ecm

ecm

Lives in United States OH, United States
Joined on Aug 16, 2004
About me:

Using cameras:
Canon T3i, 18-55 II and 55-250
Panasonic G5 with Panasonic 14-45 and 45-200
Pentax Q, 02 and 06
Panasonic ZS15
Olympus C-5060WZ with underwater housing.

Old equipment:
Oly E-PL1 with collapsable junk lens.
Oly E-300, 14-45, 40-150

Really old stuff:
Nikon FG-20 and EM 35mm.
Nikkor 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.8
OM 50 F/1.4, 200 F/4, 300 F/4.5

Comments

Total: 81, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ginsbu: Amazon has a note on supported raw formats:
"Supported RAW photo formats include: Adobe (dng), Canon (cr2, crw), Epson (erf), Fuji (raf), Kodak (dcr), Minolta (mrw), Nikon (nef, nrw), Panasonic (rw2), Pentax (pef), Sigma (x3f), and Sony (srf). Other RAW formats may be supported, but we cannot guarantee them fully."

So basically everyone but Olympus. Argh!

I just tried it; it didn't work for my raw files - I downloaded several gigs of .rw2 (panasonic), and .cr2 (Canon) files and they showed up as regular files, counting against my 15 GB limit. Disappointing, and not very useful (at least to me).

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 22:34 UTC

I appreciate the sense of fun and adventure this camera provokes, but like the reviewer here I wonder at the pricing. It's there something about the instant film that requires a lot of fiddly mechanicals? Otherwise it's just a moderately fancy rubber lightproof box.... I feel that I might be missing something.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 15:43 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ecm: Interesting news, but I'm very disappointed that my RAW files are going to be excluded - makes it useless to me as an off-site backup. Not sure what else I would use it for.

I have an LG NAS with two 1.5gb drives in RAID 1, cost about $200 to put together. I would still like an off site backup - that NAS won't help if there's a fire, flood or lightning strike. I have a stack of blu-rays tucked away at work, but it's a pain to keep a physical archive like that up to date.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2014 at 20:18 UTC

Interesting news, but I'm very disappointed that my RAW files are going to be excluded - makes it useless to me as an off-site backup. Not sure what else I would use it for.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2014 at 23:30 UTC as 30th comment | 5 replies
On Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

zonoskar: 18000 fps at 64x64 pixels. Very usefull. NOT And only 200 fps at 1080p, you'd almost better get a Gopro Hero 4 (but that's only 120 fps at 1080p).

For a scientist, yes, useful. For a videographer, no, not what you want.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2014 at 11:42 UTC

My first thought when I saw this was "DPR is trolling! What fun!"

My next thought was, "well, if it makes someone happy, why not?".

Who am I to judge? I bought the black minivan because the powder blue one was girly and uncool.....

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2014 at 13:57 UTC as 68th comment

Now that it's been mentioned on the front page again (8/7/14), I was wondering if anyone knew what it sold for? Although I agree that it was a mistake to allow two "designers" to re-imagine the Leica, rather than a designer and an engineer (who actually understands what the thing needs to be able to do), this was for charity, not for Best Buy. There are plenty of people who would buy something like this just to give to the charity; the actual object is just a memento, unimportant in and of itself.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 7, 2014 at 13:50 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

Marcus Beard: Lovely to see.

Some good, and some great images. Personally I think the B&W blue shark is stunning, and the gnat deservedly chosen for a fresh take on such a subject, and the gannets shot is simply beautiful and well executed. I personally find the no. 1 and 2 shots quite well executed but not that interesting. No. 4 is an interesting subject but a bit lacking in interest and technical execution.

But that's the beauty of photography - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Agree, the B&W shark is a keeper, and the mosquito or gnat is as well. The others,.... Not so much.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 00:39 UTC

Why do I like the runners up rather than the first couple of "winners"?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 00:22 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (244 comments in total)

There are other options. I use a $35 soft underwater case with my good quality compact zoom, and I have no issues. I'm particular about sealing the case and I always test in the hotel before going out. The two items together give me better quality photos for less than the cheapest of these models. For occasional snaps while snorkeling on your yearly holiday you don't need a dedicated undewater camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 17:18 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

pedroboe100: Doest it say somewhere which lenses are used? sorry for being lazy

@NAwlins Contrarian:
Hmm, not seeing that..... which one?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 15:36 UTC
In reply to:

pedroboe100: Doest it say somewhere which lenses are used? sorry for being lazy

Assuming you're talking about the studio comparison photos, hover your cursor over the "i" symbol in the lower right corner and it'll tell you what they're using. The GH4 has the 45mm f/1.8 and the Sony's using the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 05:01 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (646 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecm: So disappointing. As though bells and whistles will make up for spectacularly poor image quality. 76% is being charitable. And $900 for a fast 85mm equivalent? Please.

@Sixpm:
"I have made a 60" x 40" print from the V3 ...."
So you said in an earlier post.... and also about a Ricoh camera a few months ago. Printing a lot of those 40 x 60's are you? you'd think you would run out of wall space pretty quick. Followed up with a straw man argument and an ad hominem attack. Gotta love te interwebs.

@sandy b:
Why do you point out photos from a different camera? Is it the same sensor?

In all honesty, I don't care enough about it to pursue this further; you spend your money however you like. I find it interesting, though, that neither of you really directed your comments to me, but rather to the greater audience. Why is that?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 23:04 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (646 comments in total)

So disappointing. As though bells and whistles will make up for spectacularly poor image quality. 76% is being charitable. And $900 for a fast 85mm equivalent? Please.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 12:52 UTC as 94th comment | 8 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS40 Real-world Samples Gallery article (90 comments in total)

It's a bit early to judge, there's nothing at the long end at all; it's pretty much a random collection of shots, from someone who likes the immediacy of wide angle.

If these are truly representative, though, I'd sum it up as "disappointing". Soft corners, lots of CA at full wide; seems to be struggling with noise reduction even at relatively low ISO. I think I see posterization of the red peppers. There's rather extreme pincushion distortion as well, adding to the corner problems. ISO 6400 is for web photos only. Ugly.

As one of the previous commentators said, compared to my ZS15 it's a bust, not a worthy replacement at all. Too bad, too; Panasonic had me at "viewfinder".....

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2014 at 01:41 UTC as 20th comment
On Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R real-world samples gallery article (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dimit: Now,that's a nice set of samples...for the first time in DPR!!!
Wish you all the best...from this and now on!!!

I think they took some pretty shots as well - looks like they had fun with that lens; it's defintely sharp in the middle. And I can see what they meant about the bokeh - still not that bad.

However.... show me a shot at f/1.2-2.0 with a corner (or even an edge!) in the plane of focus..... I didn't see one.

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2014 at 21:35 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecm: Are people really not interested in having a viewfinder any more? Or do Canon and Nikon think that "we don't need no steenkin' viewfinder" is the only take-home message from increasing mirrorless camera sales?

I bought a mirrorless because of the small size, and then went back to a dSLR because of the lack of an integrated viewfinder..... accessory viewfinders SUCK.....

@bobbarber - that's not my point, my daily driver is a G5. It's specifically NOT a GF3, NEX 3, PM-2, E-PL5, etc, etc - and it won't be a Canon G1X Mark II, either....

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 23:45 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (451 comments in total)

Are people really not interested in having a viewfinder any more? Or do Canon and Nikon think that "we don't need no steenkin' viewfinder" is the only take-home message from increasing mirrorless camera sales?

I bought a mirrorless because of the small size, and then went back to a dSLR because of the lack of an integrated viewfinder..... accessory viewfinders SUCK.....

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 23:27 UTC as 99th comment | 6 replies
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review preview (495 comments in total)

Huh. A new-generation R1..... for $1300?? Nah.

For $820 I could get a Panasonic G6 kit plus the 45-150 and get better quality photos and videos in a smaller package, faster lens notwithstanding. If I was willing to go a bit larger I could get the Canon SL1 kit plus 55-250 for about $850..... Or the Nikon 3200, or, for that matter, Sony's own A58, and STILL kick this thing's #$$ for a lot less dollars.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 21, 2014 at 02:41 UTC as 108th comment | 6 replies
On Am I missing something here? article (637 comments in total)

The viewfinder on the V3 is distressingly similar to the VF-2 viewfinder I was forced to buy for my Olympus E-PL1. I'm having flashbacks to an odd-shaped lump of a camera that wouldn't fit into any bag, constant worrying about whether the finder would get broken off, and losing the hotshoe to something that should have been integral to the camera.

I'm on my third mirrorless in 4 years - I will never buy one without a built-in viewfinder ever again.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 11:58 UTC as 177th comment | 1 reply
Total: 81, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »