W5JCK

W5JCK

Lives in United States Arlington, TX, United States
Works as a retired Technical Writer
Has a website at www.w5jck.com
Joined on Dec 10, 2011

Comments

Total: 102, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Chris Yates: "VERY IMPRESSIVE" price upgrade. :P

onlooker, that is BS, the current model has been selling for $1699 for a long time, so it is a $500 price increase. I guarantee this thing won't be as sharp as my Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 USM. Not even close.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 15:04 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)

Wow, a Cons list that is considerably longer than the Pros list, and questionable IQ, but good ol' DPReview gives it a 77 point Silver Award! Do their reviewers even know much about photography or camera gear? What a joke!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 19:17 UTC as 96th comment | 6 replies
On Richard Franiec offers Canon PowerShot G7 X custom grip article (110 comments in total)

A grip won't help the crappy IQ from the G7 X.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 18:11 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (954 comments in total)
In reply to:

daddyo: Holy cow!
Has anyone looked carefully and the bottom area of the studio comparison scene (Look at the bottle labels)? I hope the lens on the test camera was defective and not standard issue. The image is so blurry it started to give me a headache looking at it.

I compared the overall image quality with the Panasonic LX-100 and it's not a contest. I know the Pany is more expensive, but geez, if the studio shot is representative of the lens on the G7 X, I wouldn't want one at any price.

And no, I'm not a Panasonic fanboy -- don't own one.

The entire image from the G7 X is soft and fuzzy IMO. So it looks to me like it has bad IQ and is sluggish. The G1 X original was a great camera, but the G7 X is garbage.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 01:07 UTC

I've got the a7 and a6000 E/FE mount cameras, several Sony lenses and a large number of third party Canon and Nikon lenses. None of my lenses or adapters wiggle or have any issues with the E/FE mounts. I think this is merely a product you never knew you needed until a slick "snake oil" salesman convinces you it is indeed necessary! The stupid are so quickly and easily parted from their money by slick salesmen. This is a totally unnecessary replacement part designed to satisfy the growing number of idiots who buy cameras, really good cameras, but have no clue about how they work and function. I bet that replacement mount fits so tight that some lenses won't detach!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 15:18 UTC as 66th comment | 2 replies
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1669 comments in total)

Canon to world: "We are too effing stupid to bring you excellent, cutting edge, and competitive cameras any more, so enjoy our new marketing BS where we pretend we can still be innovative." BIG EFFING FAIL!

I'm glad I finally gave up on Canon cameras and moved on. Canon lenses are okay, but their cameras are as uninspired as they can be.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 15:06 UTC as 431st comment
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1669 comments in total)
In reply to:

Siddharth: "& to the little voice in your head that says it can't be done.......because we don't see what you see......we see impossible"

Am I the only one who finds it a bit arrogant...Is team Canon snubbing their customers?

I suspect there was a huge loss in translation from Japanese to the Japenglish this statement seems to be written in. The statement is very awkwardly written, to say the least.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 15:27 UTC

Netflix should spend the money on acquiring more movies. Ever time I tried to locate a movie I wanted to watch I got the notice that it was only available through their DVD subscription! :\

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 19:28 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply

I'll stick with my quick release standard attachment style of camera strap. I don't like slings, and I hate that slide type of tripod head mount.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 14:47 UTC as 16th comment
On Rare Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM goes on sale in UK article (218 comments in total)

I'm thinking at that price it also comes with a second mortgage! :) Looks like something the military or NASA would have bought, as they overpay for everything. But seriously, who was it actually designed for? I cannot think of any commercial application where it would have been cost effective. You can get a damn good 1200mm telescope, even at f/5.6, for a fraction of the money. I cannot believe AF would justify the extra 95% of the cost! :0

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2014 at 16:48 UTC as 84th comment | 2 replies

I guess the GoPro is good at what it does, and what it was designed to do. But how many people really need to strap a camera to their body and take action shots and video? And how many TV shows need to attach a camera to a vehicle for action shots and videos? The GoPro is for a niche market that really isn't that large. The guys at Mythbusters probably represent a large part of the GoPro market. You and I, average Joe or Jane Public, not so much. We don't need or want a limited, one trick pony of a camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2014 at 16:59 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies
On Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 article (155 comments in total)

I'm guessing that after the photographer showed them the photos, the monkeys threw pooh at him. They should have thrown a real camera at him along with a tutorial on how to use it.

Up next for DPR, an elementary school child's photo essay on what s/he did for summer vacation, with the Crayon Creative mode engaged.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2014 at 14:33 UTC as 60th comment

Bwahahahahaha!!!! Sadly I think the days of Canon being innovative are pretty much over. I don't expect much from them any more, and that is good because they certainly don't deliver much! Their one attempt at a mirrorless camera was pathetic. Their DSLRs are good, but they are too many years behind in design to be considered innovative. And their bridge cameras are just downright boring. I used to be a huge fan, but not now...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 18:17 UTC as 73rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Kitschi: every 2 weeks a new ACR but no words about next LR Version, seems that there won't be a stand alone LR anymore only CC crap

LR 5.6 is not a NEW verision, it is a minor update. A new version would be LR 6. I too suspect Adobe will eventually stop offering the stand-alone LR at some point, and I fear that point will be sooner rather than later.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 20:36 UTC
In reply to:

Great Bustard: And yet not one on "Photographic Equivalence". What has become of MIT? : )

That would be Physics 101. Buy a science book, maybe you will learn something...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2014 at 22:39 UTC
On Ricoh announces Pentax XG-1 superzoom article (195 comments in total)

Super yawn....Another camera with a small sensor and little to offer. Putting a long zoom on a lackluster camera doesn't make it good or make it worthy of being on this site. This kind of cheap camera is going to be bought by people who don't read sites like this, or they would know better. I'm not sure why DPReview still brings us information on these little sensor cameras or for that matter smartphone cameras. Maybe their newest members have been dumbed down to that level. This used to be a site for enthusiasts and professionals, not so much now...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2014 at 15:13 UTC as 22nd comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

citizenlouie: CC is fine for professionals who can expense their subscription fee. For vast majority of photographers who upgrade their cameras every two years, and Lightroom's current price at $80, the max a person would shell out for an annual subscription of CC is $40. For people like me who can only afford to upgrade the camera around 5 years, the CC is only valued at $16/year, not the $99/year Adobe is charging.

This means most people would either stop upgrading to newer cameras that Lightroom 5 can no longer support or stop using Lightroom all together. It looks like I would be using my current cameras until they break. This move would indirectly slow the camera sales by a bit, and probably start making people with new cameras more likely to accept out-of-camera JPEGs, instead of processing RAWs using a software.

Jogger most of us have not climbed up Adobes backside and call them "momma" like you apparently did. there is no DRAMA here at all. there is only fact. The CC BS is just that, marketing BS that is extremely overpriced. For those of us who happily updated PS and LR every two or three versions, and only then because we bought new cameras, the CC is a huge effing ripoff. For people like you, well maybe momma takes care of you...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 18:47 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thomas Kachadurian: The one clarification that is missing is that this does not hold with exposure.

If I expose a photo at f4-1/125-iso400 with my Canon 6D and a 50mm lens, and it is the correct exposure, then make second photo in the exact same conditions f2-1/125-iso400 with my Olympus EM-10 and a 25mm lens the second photo will be 2 f stops over exposed.

Exposure for that scene will be f4-1/125-iso400 with any lens camera combination a Sony RX100II, a Panasonic GH4, A Nikon d7000, a Canon 5D3, or a Hasselblad film camera. Crop factor does not change exposure.

I cannot tell you how many of my students come to me confused about their photos because they read about equivalency on the web and adjusted their exposure accordingly.

Not much of teacher then if you cannot accurately read that article. And the students must be really terrible if they don't have the sense to look through the viewfinder or at the liveview in the LCD to check their exposures.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 20:15 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)

Darth "M4/3" Vader, "Luke, come to the Dark Side of digital photography."

Seriously though, a good article that correctly backs up the physics and true life usage.

Will this change the minds of the M4/3 and 1" crowds? Nope. They are religiously devoted to their noisy, little cameras and quite content to believe the fanatics among them who proclaim the laws of physics to be untrue and evil. They will remain in the Dark Ages of digital photography. No Renaissance awakening for them.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 18:51 UTC as 307th comment | 7 replies
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (149 comments in total)
In reply to:

Red G8R: They should be licensed based on power and range.

People claim they hate government regulation, and yet if a drone keeps pestering you in your quiet neighborhood you will be the first to call for stricter regulations! People or such hypocrites...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 16:33 UTC
Total: 102, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »