comparison here: http://www.displaywars.com/11,6-inch-16x9-vs-12-inch-3x2 . In maths, if you keep the same diagonal measure and make it more square, the area will be larger and not the opposite.

The more I think about it, 3:2 at that res/size really does start to sound like an ideal work device. Sure any bag that fits this will probably fit a wider 13" laptop too and you end up with a more cramped keyboard, less ideal for multi tasking etc... But if it's a secondary system (as it'd be for me) the overall size/weight advantage and secondary tablet use seems like a good tradeoff.

I'm not particularly fond of the iPad's more square dimensions (I tend to use tablets in portrait mode more than anything) but this might really suit me.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 16:10 UTC
In reply to:

Greg Gebhardt: But will it run my Windows software? I tried their latest and greatest and it installed quickbooks just fine but when I tried to open my 250gb company file, it brought the Surface Pro 2 to it's knees.

I would very much like to replace my notebook with this but will it do what I need?

250MB shouldn't be an issue regardless of how much RAM he has, even a 2GB system can open a file like that. Sounds like a software issue between different versions of Quickbook, and/or poor trolling and/or research on the part of the user.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 16:06 UTC
In reply to:

Daniel Lauring: I do wonder why none of the Windows ultrabooks use the latest integrated Intel Iris graphics though??? Does Apple have a lock on the processor? Is it too expensive? Do they think Windows users aren't sophisticated enough to know the difference?

The highest tier IGP is only available in quad core CPUs btw, which you'll never see in something like this for the thermal reasons already quoted.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 16:03 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: Yes, it is near-sighted greed pure and simple to force you to pay more for more ram according to HDD size, but that is why they make them. Apple not only do the same but are worse, and almost the biggest general offence against the consumer is that if they are kind enough to "give" you an HDMI slot they use the excuse that the motherboard has not got the ability, to limit your HDMI output into anything to a max of 1920x1080, so I'd check this very carefully before buying anything size your high resolution TV, or your 2560x1600 photo monitor that very likely has no displayport socket anyway , wont be able to work at full resolution. They'll add (and all are now so doing still) hundreds of pounds to the cost just for a plug!!

The Displayport socket may very well also be limited
to the same poor performance.

The last time I went looking no laptops at under £1100 list had an HDMI port that supported 2560x1600 output Only Apple .

They're not artificially limiting those HDMI ports you know... It's a technical limitation and comes down to the components used, in many cases it's integrated graphics so blame Intel.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 15:59 UTC
In reply to:

Menneisyys: BTW, as for screen size comparisons with the 11" MBA, note that the 12-inch with a 3:2 aspect ratio is actually much larger than the 11.6-inch with a 16:9 aspect ratio. Look at a a visual comparison here: http://www.displaywars.com/11,6-inch-16x9-vs-12-inch-3x2 . In maths, if you keep the same diagonal measure and make it more square, the area will be larger and not the opposite.

Ends up marginally less wide, but significantly taller (in landscape mode), which is great for actually working on it... Overall dimensions might be kinda awkward for tablet use tho. Seems huge compared to 10" 16:10 tablets and even those felt large for daily reading/browsing (I stepped down to a 7" tho 8-9" might be the sweet spot for me).

It's gonna dwarf most tablets out there, I imagine it's great for drawing and note taking tho, and much better as a working device than past 10" hybrids. It's taller than even a 16:9 13" laptop too, just less wide. Looking forward to trying it in person at the MS store, I don't particularly need a mobile system this powerful but the price point is tempting.

Nobody's making the kind of higher quality Bay Trail convertible I'd prefer for $500-600 (plenty of good budget models below that tho), so this isn't a bad step up.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 15:56 UTC
In reply to:

nicolas guilbert: I think that on sites as FaceBook, you will find most stolen images. But they remove EXIF & IPTC data on picture uploads. I never understood why?

Google+ keeps the metadata actually, some anyway, I know I can see aperture and other shooting parameters.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 15:44 UTC
In reply to:

WilliamJ: Funnily, I've just bought a new laptop today. And guess what ? It's that new machine's diametric opposite. How one can reasonably do serious photo processing on such a little screen (12" !). How about the heat after some hours of work (can one work with it more than 30mn before getting an eye ache anyway) ? Is that computer cooled by super-compact liquid nitrogen cells ? 8GB of RAM at best ? Humm, ok for little files like a bunch of standard jpeg, but I'm not sure it can be enough for a large group of big Tiff to be displayed and worked on. And I even don't speak about the keyboard that seems not so effective for a "super" fast typing. I feel that Microsoft desperately have been trying for some times now to drag us from serious computers to "light and fun" machines. What a weird trend !

You do realize any laptop/tablet can be hooked up to external displays ands input devices no? This is not a new thing... For highly mobile individuals it's very convenient to have ONE system where your can have all your apps etc without managing multiple configurations, catalogs, and whatnot. Surface Pro 3 gets closer to that ideal one system solution than ever...

It's not my cup of tea cause I enjoy the DIY aspect of desktop building, and hardcore gaming, and easier upgrades, but dang that price point sure makes it tempting... Even if you have/need a desktop, it looks like a pretty ideal second system. Right now I have a desktop, an old netbook, and a 7" Android tablet. The netbook's getting long in the tooth, if I was traveling more I'd get this over a lightweight laptop in an instant.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 03:21 UTC
In reply to:

Maverick_: guys before bashing this, keep one thing in mind, the Surface is a very popular product. They do sell. And it's a neat but flawed concept.

I was in the market for an ultrabook, narrowed my choice to a 13.3" Sony Flip, but before buying it Sony sold that division and I decided to look further. Also 13.3 Flip screen is way too heavy to be used as tablet since the keyboard is still attached.

The Surface 2 Pro wasn't even in the running for me, because of the tiny screen size and weight.

So, I decided to look at tablets instead and just when I needed to finalize my purchase Samsung came out with the excellent Galaxy Note Pro 12.2. I got the LTE version on first day of release and have not regretted it.

Surface going to 12" is a good move, but a better move would be 13.3. Windows products don't work as well on small screens. But keep in mind, the thickness/weight of the Surface is its worst enemy.

The future will be phones and tablets and only 1% will use desktops.

You can rip my three calibrated 24" 1920x1200 IPS displays from my cold dead hands... THE CONSUMER market might be moving to lightweight devices running mobile OS, but those devices are still years from taking the place of real PCs for anyone with serious work requirements (or hardcore gamers).

We've been hearing the same story for decades, literally, thin clients were all the rage when I was in high school and barely getting into computers... The need for fast hardware on location hasn't subsided all that much tho, ma and grandpa just don't need it for email and web browsing anymore.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 03:16 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Coolpix: I'm not liking the trend for the RX100 to get thicker. As a guy who likes to throw his P&S in my front jeans pocket, the original RX100 at 36mm was appealing. But the ii and now iii have grown in thickness a couple mm each time. At this rate, the RX100ix in 10 years will be another inch thicker. I like the Canon S trend better, with each successor getting thinner until this last S120 bumping up to 1.14 but still thinner than the S90's 1.22 inches. We're talking pocket cameras here not cars and each new one should get smaller not larger.

I don't get what skinny jeans have to do with anything... Unless you don't mind an obnoxious bulge in your pants, and a current RX100 will look obnoxious in the pants pocket of someone with an average build and regular slacks. Not the end of the world of course, still beats most anything in it's size class, no harm in wishing for an even slimmer large sensor compact tho.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 17:06 UTC
On Lytro Illum in the hands of five leading photographers article (166 comments in total)

I get that Lytro wants to let the viewer play with the focus point, it remains to be seen whether viewers care to... But the way these particular scenes are presented is a little confusing, couldn't they just shoot 4K video with a fast lens for a similar effect?

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 17:02 UTC as 59th comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Coolpix: I'm not liking the trend for the RX100 to get thicker. As a guy who likes to throw his P&S in my front jeans pocket, the original RX100 at 36mm was appealing. But the ii and now iii have grown in thickness a couple mm each time. At this rate, the RX100ix in 10 years will be another inch thicker. I like the Canon S trend better, with each successor getting thinner until this last S120 bumping up to 1.14 but still thinner than the S90's 1.22 inches. We're talking pocket cameras here not cars and each new one should get smaller not larger.

I'd be all for an RX90 or something like that without EVF, fliout screen, etc., if they somehow managed to get it closer to the S90's proportions. Heck, they've surely made some miniaturization improvements in lens design, a slimmed down (and possibly budget priced) model would be interesting.

As it is, the RX100 has almost no direct competition unless you're also willing to look at ILCs and/or larger cameras, a trimmed down model would squash anything with a 1/1.7" sensor... It'd probably cut into the bigger brother's sales tho, so it's unlikely until that one has more direct competitors ($800 price tag is a firm sign that it doesn't).

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 15:13 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raist3d: Here's an idea Sony. Make the RX100 Pro (or whatever you want to call it). It would be an interchangeable lens camera with 3 fast primes - a 28mm F2.0, a 50mm F1.4 and a 100mm F1.8. Maybe 18mm and 140mm options later.

Don't make it a super blown up new lens system, just key primes and maybe one good zoom and done. Put a nice grip area.

Oh and a new sensor variant with phase detect AF.

Yeah, cause if anyone needs another mount to support it's Sony... Even if they went in with a reduced scope, the whole package wouldn't end up as compact, for the same reasons that a GM1 or even a Nikon 1 still has a larger lens/mount protrusion even with the smallest of lenses.

So it'd basically be set up to compete with Nikon 1, M4/3, and Samsung's new NX mini... Oh and M4/3 already has 24/2.0, 50/1.4 & 1.8, and 90/1.8 primes available (and 120/2.8, etc), they're all pretty small and usable on a tiny GM1 (which body-only is already smaller than an RX100).

The RX100 is unique and a large part of it's success is cause three revisions later there's still nothing quite like it out there, that's also why that get away with charging $800 for it.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 03:18 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

shaocaholica: Re: Touch screens

People need to realize that just having a touch screen does not a good UI make. Apple and Google spend lots of money and time developing their touchscreen SOFTWARE. If you just put the hardware in the camera and let a UI programmer out of school work on it for a week you'll get what most touch screen cameras have which is junk.

For a really good and unobtrusive touch UI you need:

-Hardware
-Software
-Design

I think camera companies can maybe scrounge really hard to get 2 of those but I definitely don't think they can hit all 3.

That should've read can't...

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 00:40 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

shaocaholica: Re: Touch screens

People need to realize that just having a touch screen does not a good UI make. Apple and Google spend lots of money and time developing their touchscreen SOFTWARE. If you just put the hardware in the camera and let a UI programmer out of school work on it for a week you'll get what most touch screen cameras have which is junk.

For a really good and unobtrusive touch UI you need:

-Hardware
-Software
-Design

I think camera companies can maybe scrounge really hard to get 2 of those but I definitely don't think they can hit all 3.

Canon, Panasonic and others have brilliant touchscreen UIs, even in some of their lower end cameras... The trick is to not make it the centerpiece, on most of those cameras you can turn off the touchscreen entirely if you dislike it and you still have access to every last function thru the regular buttons and menus. The touchscreen doesn't replace anything, but it's a LOT better for certain tasks like selecting the AF point, flipping thru images and zooming while browsing, etc etc.

That being said, it's not like you have a ton of DoF control here, even with the new lens... If the camera's AF can find faces when shooting wide open at 70mm then a touchscreen isn't gonna save it.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 00:38 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

shaocaholica: Re: Touch screens

People need to realize that just having a touch screen does not a good UI make. Apple and Google spend lots of money and time developing their touchscreen SOFTWARE. If you just put the hardware in the camera and let a UI programmer out of school work on it for a week you'll get what most touch screen cameras have which is junk.

For a really good and unobtrusive touch UI you need:

-Hardware
-Software
-Design

I think camera companies can maybe scrounge really hard to get 2 of those but I definitely don't think they can hit all 3.

Canon, Panasonic and others have brilliant touchscreen UIs, even in some of their lower end cameras... The trick is to not make it the centerpiece, on most of those cameras you can turn off the touchscreen entirely if you dislike it and you still have access to every last function thru the regular buttons and menus. The touchscreen doesn't replace anything, but it's a LOT better for certain tasks like selecting the AF point, flipping thru images and zooming while browsing, etc etc.

That being said, it's not like you have a ton of DoF control here, even with the new lens... If the camera's AF can find faces when shooting wide open at 70mm then a touchscreen isn't gonna save it.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 00:38 UTC
On Stream your photos... via backpack? article (36 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bruce Crossan: So when do we get cameras with a built in 4G SIM Card? Or a camera with no rear screen - just a device to attach the camera to a smartphone where the screen would normally go. . . of any size or operating system, with an App that replaces all the functions of a rear screen?

Are you being coy or is this just a very clever albeit uninformandpost? Both things actually already exist, Samsung has put out cameras with direct SIM slots for a data plan (in their Galaxy line) AND Sony has put out lens/sensor modules that you can simply attach to a phone. Neither seems to have caught on, yet.

The problem with the former is few people wanna pay for a data plan for their camera, and ultimately it's not much harder (sometimes even preferable) to just transfer images to a phone and deal with them there. The problem with Sony's QX modules was mostly execution, the one with the 1" sensor is less pocketable than an RX100 and the one with the small sensor is still bulky and pricey for the IQ and amount of zoom.

I think a QX module with the 1" sensor and a prime lens would be much more interesting, even to mass market if properly advertised.

Direct link | Posted on May 19, 2014 at 23:18 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timur Born: Will dust stay out when this camera is stuffed into a pocket? The main drawback of my Panasonic LF1 (smaller than RX) is that dust creeps in very fast and now some of my images are full of dark spots.

I carry my LF1 in a small nylon baggie for exactly this reason, if I'm putting it in and out of my pocket a lot during an event I might get lazy ands just stuff it in there, but once I'm done shooting for a while I slip it into the baggie. It's like a jewelry baggie or whatever, drawstring closure, just enough protection against the dust bunnies with no extra bulk.

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2014 at 17:50 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

JordanAT: I just sold all my DSLR gear and am in the market for a new, lighter, but good camera with RAW ability. I really don't want to fiddle with interchangable lenses or dust caps, but I need low light ability. Even if I caved on the lenses thing, nearly all of the mirrorless are stuck with horrifically slow lenses.

I'd just about decided for the Canon GX1 Mk 2 when this popped up. About the only shortcoming of the Sony is the 70mm long end, but I think I can live with it if the pixel-to-pixel comparison is favorable (20 vs 12MP giving me crop-reach to 90mm effective). I'll be interested to see how the lens performs and how good the 3200+ ISO shots look like in low light. I actually don't need the viewfinder, as I find the screens to be more useful, but it might be nice if the screen can be turned *off* completely (manual off) for use in clubs/concerts where screens are distracting.

I'm sure there's an option somewhere to turn off the EVF sensor and leave the EVF on until switched back, it'd be silly if they don't do that.

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2014 at 17:47 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

reginalddwight: I like that Sony plans to continue production of the RX100 Mark I and II despite the imminent release of the Mark III. Great for the consumer to have choices.

Based on information from the company's YouTube video, the price points will soon be $799, $649, $499 for the different iterations.

I am nearly ready to have Sony take my money!

$500 for the Mk I is kind of a huge deal, that's a stone's throw away from the price of many other small sensor compacts. Frankly, if SOMEONE had put a 1" sensor and Wi-Fi in a compact a few years ago and sold it for $500 I'm willing to bet the P&S market would be doing a lot better. Only reason Sony keeps getting away with the high price point for the flagship RX100 is they STILL have no direct competitor.

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2014 at 17:44 UTC
Total: 450, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »