johnduncan

johnduncan

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Works as a IT Professional
Joined on Jun 27, 2006

Comments

Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: 1736 x 1156 is NOT low resolution for video. That looks amazing. Minus the Moire.

How is it shy of Full HD?

EDIT - ah, widthways. Got you, my bad.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2013 at 22:12 UTC
In reply to:

Cameron R Hood: Wonder if THIS front element is held on with double-sided tape? I will NEVER buy anything from this company, and I won't let the photographic community forget the foundation on which they built this company.

Thanks...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2013 at 16:29 UTC
On Just Posted: Pentax K-5 II / K-5 IIS Review article (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikePursey: Quote: The battery door has a tendency to open during normal operation. Taping it shut when working in wet conditions might be prudent ....

I have to say I have had the K-7 (same body as the K-5/K-5II/K-5IIs), the K-5 MKI and now the K-5II and have taken thousands of shots with each camera. The only time the battery door has opened is when I was changing the battery, not once has it done it otherwise.

Yep.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2013 at 13:45 UTC
On Just Posted: Pentax K-5 II / K-5 IIS Review article (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikePursey: Quote: The battery door has a tendency to open during normal operation. Taping it shut when working in wet conditions might be prudent ....

I have to say I have had the K-7 (same body as the K-5/K-5II/K-5IIs), the K-5 MKI and now the K-5II and have taken thousands of shots with each camera. The only time the battery door has opened is when I was changing the battery, not once has it done it otherwise.

OFHS Heie2. I have never looked at the score on camera reviews (or indeed whether it is a bronze, silver or gold). I read the words.

As far as I'm aware, dpreview is not reviewing your manhood.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2013 at 07:38 UTC
In reply to:

wetracy: "...at a price rather lower than the camera manufacturers' equivalents."

It's just "lower." What's the "rather lower" claptrap?

I think what you really want to say is that it's significantly lower, but your ad sales people will not tolerate that. And you can't bring yourself to go with the simple and straightforward, "at a lower price." So you make yourself feel better with a silly and superfluous "rather" tossed in.

I'd rather read honest copy.

Unless the words are "I want you to hit me as hard as you can."

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2013 at 20:01 UTC

Irrespective of the fact that I can't afford it...

$75=£70

:sigh:

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2013 at 18:38 UTC as 747th comment | 1 reply

How do we feel about the falling man?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man

(EDIT - apologies, I didn't see WAH ask more or less the same question)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2012 at 22:32 UTC as 85th comment

A 'photographer-friendly' camera? What will they think of next ?!?!?!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2012 at 15:41 UTC as 26th comment
On Just deployed: New dpreview.com forums system article (699 comments in total)
In reply to:

photophile: The whole vote +1 or -1 thing is puerile & childish for an informative, premiere website such as DPreview - pandering heavily to the teenage facebook/youtube generation. DPreview´s hand has probably been forced by Amazon to include the feature to help with their sales (despite DPrevew telling us they are "independent"). But we do have a choice - just DON´T use it. Let Amazon figure out its own sales strategy and let DPreview feel the full force of ownership by a larger organisation.

Sadly I can't '-1' this, but if I could, how would that help Amazon?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2012 at 21:46 UTC
On DSC_0006 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (20 comments in total)
In reply to:

Urbanus1234: Damn...this camera does not belong at 12,800. This image is just simply falling apart and beyond usable. Just goes to show you that fast glass always trumps high ISO.

Nonsense. Not usable for what? Vogue? Of course not. For recording things that people who would buy this camera wouldn't have been able to record before? Absolutely.

12,800 looks quite like 1600 on my 350D. Three stops in five years on entry level DSLRs seems like quite good progress to me...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2012 at 16:14 UTC

The use of the word 'appears' is fair, btw, since the investigation is incomplete; 'initial conclusions'...'all the indications [so far]'...'appears to have very little effect'...'We're still working through the necessary studio and 'real world' shooting'.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:54 UTC as 147th comment
In reply to:

ogl: White orbs is very rare effect.

'Easily reproducible' ≠ 'rare'

Direct link | Posted on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:50 UTC
On Preview:olympusEM5 (1364 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kelton Sweet: This is rough. I have always enjoyed the retro cameras... with their early-60's look. But NOW they are making retro cameras that harken to MY era! Youch!
I must say that you run the risk of looking pathetic with this camera, though. If I wasn't a camera buff, I would think, "aw, look at that person using that 13 year old film camera.".
It looks too young to be "retro", right?

Yeah you need a real big camera to look cool, right...?

Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 22:54 UTC
On Create your own articles - public beta launched today article (144 comments in total)

You prompted me to log in just to leave a comment. Which is...

Genius. Genius. Genius.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2011 at 21:41 UTC as 66th comment
Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14