forpetessake

forpetessake

Lives in United States Transylvania, United States
Works as a exorcist
Joined on Oct 3, 2011
About me:

I don't reply to private messages.

Comments

Total: 542, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Old glorious names are complete disappointment nowadays: first Hasselblad, now Leica becoming the synonyms of expensive mediocrity.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 22:35 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Sir Nick of High Point: Corner sharpness high iso dynamic range megapixles raw jpeg sensor..
Yeah, but does it take good pictures?

By Sir Nick of High Point: "Corner sharpness high iso dynamic range megapixles raw jpeg sensor..
Yeah, but does it take good pictures?"

Cameras don't take pictures, people do.
Can somebody take a good picture with Leica? -- Sure.
Can somebody take a poor picture with Leica? -- Sure.
Is somebody in a better position to take a good picture with Sony rather than Leica? -- No doubt about it.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 22:31 UTC
On Samsung NX1 real-world sample images article (330 comments in total)
In reply to:

JEROME NOLAS: It's DSLR size, the 16-50mm lens is heavy and very expensive. What they were thinking about?

By JEROME NOLAS: "It's DSLR size, the 16-50mm lens is heavy and very expensive. What they were thinking about?"

They were thinking about the same thing every other manufacturer is thinking, namely, how to make advances in the market place and increase their profits. Obviously they did their market analysis before committing to production. Are you offended by the fact that they didn't ask your opinion? You are apparently some kind of clairvoyant since you are so quick to offer your opinions without any analysis or facts.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 23:56 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

monkeybrain: So the Samsung NX Mini's (also 1 inch sensor) sample's gallery was up and the camera on sale before the Canon was announced. But DPReview clearly prioritised the Canon review because it'll get more hits and have (presumably indefinitely) sidelined the Mini review despite the sample's gallery having some very promising shots.

How long does it take to write a review, really? Some sites seem to be able to write them in scores.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 00:10 UTC
In reply to:

neo_nights: Don't miss those Hassy cameras so much. As I'd commented on SAR, there's always some marketing "genius" loose out there, wishing to convince companies that those "luxurious" and "unique" cameras are a good way to go.

So, those guys are fired today but they'll soon find their way somewhere else :)
(Pentax/Ricoh, anyone?)

Pentax already had one genius, who created a yellow brik :-)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 02:42 UTC

What took them so long? Forget the sales, they tarnished the brand, which is worth much more. People were laughing at those cameras calling them Frankenblad.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 00:53 UTC as 182nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: but is a Lexus not a Toyota, an Infinity a Nissan, and an Acura a Honda!

You don't slap a different tires on a Toyota and call it a Lexus, especially when your tires are freaking ugly.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 00:49 UTC

Color reproduction has been always problematic for Panasonic and it still is.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2014 at 18:34 UTC as 22nd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

RonHendriks: Camera's need larger screens then 3,2"!

An easy solution would be a swiveling LCD, like in camcorders and move all buttons to the lens itself. You get both large screen and footprint not much bigger than the lens.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2014 at 18:12 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: "a 3.2" unit with SVGA+ 1.62 million dot resolution, yielding a pixel density of 343ppi"

The numbers don't match. There are 3 dots per pixel. The 1.62 Mdots is a measly 540000 pixels.

"343ppi" means pixels per inch. There are only 540000 pixels or 114 ppi, which is pretty low.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2014 at 01:27 UTC

"a 3.2" unit with SVGA+ 1.62 million dot resolution, yielding a pixel density of 343ppi"

The numbers don't match. There are 3 dots per pixel. The 1.62 Mdots is a measly 540000 pixels.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2014 at 00:53 UTC as 8th comment | 4 replies
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1669 comments in total)
In reply to:

ilikefood: Curved sensor that gives you great edge-to-edge sharpness even with cheap lenses?

I guess it's too early for that, so yeah, probably just a wi-fi printer.

No, it's a curved lens to allow shooting around the corner for the 'street' photographers.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 22:53 UTC
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1669 comments in total)

It's getting tiresome. Seems like many companies nowadays are using some cheesy sensationalist headlines, which ends up in nothing. Soon people will stop paying attention to all that cr@p.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 22:46 UTC as 624th comment
In reply to:

Nuno Souto: This same nonsense was tried here in Australia. It's nothing more than pure consolidated revenue raising.
There is no way that "license" money will ever be used specifically to improve o help anything with the parks. It's pure bureaucracy.

It's even worse than simple revenue raising. One thing to pay tax, another thing to depend on some fat a@@ bureaucrat deciding to issue or not a permit. It's yet another source of government harassment and corruption.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 04:25 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: They're only clarifying the language, not the original intent. If you read the directives, it's pretty clear that they're not restricting us from photographing the wilderness.

The proposed language for the amended directive was put up and comments invited. They have comments and are going to adjust accordingly. This is nothing more than a step in the process and nothing to worry about.

"I wouldn't discredit the valuable work many federal park workers do to keep things clean, safe and available for us to enjoy"

And those same workers could have been the employees of the private companies running the same parks if there were no government grab of the land. They would have also earned more, because they wouldn't need to support the huge inefficient bureaucratic pyramid above them.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 04:17 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: Outrageous intrusion of government. Ansel Adams must be turning in his grave. First they annexed the land for the 'public' use, and then that government bureaucracy made themselves judges and de facto owners prohibiting that same public from the free use of the land.

" If it weren't for Aneel Adams, many of these places wouldn't BE national parks."

Sure, they would have been private parks, many times more friendly to the visitor with no bureaucracy wrecking the havoc. Ansel Adams would shudder if he knew what the government is doing.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 04:12 UTC

Government stupidity and corruption is abominable (and obaminable). They should either privatize all those lands or at least lease them to the highest bidder.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 04:04 UTC as 77th comment
In reply to:

Jun2: I saw some overly aggressive photographers chasing animals around in the National parks. I can understand the requirement of the permits

Complete nonsense! There are already laws protecting the animals, too many in fact.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 03:59 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: They're only clarifying the language, not the original intent. If you read the directives, it's pretty clear that they're not restricting us from photographing the wilderness.

The proposed language for the amended directive was put up and comments invited. They have comments and are going to adjust accordingly. This is nothing more than a step in the process and nothing to worry about.

Yeah, just a bureaucracy at work, nothing special. I wish they would just shut off the government for a year or so to give some respite to the people. Keep the military operational and send the rest of them home for common good.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 03:58 UTC
In reply to:

Gunzorro: Who's running this country anyway? Strip off another freedom, add another fee. Enough with the nanny state.

Obamacrats are running the country. I'm not surprised by all the damage they do, I'm surprised by the stupidity of the electorate who voted them in the office.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 01:50 UTC
Total: 542, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »