ptox

ptox

Joined on Dec 18, 2011

Comments

Total: 158, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Lil g: How can the earth rotate when its flat?

rockclimber: and the edges of the flat world are where?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 15:52 UTC
In reply to:

Lil g: How can the earth rotate when its flat?

rockclimber87: please, please, please be joking.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 23:24 UTC
In reply to:

Bill3R: Sorry, but YAWN.

What are you apologizing for -- your total lack of imagination, or an ego that presumes any of us gives a damn?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 21, 2015 at 21:49 UTC
On Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II article (966 comments in total)
In reply to:

ptox: What's the downside to the electronic shutter? -- I assume there is one, or why would they bother with a mechanical shutter as well?

Hmm. Why would an e-shutter that reads out at a given speed be any more prone to a rolling shutter effect than a mechanical shutter that traverses the sensor at the same speed?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 19:32 UTC
On Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II article (966 comments in total)

What's the downside to the electronic shutter? -- I assume there is one, or why would they bother with a mechanical shutter as well?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 19:19 UTC as 210th comment | 11 replies
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (521 comments in total)
In reply to:

K0d: It does have optional WiFi built in.
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/misc/Flucard-Pentax-16GB-O-FC1.html
Upgradeable, full network compatibility and multiple OS - Just take out the card and its in flight mode.

"optional WiFi built in"? That's marketing doublespeak. :-)

WiFi is commodity stuff... it would cost Ricoh barely anything in parts and R&D to really build it in -- but no, they want to ding you with the (ridiculously named) Flucard instead.

There's no excuse.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 04:00 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (521 comments in total)
In reply to:

CRAPhoto: Nice upgrade for a great camera. Let's see how the sample images look like with this Sensor Shift stuff.
BTW, why compare this camera with Oly or Panasonic, we are talking APS-C vs Micro 4/3s. Even if the IBIS of a m4/3 is better, I would not buy into that system. Let's compare it to Canon, or Nikon, which of course have no IBIS. Easy win.

APSC and MFT are generally mentioned together because objective comparisons show that MFT IQ barely lags behind the other format -- and because in every other respect the two are direct competitors.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 03:58 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: I don't get it. $1099 body + $899 12-40 2.8 + $1499 40-150 2.8 + 45 1.8 = whooping $4K worth of gear, frequent lens changes and only 5fps.

I could use D750 + 28-300 lens combo to take approximately the same outputs, while much less hassle overall (cheaper and lighter, does not require lens change, faster AF, faster fps, comparable DOF, comparable resolution etc)

What I don't get is your motive for engaging in a sophomoric and reductivist campaign against m43.

What do you gain from repeatedly making a fool of yourself with oversimplified comparisons? What makes you think you know which gear this guy should be using better than he does?

Is it possible that a photographer might have good reasons - subjective or not - for using m43? Is it possible that you might have no idea what those reasons are?

Part of growing up is learning that other people know what works for them better than you do. Put down your ego and stop acting otherwise.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 16:08 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1392 comments in total)
In reply to:

AnniM: Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere - can you still use 4/3 glass with this camera? The Olympus website never answers the question - when I click on "lenses" there the link goes to the "accessories" page instead. Can you still use the 4/3 - m4/3 adapter with this camera?

My understanding is that the relevant parts of the specs are so similar that there will never be an m4/3 camera that will not accept adapted 4/3 lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2015 at 16:06 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: All right, some will call me biased, but before you do that, please re-assure me with good answers. I am looking at the gentleman's picture above, and in his hands a camera with thinner profile, yes, but with a gigantic lens on it, no smaller that equivalent DSLR lens.

So what's the point he wants to make with this engineering "feat"? That laws of optics always apply and scaling down camera size is a myth? Or that DSLRs are still better ergonomically designed and made for big lenses .. but he won't admit that?

Or that overall imbalance of his design to comfortable handling .. is the new way to enjoy photography in the 21st century? Perhaps following the same route of thinking that the most simple and dumbest of cameras world has ever seen are also called "smart" (smartphone) in this 21st century?

Is there a problem with this 21st century or something?

"Why they don't choose a body wich sits in a hand like a glove?!"

You are hilarious. The XT1 has far from "crippled ergonomy", and your and the OP's points about DSLRs only stands for large lenses; when smaller primes are used it's the DSLR that looks out of balance.

DSLRs are only "clearly better ergonomicly [sic] designed" for a small number of situations -- handheld with large lenses being the obvious one. And a lot of large-lens photography is performed on a tripod, so what does it matter?

And then maybe people like other things about mirrorless itself -- like EVFs, which offer an enormous number of advantages over OVFs, especially those on non-FF cameras. (IMO the only advantage of OVFs is that they're subjectively more pleasant to look through.)

But whatever... if you haven't figured these things out for yourself already, I doubt I've made much of an impression.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2015 at 16:02 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1392 comments in total)
In reply to:

Markol: I just saw this costs 500$ more than the current E-M5.
That's crazy.
As crazy as the 10 months it took Olympus to "fix" the shutter shock of the E-P5. Without the fix, around 30% of my pictures were unsharp.
Olympus has so much going for it (OIS, jpegs) but they also make some huge mistakes.

What's crazy is expecting companies to price their newly R&D'd products relative to the end-of-life prices of their older models.

And the shutter shock was fixed, in the end. You can hardly argue a pattern of "huge mistakes" from one sore point.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2015 at 17:19 UTC
In reply to:

ptox: The assertion by some here that even passive depictions of LGBTQ orientations are part of some devious agenda or propaganda is breathakingly disingenuous.

A minority, persecuted everywhere throughout history and still today in far too many societies, represented in this case in a gentle example of a medium whose participation by the viewer is about as optional as it gets - harming nobody, making the least aggressive statement possible - "we exist, here we are" - and yet here subject to scorn, ridicule, base degredation and outright hatred from members of the relatively safe, powerful, enfranchised majority.

How pathetically false are these cries of fear; nothing more noble than veiled hatred of The Other - other humans, trying like each of us to carve out a bit of peace and happiness in in lives that often (and for the subjects of this photo, in that country, far too often) seem to be nothing but anything else.

DaveClark: "Rights" are not just about legal rights -- they include the right not to be discriminated against, which judging by your point about businesses etc is not a settled matter. And then there's the right to marry, of course, which is not yet universal.

Nudism is a behavior. Homosexuality is a genetic imperative. You can disagree -- but most homosexuals wouldn't, which is the only important point.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 18, 2015 at 00:45 UTC
In reply to:

ptox: The assertion by some here that even passive depictions of LGBTQ orientations are part of some devious agenda or propaganda is breathakingly disingenuous.

A minority, persecuted everywhere throughout history and still today in far too many societies, represented in this case in a gentle example of a medium whose participation by the viewer is about as optional as it gets - harming nobody, making the least aggressive statement possible - "we exist, here we are" - and yet here subject to scorn, ridicule, base degredation and outright hatred from members of the relatively safe, powerful, enfranchised majority.

How pathetically false are these cries of fear; nothing more noble than veiled hatred of The Other - other humans, trying like each of us to carve out a bit of peace and happiness in in lives that often (and for the subjects of this photo, in that country, far too often) seem to be nothing but anything else.

DaveClark: Nor should there be anything neutral or passive about the promotion of rights for humans of all kinds and creeds; the doctrines of faiths are subordinate to that ethical imperative.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not an aggressive anti-homosexual; even so, your refusal to "accept" a whole class of people gives license to those extremes.

And for what cause? -- only a base, vulgar distaste for a mode of existence that has no bearing on your own life.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 18, 2015 at 00:02 UTC

The assertion by some here that even passive depictions of LGBTQ orientations are part of some devious agenda or propaganda is breathakingly disingenuous.

A minority, persecuted everywhere throughout history and still today in far too many societies, represented in this case in a gentle example of a medium whose participation by the viewer is about as optional as it gets - harming nobody, making the least aggressive statement possible - "we exist, here we are" - and yet here subject to scorn, ridicule, base degredation and outright hatred from members of the relatively safe, powerful, enfranchised majority.

How pathetically false are these cries of fear; nothing more noble than veiled hatred of The Other - other humans, trying like each of us to carve out a bit of peace and happiness in in lives that often (and for the subjects of this photo, in that country, far too often) seem to be nothing but anything else.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 22:14 UTC as 29th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Jasko014: If it would be not written, that this is gay couple, I would not recognise it. Left person has a physiology of woman.

I think that says more about you than it does about the people in the photo.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 20:33 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1392 comments in total)

@prossi: I wish I was, but sadly, no. :-)

Re your analogy - well, yes, in terms of IQ MFT cameras lag a bit behind the best APSC, but it's no Clio to APSC's Ferrari - more like a 455 to a 458 :-P

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 16:20 UTC as 178th comment
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1392 comments in total)
In reply to:

ptox: And as for all the stuck-in-the-past claims of MFT's inferiority to modern APSC cameras -- yes, yes, DXO gives the sensors a score of 7 or 8 below the latest from Nikon, and yes, there's more shadow noise than the very best from Fuji .. but what does that mean in terms of appreciation for the final product, especially when it's from the hands and eyes of a skilled photographer?

Very little at all.

Just consider that MFT today is superior in virtually every IQ respect (and certainly in operational speed and features) to every 35mm pro DSLR from around the time of the 5D Mark 1 and earlier -- ages ago in technological terms, granted, but how many professional photos were taken with that equipment, published across the globe, and enjoyed by millions of viewers?

MFT surpasses the output of those cameras, yet somehow still hasn't reached the special bar required by the more critical in this community?

Sure, whatever...

@prossi: I wish I was, but sadly, no. :-)

Re your analogy - well, yes, in terms of IQ MFT cameras lag a bit behind the best APSC, but it's no Clio to APSC's Ferrari - more like a 455 to a 458 :-P

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 16:20 UTC
On Hands-on with Canon's 'not-coming-to-USA' EOS M3 article (553 comments in total)
In reply to:

67gtonr: I have been using my EOS M for over 1 1/2 years without issue, I have been following any posts about the system online and in the EOS M Forum here and have not once come across a post about needing to have an M repaired for something under warranty, no overheating when taking video, no banding, no oil or dust on the sensor, no shutter slap issues, etc. I am confident that this iteration will also have the high quality build of its predecessors.

I can see the tagline now -- "Canon EOS M: Bad cameras, well made."

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 16:09 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1392 comments in total)
In reply to:

ptox: And as for all the stuck-in-the-past claims of MFT's inferiority to modern APSC cameras -- yes, yes, DXO gives the sensors a score of 7 or 8 below the latest from Nikon, and yes, there's more shadow noise than the very best from Fuji .. but what does that mean in terms of appreciation for the final product, especially when it's from the hands and eyes of a skilled photographer?

Very little at all.

Just consider that MFT today is superior in virtually every IQ respect (and certainly in operational speed and features) to every 35mm pro DSLR from around the time of the 5D Mark 1 and earlier -- ages ago in technological terms, granted, but how many professional photos were taken with that equipment, published across the globe, and enjoyed by millions of viewers?

MFT surpasses the output of those cameras, yet somehow still hasn't reached the special bar required by the more critical in this community?

Sure, whatever...

Lassoni: re high ISO - in absolute terms the best MFT is not as good as the best APSC, but the difference is not all that great:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=oly_em5ii&attr13_1=nikon_d7000&attr13_2=nikon_d7100&attr13_3=sony_a6000&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr126_0=normal&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.3898478974111687&y=-0.6503638926861504

If you were happy with your D7000 at ISO 6400, you probably would have been happy with MFT - and it's much better than "somewhat good" at ISO 2000.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 00:07 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1392 comments in total)
In reply to:

ptox: And as for all the stuck-in-the-past claims of MFT's inferiority to modern APSC cameras -- yes, yes, DXO gives the sensors a score of 7 or 8 below the latest from Nikon, and yes, there's more shadow noise than the very best from Fuji .. but what does that mean in terms of appreciation for the final product, especially when it's from the hands and eyes of a skilled photographer?

Very little at all.

Just consider that MFT today is superior in virtually every IQ respect (and certainly in operational speed and features) to every 35mm pro DSLR from around the time of the 5D Mark 1 and earlier -- ages ago in technological terms, granted, but how many professional photos were taken with that equipment, published across the globe, and enjoyed by millions of viewers?

MFT surpasses the output of those cameras, yet somehow still hasn't reached the special bar required by the more critical in this community?

Sure, whatever...

Sigh. Does this really need explaining?

Smartphones have resolution, yes, but their DR at other than base ISO is not competitive, their (fixed) lenses are not competitive, their high ISO capabilities are not competitive, and then there's the whole "not primarily a camera" thing - they don't have the same breadth of photographic features, performance, ergonomics, or convenience as any camera.

Smartphones take pictures, yes, but as dedicated cameras they're far below most P&S models (except IQ), let alone MFT/APSC (except nothing). So to say there's some sort of "slope" for my argument to "slide down" from MFT to smartphones - to imply that I may as well be saying that people would be just as well-off with a smartphone as a proper camera - is, well, nonsense.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 19:25 UTC
Total: 158, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »