deep7

deep7

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a writer/photographer/ecologist
Has a website at deeppics.com
Joined on May 10, 2008
About me:

God makes it, I see it and photograph it. Sometimes that works well!

Comments

Total: 290, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Rare Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM goes on sale in UK article (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: That first paragraph confused me. Reading on, it's not actually a copy but a genuine example. That would be a heck of a price for a mere copy!

Not unusual in some quarters but bad usage anyway! I mean, is it really a copy or is it actually an original, factory-made item?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2014 at 20:01 UTC
On Rare Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM goes on sale in UK article (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: That first paragraph confused me. Reading on, it's not actually a copy but a genuine example. That would be a heck of a price for a mere copy!

I suspect it might be a USA thing. "Copy" is frequently used in this way on forum pages by people from that country.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2014 at 21:16 UTC
On Rare Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM goes on sale in UK article (218 comments in total)

That first paragraph confused me. Reading on, it's not actually a copy but a genuine example. That would be a heck of a price for a mere copy!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2014 at 20:01 UTC as 59th comment | 8 replies
On Accessory Review: Drobo Mini RAID article (149 comments in total)
In reply to:

ArcaSwiss: You're cramming this website with more and more useless articles. All the while not bothering to review Canon 1DX. Something smells rotten.

This article was far from useless, quite interesting actually. A 1DX review would be even more interesting...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2014 at 20:00 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (665 comments in total)
In reply to:

shutterbud: I think many non FF hobbyists must be discounting Canon from their decision-making process by now. Canon's sensor technology is becoming an embarrasment. This is a real shame, since it seems to be the only significant weakness. But you would not buy a film camera that cold only take crappy film, would you?
Get it together Canon. You don't want to be the next Kodak, do you?

I keep reading that but never see it. As far as I can see, the rx100 does highlights badly and gets noisy quickly but I've never played with the RAW files so don't know for sure what it's potential is. From owning a G1X and downloading and scrutinising many RX100/II photos, I would not consider the RX100 for its image quality compared to a G1X, but might if I was comparing to even smaller cameras.

The resolution difference pretty much doesn't exist in the real world, but the file size difference sure does! For A2 prints, the G1X resolution involves no compromise whatsoever.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 02:50 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (665 comments in total)
In reply to:

shutterbud: I think many non FF hobbyists must be discounting Canon from their decision-making process by now. Canon's sensor technology is becoming an embarrasment. This is a real shame, since it seems to be the only significant weakness. But you would not buy a film camera that cold only take crappy film, would you?
Get it together Canon. You don't want to be the next Kodak, do you?

Of course it's not that bad. I had a big print-up last week of various photos from the last year or so and many of the best were from the original G1X (near enough the same sensor). It's an excellent sensor, though only if you shoot RAW and process with Lightroom or Capture One. Canon processing tends to lose highlights and compress heavily, which I suspect leads to some of the criticism.

Yeah, sure, Brand X has more shadow detail and Brand Y has better highlights etc. etc. but, in the real world, the Canon sensor is more than adequate to produced brilliant photographs in a huge range of conditions. The difference these days just isn't as much as fanatics will lead you to believe!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 23:45 UTC
On Apple expands OS X Mavericks Raw compatibility article (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: This is Apple getting a little nasty in the style of Adobe. You used to get these updates without "updating" to a newer operating system. Now you don't. Then again, I think I've done enough camera shopping lately to last a few years, so it doesn't affect me personally.

There's a whole stream of updates only available under Mavericks. I tried to work it out and believe doing the full update would take my computer out of action for around two days. It was actually easier to keep up to date in the days of dial-up and CD/DVDs!

bford: Aperture is extremely cheap! A fraction of what it launched at and much cheaper than the competition. Nothing dishonest or unethical about selling something which works and has worked for years at a cheap price.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 06:07 UTC
On Apple expands OS X Mavericks Raw compatibility article (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: This is Apple getting a little nasty in the style of Adobe. You used to get these updates without "updating" to a newer operating system. Now you don't. Then again, I think I've done enough camera shopping lately to last a few years, so it doesn't affect me personally.

There's a whole stream of updates only available under Mavericks. I tried to work it out and believe doing the full update would take my computer out of action for around two days. It was actually easier to keep up to date in the days of dial-up and CD/DVDs!

That might be true but, if so, native support in Windows lags somewhat behind Apple. My (work) Surface Pro, which is fully up to date, doesn't recognise RAW files from my EM1. Yet...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 04:23 UTC
On Apple expands OS X Mavericks Raw compatibility article (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: This is Apple getting a little nasty in the style of Adobe. You used to get these updates without "updating" to a newer operating system. Now you don't. Then again, I think I've done enough camera shopping lately to last a few years, so it doesn't affect me personally.

There's a whole stream of updates only available under Mavericks. I tried to work it out and believe doing the full update would take my computer out of action for around two days. It was actually easier to keep up to date in the days of dial-up and CD/DVDs!

Aperture hasn't been discontinued. It's still there. They just aren't going to update it. That is probably a really good thing for now.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 01:57 UTC
On Apple expands OS X Mavericks Raw compatibility article (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: This is Apple getting a little nasty in the style of Adobe. You used to get these updates without "updating" to a newer operating system. Now you don't. Then again, I think I've done enough camera shopping lately to last a few years, so it doesn't affect me personally.

There's a whole stream of updates only available under Mavericks. I tried to work it out and believe doing the full update would take my computer out of action for around two days. It was actually easier to keep up to date in the days of dial-up and CD/DVDs!

Thanks Leandros S. I came to Apple in 2003 so never knew that. So now I know how good Aqua was/is, I can happily disagree with Mark Alan Thomas. Other than the move to confusing "reflections" in the dock and the removal of little bits of colour, Aqua has been awesome.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 00:19 UTC
On Apple expands OS X Mavericks Raw compatibility article (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: This is Apple getting a little nasty in the style of Adobe. You used to get these updates without "updating" to a newer operating system. Now you don't. Then again, I think I've done enough camera shopping lately to last a few years, so it doesn't affect me personally.

There's a whole stream of updates only available under Mavericks. I tried to work it out and believe doing the full update would take my computer out of action for around two days. It was actually easier to keep up to date in the days of dial-up and CD/DVDs!

Mark Alan Thomas: You what? The dock is an excellent part of using a Mac. The Finder is quick, simple and easy to use, as it should be. I don't even know what you mean by "Aqua" - in the last 11 years the "look" on my Mac has changed very little, apart from minor and unhelpful details. Looks are a matter of taste anyway, not function. Thus the silly designed-by-a-three-year-old style icons in iOS7 aren't the problem with iOS7!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 19:56 UTC
On Apple expands OS X Mavericks Raw compatibility article (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: This is Apple getting a little nasty in the style of Adobe. You used to get these updates without "updating" to a newer operating system. Now you don't. Then again, I think I've done enough camera shopping lately to last a few years, so it doesn't affect me personally.

There's a whole stream of updates only available under Mavericks. I tried to work it out and believe doing the full update would take my computer out of action for around two days. It was actually easier to keep up to date in the days of dial-up and CD/DVDs!

Now that we are delightfully off topic ... I am stunned that Apple could produce anything as bad as iOS7. Almost everything needs an extra tap or swipe or two or more, or can't be done, or is hidden or has become unintuitive when before it was wonderfully easy and obvious (right up to iOS5, I never even tried 6). Not to mention the cheaper look. Someone should be sacked. It's even worse than the move from Snow Leopard to Lion, which was forced on me by a purchase of a new computer a couple of years ago.

Oh well, rant over, you just learn to use the tools available, don't you? We definitely have come to a point when "upgrades", in terms of cameras, computers and software are no longer necessarily the step forward they used to be. Unless you are a Windows user...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 05:22 UTC
On Apple expands OS X Mavericks Raw compatibility article (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: This is Apple getting a little nasty in the style of Adobe. You used to get these updates without "updating" to a newer operating system. Now you don't. Then again, I think I've done enough camera shopping lately to last a few years, so it doesn't affect me personally.

There's a whole stream of updates only available under Mavericks. I tried to work it out and believe doing the full update would take my computer out of action for around two days. It was actually easier to keep up to date in the days of dial-up and CD/DVDs!

I did anticipate some off-beat replies when I made my original post but not quite so many comments!

First off, thanks to those who pointed out this update is available for Mountain Lion. I must have misread that.

Second, Mavericks is a 5.7GB file. In the real world, away from concrete cities, that is a major download which can take a day or more, plenty of time for something to corrupt. Not even remotely trivial. Especially if you are brave enough to chance your arm at "updating" all the software which is Mavericks-only.

Lastly, I totally agree that 10.6.8 was almost perfect. Very little has been added to OSX since then, other than endless gimmicks, while much has been lost. Just like my recent change from iOS5 to iOS7, which is, frankly, depressing.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 10:54 UTC
On Apple expands OS X Mavericks Raw compatibility article (86 comments in total)

This is Apple getting a little nasty in the style of Adobe. You used to get these updates without "updating" to a newer operating system. Now you don't. Then again, I think I've done enough camera shopping lately to last a few years, so it doesn't affect me personally.

There's a whole stream of updates only available under Mavericks. I tried to work it out and believe doing the full update would take my computer out of action for around two days. It was actually easier to keep up to date in the days of dial-up and CD/DVDs!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 02:43 UTC as 11th comment | 51 replies
In reply to:

Zerg2905: GoPro should write a letter to Canon, asking how to make a ridiculous amount of money from not interesting / capable / ubermarket / (here you can insert your own word) products... :)

Canon cameras work well, produce great images and are easy enough to use. That might not be what bored gearheads want but it's what the much bigger market wants. Actually GoPro and Canon are very similar in that respect...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2014 at 22:53 UTC
On P9390968_ISO125 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (4 comments in total)

Maybe no AA filter? At 100% it looks a bit like you'd expect from high loss jpeg processing on small photosites but 100% would make a mighty big print so it's not bad really.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 21:07 UTC as 2nd comment
On Kodak Pixpro S-1 First Impressions Review preview (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

AngryCorgi: That fieldscope is gauranteed to be poop in terms of IQ. Like a $50 ebay "telephoto lens".

"Guaranteed"?? By whom? What tosh. It could be great or it could be mediocre but it's unlikely to be "poop". A completely unsubstantiated statement.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 01:00 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2062 comments in total)
In reply to:

blohum: Great article DPR and it's that last sentence that people always seem to forget: "There's no universally ideal 'sweet-spot' to that trade-off: but understanding equivalence can help you work out which balance is best for you."

I chose m43 knowing full-well what the limitations are. Will FF give better IQ... absolutely, will FF give thinner DOF, of course... do I care, not a bit... m43 is MY 'sweet-spot'.

Nah, no matter how small you make your body with a bigger sensor (and body size is more dictated by ergonomics, viewfinder size, battery size etc. etc.), the bigger lenses will be more and more of an issue. For Sony to match the m4/3 75-300 lens, for example, it would have to make a 150-600 lens which was only about f13 at the long end. On paper, that would actually be okay but the market could well scorn it. And yes, Sony's little 28-70 is smaller than my 12-40/2.8 but it doesn't actually bring any advantages - and making it as good across the frame would be quite some challenge at that size. No, the 35mm format works very well in the 35-90mm focal length range but less so at the extremes, unless you don't mind the weight. Hence the point made at the conclusion of the article.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 06:11 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2062 comments in total)
In reply to:

blohum: Great article DPR and it's that last sentence that people always seem to forget: "There's no universally ideal 'sweet-spot' to that trade-off: but understanding equivalence can help you work out which balance is best for you."

I chose m43 knowing full-well what the limitations are. Will FF give better IQ... absolutely, will FF give thinner DOF, of course... do I care, not a bit... m43 is MY 'sweet-spot'.

And mine! I actually paid more for my m4/3 camera than the 35mm camera I was also considering and am very glad I made that decision.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 20:56 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

Puddleglum: Why are they still selling it in the App Store a day later? What a mess.

Good grief, am I feeding a monster? Better stop!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2014 at 19:39 UTC
Total: 290, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »