GlobalGuyUSA

GlobalGuyUSA

Lives in United States Los Angeles, United States
Works as a International Trade
Joined on Jun 24, 2007
About me:

My business is marketing international trade, not photography. My hobbies are primarily graphic art and then photography. Take comments with a grain of salt. I'll learn as much from you as I hope to share with others.

Comments

Total: 78, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1808 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Very disturbing article and comments, since all machines should be identical. If there is variation in even the placement of the AF module, in a thing you have had to pay £1700 for! the flare will be worse and the autofocus all the time will be inaccurate- return it for a FULL REFUND anytime within the two year warranty period: you are entitled to your money back as it does not work as it should because, among other things, it has not even been put together properly.

One wonders how many D800 owners complaining about autofocussing problems may have incorrect camera construction as a reason.

Very disturbing too that Dpreview aren't bothered......

Dave, you're right that tolerances should have been better (its not clear that the team that set the AF module was the same team that measures the reflective light, so it could have been missed in QC, especially if it only affects outliers [the occassional] camera, not all cameras). But we're responding to the "very disturbing" and "im disturbed that DPReview isn't bothered" comments -- the rhetoric -- not the semantics.

All first batches of technology have these tolerance issues (if it was the BATTERY door or the LCD monitor being slightly shifted, you simply wouldn't notice much; in this case, it happened to be the AF module). And early adopters take that risk. No one has to be "disturbed" or "bothered" by what is as common as night and day. After the first orders, Nikon noticed, heard complaints, and they are fixing it up right away. This camera hasn't been on the market for years.

Its nothing to be "disturbed" about, especially when its fixed by small adjustment. Sheesh.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 00:48 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1808 comments in total)
In reply to:

lima21: I will be purchasing the D750 within another six weeks and need to inquire if such will be safely available by that time. I also would like to inquire if my Nikon 18-200mm lens will work acceptably with the D750. I am upgrading from my antiquated D300.
Can I also get the opinion of purchasing the new model of the 80-400 and using such with the D750. Thanks!

You can use the 18-200mm in "crop mode", as others mentioned, this reduces the amount of sensor the camera uses; otherwise, you would have vignetting. If your intention is to primarily use an 18-200, then you would want to buy a D7100 (or wait for the D7200 which is soon to be announced early this year).

If you intend to get a full-frame camera like a D750 and want an all-in-one lens, then sell your 18-200, and buy a Nikon 28-300 (Tamron also makes one) for full-frame FX cameras, which is on sale if you buy it with (bundled with) a Nikon 750.

The 80-400 is a better better lens than the 18-200 or 28-300, but is about 3-4 times more expensive. Nikon currently has deals for puchasing bundles, but not with the 80-400. If you want that deal, you need to wait until a different deal comes along. These are the current deals (do not get DX [cropped] lenses w/the 750 though):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/promotion/10384/nikon-buy-together-and-save.html

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2015 at 22:44 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1808 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Very disturbing article and comments, since all machines should be identical. If there is variation in even the placement of the AF module, in a thing you have had to pay £1700 for! the flare will be worse and the autofocus all the time will be inaccurate- return it for a FULL REFUND anytime within the two year warranty period: you are entitled to your money back as it does not work as it should because, among other things, it has not even been put together properly.

One wonders how many D800 owners complaining about autofocussing problems may have incorrect camera construction as a reason.

Very disturbing too that Dpreview aren't bothered......

"all machines should be identical"

What world do you live in? This has never happened in the history of mankind, except for the most simple machines. A DSLR probably has more sophisticated parts and software than an automobile, and even those aren't perfectly identical.

Nice try.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2015 at 22:37 UTC
In reply to:

write2alan: "Nikon is working with retailers to replenish stock with cameras to which measures to address this issue have been applied." - I am sure there is a clear way saying this. So, what is Nikon doing?

There's not an easier way to say they are replenishing stock (that has been recalled or unfilled while the fix is being conducted). People asked why stock is low, and Nikon said they are working to replenish it (as fast as they can).

And Nikon isn't trying to avoid the word "fix" -- this is an issue with all DSLRs to greater or lesser degrees, including most Canons. Nikon is saying they recognize its more pronounced on the D750 and quite clearly without hesitation on their website are saying they will fix it for anyone who wants it: "To correct this issue, Nikon will inspect and service, at no cost, the camera’s light-shielding components and adjust the AF sensor position."

As a preventive measure, they are fixing this issue in no uncertain terms, adjusting the reflective part to make it more tolerant of bright light angles, and replenishing stock. Simple. Wish every camera manufacturer acted that quickly. But the Canon 7D Mark IIs still have their reflections...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2015 at 08:10 UTC
In reply to:

Joed700: I think dpreview should wait at least a year before giving GOLDEN AWARDS to new cameras. This isn't the first time that a camera gets high marks by Dp and ended up with design flaws...

I don't know why you guys are thanking the Chinese government -- Nikon changed its behavior when U.S. consumers began pressing a serious lawsuit back in February. The Chinese government based part of its decision on the U.S. pending lawsuit (not to mention some hidden cameras of Dealers trying to avoid returns).

The China issue probably forced Nikon to make a D610, in order to keep selling that generation of camera physically in China. But that was just brushing it under the table. They really woke-the-heck up when they realized the weight of a gigantic American class-action-lawsuit was about to fall. This forced Nikon to literally exchange D600s for D610s (which was the settlement).

As such, Nikon realized they can't just brush mistakes under the carpet or change a camera name. They have to addresss the mistakes proactively and head on. Its quite clear that someone at the top didn't have the will to do this earlier. But that the culture has now been changed internally!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2015 at 07:52 UTC
In reply to:

Joed700: I think dpreview should wait at least a year before giving GOLDEN AWARDS to new cameras. This isn't the first time that a camera gets high marks by Dp and ended up with design flaws...

EARLY ADOPTERS always run the risk of "first batch" problems when buying from the first production batch. This is a "guy with money" problem, which applies to every form of consumer electronics technologies (TVs, phones, cameras, etc).

Its only a real problem if the manufacturer doesn't acknowledge or fix it after the first batch is released. In this case, Nikon is doing its job. Nikon is doing a good job. And this camera will still be GOLD worthy. If Nikon was covering it up, then booo and hisss, but they didn't. They responded fast. And that's what we want from a good manufacturer.

GOLD STAR to Nikon for taking care of business & changing the organizational culture over there in Japan. It was a hard-fought battle, I'm totally sure, for some Japanese managers to change attitudes from culture of denial to culture of quick-action responsiveness. But they are making a positive difference!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2015 at 04:49 UTC

If Canon integrates NFC to all its cameras, or some other transfer language, including its DSLRS, this could make sense. But I could see it quickly becoming log jammed. Does NFC allow very large data to transfer quickly?

It would be nice to come home, set the camera on this thing, and just let it upload the photos for me. I'm not saying itse necessary, when theres a perfectly good USB 3.0 cable or reader. I'm just saying, that it'd be nice.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 01:35 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

bluevellet: The number of comments about those empty tubes exceed that for the review of the GH4.

When those tubes become lenses, DPReview will explode if they dare to review them.

They won't dare; website would crash.

If we can comment this much about nothing, just imagine if there was something to go on about.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 05:32 UTC
In reply to:

win39: It is embarrassingly shiny. This looks like the cheap lenses of my youth, like Exactas, while the Leicas and Contarexes were lovely satin chrome, all over.

I think they look quite nice. Well, industrial anyway. Not exactly works of art. But nice.

Although, I'm a Nikon user, and Nikon has atrociously ugly lenses quite often (like the old 18-55 VR, or the new 28/1.8), if you look at the profile of these lenses, they are lumpy and bumpy with totally useless indentations in random places and tacky gold everywhere. Looks aside, the feel is often pretty nice (easy to hold/grip).

I like the look of many of the new Sigmas and also some Sonys. But sometimes these sleeker looking lenses aren't the most grippy or the easiest to hold. The Sigma 50/1.4Art looks quite nice (looks very functional yet sleek), but is a bit slippery to hold, especially the metal part and the plastic mid-section (despite its grooves, which the fingers sort of glide along).

Mind you, all of this is separate from function.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 05:31 UTC
On Manfrotto announces carbon fiber BeFree tripod article (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just another Canon shooter: The leg tube's diameters are too small with 12mm for the lower one. There are better travel tripods out there, not more expensive.

It doesn't really matter, people. Sheesh. In principle, JACS is correct. Technically, HARAW leaves a point of question. You can't settle it by going back and forth.

Wait for a technical review to appear online. But we can say, in general, you can make your purchase under the advice of JACS and you'll be OK.

Manfrotto isn't exactly well-known for the best tripods anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2014 at 23:23 UTC
On Manfrotto announces carbon fiber BeFree tripod article (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just another Canon shooter: The leg tube's diameters are too small with 12mm for the lower one. There are better travel tripods out there, not more expensive.

Can you recommend a couple?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2014 at 18:54 UTC
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: If you train an animal to push a shutter button -- is it any different from pushing a remote shutter button yourself? He created the "studio" in nature, worked hard for the opportunity, he chose the camera settings, he chose the photo, he edited it significantly, he processed it professionally, he presented, and it was his gear. He did AT LEAST 50% of the art work. More, IMO.

If a dog walks on a wet painting -- does the painter not get credit?

The monkey is a monkey -- its essentially the same thing as having your camera fall off the couch & take a picture on its own. A monkey is like a piece of furniture.

The key point is that the ARTIST selected the photo, processed it, marketed it, and it was with their gear, which they bought, and in an opportunity that the artist created. An electrical static discharge could set off a chinese wireless shutter or change a setting -- it doesn't mean that static discharge gets 100% of the credit and that there was no Human Artist involved in the making of the work.

Even if the Artist only has 5% credit, the only one who can CLAIM legal credit is the artist. Thus 100% of the rights should be with the only human involved artistically.

Its common sense people.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 20:06 UTC
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: If a child takes his own photograph using settings provided by a parent -- and a parent selects that photograph, crops it, processes it, markets it, does the child or the parent own the copyright?

How many photographers with children have used their children's works illegally if that's the case? The fact is that the parent did more than 50% of the image creation. It was a team effort.

Same with this monkey case; it was a joint effort.

But in this case, the monkey has no legal status and is happy to get bananas. The photographer should get his fees.

That's actually my point which I'm making in a round about way. The monkey doesn't have agency. So if an artist did any work to set it up the production he should have ownership. A monkey is obviously LESS THAN a child. So his legal status shouldn't be greater in this bizarro thinking. Make no mistake, this man developed and edited the photograph. A parent could claim that photo by manipulating or even outright stealing a childs photo... But an artist manipulating something with great effort which nature only touched cannot? It makes no sense. If laws are written by people and arbitrary as such, and a parent can hold the work made by their child, then obviously a case could be made that a human who gives a camera to an animal, but he himself selects the final image to be developed from his own gear property, processed, and marketed, should have a right to that image. For those saying no, what about pets vs. child?

(The parent-child thing is just to get people thinking).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 06:32 UTC
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: If you train an animal to push a shutter button -- is it any different from pushing a remote shutter button yourself? He created the "studio" in nature, worked hard for the opportunity, he chose the camera settings, he chose the photo, he edited it significantly, he processed it professionally, he presented, and it was his gear. He did AT LEAST 50% of the art work. More, IMO.

If a dog walks on a wet painting -- does the painter not get credit?

Well, that's what we're debating, aren't we. Maybe the law doesn't consider everything. And maybe theres wiggle room. And maybe theres an exception. I dont claim to be a lawyer. But I do know whats right and wrong. This artist made art out of this photo, which was from his property and his settings and his work. If a monkey pushes a button without any sense of timing whatsoever -- and the timing was entirely due to the opportunity generated by the artist in his work to get there -- its ethically and should be legally wrong to deny him his credit and dues.

Frankly, I dont think people need to be stubborn on this -- they need to look closely at the law and change it if need be. And I'll tell you why -- because more and more of life is getting automated (robots, etc). There is bound to come up with situations where it is an APP or a robot or something that triggers the shutter, but 100% of everything else set up by an actual human.

Please think about it, not just reacte.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 00:22 UTC
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: If you train an animal to push a shutter button -- is it any different from pushing a remote shutter button yourself? He created the "studio" in nature, worked hard for the opportunity, he chose the camera settings, he chose the photo, he edited it significantly, he processed it professionally, he presented, and it was his gear. He did AT LEAST 50% of the art work. More, IMO.

If a dog walks on a wet painting -- does the painter not get credit?

The monkey doesn't have agency. The human applied his agency to the situation the monkey was in. Its very clear.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 23:40 UTC
In reply to:

E_Nielsen: In retrospect, Slater may have handled it wrong. He could have said that he took the photos, not the monkey. After all, where's the definitive evidence that the monkey pressed the shutter release? You can't tell from the photo.

Had he done that, the public may have been equally impressed albeit for a different reason: what other photographer can get that close to a wild animal and make it smile into the camera? Shoot, I can't even do that with humans!

Speaking of humans, that's who copyright laws were written for. It's a foolish notion to argue that animals should be granted copyright protection. Shame on Wikimedia Commons for grabbing Slater's photos and using that feeble excuse.

A bit low, Nielson. But these are our relatives. And its our bread and butter -- you don't want it to get "trendy" for LARGE multi-million dollar corporations to trounce photographers. Every photographer should take it personally, because the legal precedents define our economic future, which is already souring enough on its own.

Besides: We're all apes and monkeys and cavemen and a little bananas -- especially at DPReview. Go check out the Forum comments and see for yourself. :-D

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:32 UTC

If a child takes his own photograph using settings provided by a parent -- and a parent selects that photograph, crops it, processes it, markets it, does the child or the parent own the copyright?

How many photographers with children have used their children's works illegally if that's the case? The fact is that the parent did more than 50% of the image creation. It was a team effort.

Same with this monkey case; it was a joint effort.

But in this case, the monkey has no legal status and is happy to get bananas. The photographer should get his fees.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:25 UTC as 186th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

vFunct: I'm mostly amazed at how little people understand that photography involves a LOT more than merely pointing a camera and pressing a shutter release button.

Editing - which frames to cut or not - is a major skill in photography. You are defined by what you DON'T publish, instead of what you do publish.

Just deciding the location is a major creative aspect of photography.

The subtle skill of casting is also what determines a good fashion photographer from a bad one.

Those are all aspects of the photo that determine its authorship.

Exactly. He did MORE than 50% of the art work.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:20 UTC

If you train an animal to push a shutter button -- is it any different from pushing a remote shutter button yourself? He created the "studio" in nature, worked hard for the opportunity, he chose the camera settings, he chose the photo, he edited it significantly, he processed it professionally, he presented, and it was his gear. He did AT LEAST 50% of the art work. More, IMO.

If a dog walks on a wet painting -- does the painter not get credit?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:19 UTC as 187th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

E_Nielsen: In retrospect, Slater may have handled it wrong. He could have said that he took the photos, not the monkey. After all, where's the definitive evidence that the monkey pressed the shutter release? You can't tell from the photo.

Had he done that, the public may have been equally impressed albeit for a different reason: what other photographer can get that close to a wild animal and make it smile into the camera? Shoot, I can't even do that with humans!

Speaking of humans, that's who copyright laws were written for. It's a foolish notion to argue that animals should be granted copyright protection. Shame on Wikimedia Commons for grabbing Slater's photos and using that feeble excuse.

Frankly, Wikipedia and others are acting disgracefully. He set the camera settings, he provided the camera, he set up everything with tremendous effort, he chose the photograph, he processed it. He could still claim that the monkey "taking its own pic" was just a clever marketing ploy & that he actually used a wireless remote (as his "legal position" : go ahead, prove otherwise, Wikipedia -- ask the monkey if you want). After he wins his case, he later can say that he had to say that just to fend against mis-use.

I strongly think that if a painter works WITH an animal (lets say a dog, or an elephant -- whatever) that the painter made the work. If its an accidental work, in the sense that an artist had nothing to do with it, okay, fine, belongs to nature.... But this photographer clearly chose the SETTINGS pre-photo, PROCESSED THE WORK, and set up the "studio" for nature. Its not like he doesn't own at least 50% of the work.

Wikipedia is in the wrong, and its pretty disgraceful.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:16 UTC
Total: 78, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »