PIX 2015
ThomasH_always

ThomasH_always

Lives in United States Santa Clara, United States
Joined on Jul 16, 2005
About me:

Sailing-Flying-Photography

Comments

Total: 39, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Graava action cam automatically edits POV footage article (46 comments in total)

Ok, dear Brittany: I have a MAJOR question:
What in God's name is POV??
Why can't you avoid usage of acronyms, which are not explained in the text?

In that context I always remember the 700-pages book with acronyms in one of my former companies. Our "star" was PIS, The Post Ignition Stage, what also could be Postal Index South. Have you already filed your pis measures with pis?

Please, we have a spoken language, use it please in full words. Or, introduce the acronym and than use it: "The camera can automatically use Personal Oven View (POV) in the kitchen and..." There, this is how unprepared readers can know what do you mean.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 16:28 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (599 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThomasH_always: 600mm without a viewfinder... Good luck to use 600mm at arms length. They are becoming totally insane. I said it before and I say it again: For me "No Viewfinder=No Buy". That simple, that decisive, that final. Another criterion of same kind is: "No Raw=No Buy". Either one of these disqualifies the device from being for me an object of interest.

One have to love the messages from youngsters here :-), the "post film generation," holding their cameras like babies in stinky diapers, away from the face.

Well, you both artists, clinching to the term "arms lenght", versus what? "half arms lenght?", is that you mean? There is also the issue of sun light on the lcd display, and a reading distance, especially for older folks, such as myself.

There is something for you to learn, I guess. Question back at you: Have ever photographed with a viewfinder, do you comprehend the massive difference in stability of such a hold? Have you ever, only once, tried out a long lens? I do not think so, otherwise you would have never written here such nonsense.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 14:05 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: The pricing of these lenses (especially the 200-500, pending on performance) shows that Nikon knows exactly what to do to change the perception that Canon is more powerful, versatile and competitive when it comes to lenses.

As a Canon user, I would only wish that Canon had the same reciprocal savvy when it comes to cameras.

The 5Ds/r pricing might indicate they have...The final proof will be the chosen price point for the 5DMKIV.

Yes, the 200-500 is a fascinating appearance, especially when we compare it to the 80-400 with its astonishing price hike over the old version. The question is indeed: How will the 200-500 perform? If this price is real, and the optical performance is on pair to the Tamron/Sigma 150-600 offerings, this lens will become a huge hit for Nikon, regardless its weight.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 13:52 UTC
In reply to:

backayonder: So the new 24-70 is what in Aussie dollars around $3400?
Makes the secondhand version that I am about to buy tomorrow for $1300 including UV filter a bargain.

...and makes you save on a gym equipment! That lens lens is perfect for arm exercises. No doubt, that was the Nikon's motivation for making it such a massive, massive monster.

(I am kidding of course, but monster it is. When I compare it to my vintage 35-70 f/2.8, petite by compare, I have to ask myself, why this 24-70 is so gigantic. On a D810 that pair 24-70f/2.8+D810 is indeed a yesterdays proposition. Left and right people leak from Canikon to m4/3, and I do not see a stop for this tendency. Number of my Nikkor's is down from 12 to 5 remaining, and I use a Canon these days anyways. Somehow none of the Nikon's appeal to me.)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 13:46 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (599 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThomasH_always: 600mm without a viewfinder... Good luck to use 600mm at arms length. They are becoming totally insane. I said it before and I say it again: For me "No Viewfinder=No Buy". That simple, that decisive, that final. Another criterion of same kind is: "No Raw=No Buy". Either one of these disqualifies the device from being for me an object of interest.

Hm... I would rather say, I shall redouble the number of complaints, so that they would reach the Islands Of Japan.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 19:24 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (599 comments in total)

600mm without a viewfinder... Good luck to use 600mm at arms length. They are becoming totally insane. I said it before and I say it again: For me "No Viewfinder=No Buy". That simple, that decisive, that final. Another criterion of same kind is: "No Raw=No Buy". Either one of these disqualifies the device from being for me an object of interest.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 19:18 UTC as 77th comment | 8 replies

This is a very positive tendency to test a wider range of equipment, not merely the cameras. I am however somewhat stunned that the testers have not recognized just how... unique the UniqBall is. It is a ball head and a leveling plate in one, quite extraordinary in practice for panning and tilting. Ingenious like the legendary Rubic Cube. In my opinion, a special mention would be in place.

Correction: I just spotted a special mention for most innovative design in the summary, my fault that I have not spotted it prior to writing this comment.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 14:39 UTC as 5th comment
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (500 comments in total)

I said it before and I say it again: No Viewfinder, no buy. Its that darn simple.
Another one: No raw format, no buy. Its the "Simple Checklist if Thomas will buy the new camera."

Ever since I dumped the V1+2 zooms for 40% of purchasing price I monitor the Nikon-1 development with some astonishment: What are they thinking? The dynamic range in the V1 was nice, the fast AF was indeed prime class, but the shot-to-shot time was abysmal, so was the up to 8sec waking time of the V1. That was the deal killer in the V1 for me. And than came the Mr.Robato and Homer Simpson designed V2, arguably the "most ugly shape ever devised by any camera maker". I just dumped the V1, be gone, good riddance.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 14:04 UTC as 24th comment | 3 replies
On Photokina 2014 Video: The Canon G7 X article (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThomasH_always: For me its simple really: No viewfinder, no buy. Not ever.

I do not understand that people are here excited about a step backward, and a remake of a RX100 Mk II, whereas Sony showed with Mk III how it is done.

Canon: too late, too little.

yes, I understand, but... for all who wear glasses and cannot read on closest distance, a viewfinder is not an option, its a must. It is a physical reality. Add to it the outdoor sun light, making any screen barely visible, add to it stability issue when camera is kept at arms length, and the viewfinder is even more the "proper way" of looking at your subject.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 20:50 UTC
On Photokina 2014 Video: The Canon G7 X article (143 comments in total)

For me its simple really: No viewfinder, no buy. Not ever.

I do not understand that people are here excited about a step backward, and a remake of a RX100 Mk II, whereas Sony showed with Mk III how it is done.

Canon: too late, too little.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 14:05 UTC as 4th comment | 2 replies
On Fast and full-frame: Nikon announces 24MP Nikon D750 article (406 comments in total)

yikes is right! What I want from Nikon is the freaking D400 (DX) at last, I do not want the full frame, except for some low light work, it does not serve any purpose for me.

Your mileage may vary, of course. Of course there is merit to FX for many.

I like the greater depth of field for my action shots. Once someone started this entire claim about the "super goodly shallow depth of field" in FX, everybody repeats it like a parrot, without asking himself/herself: Do I need or prefer indeed a shallow depth of field? Example, two kids in the frame, meter apart. I like the DX for such purpose, and the m4/3 even more.

I think its time that this person, after 40 years Nikon (!! since the silver Nikkormat!) says good buy to the Arrogant Yellow Logo camera company, I am dumping my 12 lenses and walking to Canon for good. They pull out the 7D MkII and I have the impression, its the right tool for me.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 05:42 UTC as 65th comment

I will be glad to send you in one of my red apples and a reddish orange for an equally meaningful compare. Both are a fruit, with some amount of sugar, and both have some shades of red/orange on the outside skin. Both can be eaten. But: which is better? Which is superior? Which handles better in a hand, which can be used as a ball to play, not merely as a food or desert?

Nun serious: the size of the sensor alone puts these both cameras in fully different types of application, and the infrastructure is dramatically different. Sony has barely E-mount lenses, whereas m4/3 has meanwhile a battery of some 50-60 lenses, thus a different scope of application. In same term, the low light ability is diametrically different as well. Is the choice of these two about the 4K video, is that it? If dpreview is a site devoted to photography, the entire video stuff is rather alien to most photographers. Maybe we need a Vpreview.com or cinepreview.com, for folks making videos and movies?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 22:13 UTC as 91st comment | 1 reply

What puzzles me here, is why to compare the Sony models to EOS-5DMkIII, whereas we know that the EOS-6D and Nikon Df have both superior low light properties. Of course aside of the "pixel peeking" we also need to be able to focus in low light. As a EOS-6D user, I can only attest the amazing ability of this camera to focus, officially even in -3EV, albeit I have no scientific way to check if that value is really true. In a practical shootout in an Aquarium the EOS-5D was "hopelessly helpless", and that is that. So why to compare low light properties to an ultra expensive camera, aimed at a different application? In this context: note that the new Lumix GH4 focuses even in -4EV, a record nowadays, and a fact often overseen, because most people think of GH4 as a video tool.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 14:19 UTC as 135th comment
On 2014 Waterproof Camera Roundup article (251 comments in total)

I have a problem with the presentation in this group test: If you write something positive about a camera A using large font, as if a quintessence, ("Best feature such-and-such in the Group") you cannot write for the Ricoh in large font the negative "Has the worse battery life in the group", and than in the text you write, I quote directly: "WG-4 has the best image quality of the bunch". Wouldn't you say, THIS IS THE PRIMARY MESSAGE, to be printed in large font??? I would say, the image quality tops everything else, the maximum depth inclusive, and surely the "battery performance."

I would also wish that you would clearly state with EVERY single camera, on a VERY PROMINENT PLACE if the camera supports raw. Having 12 or 14 bit per pixel, instead of 8 with a lossy compression appears to me as truly essential. I only take a no-raw camera if there is no alternative. For example, if there is no waterproof camera with raw.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 19:35 UTC as 51st comment
On 2013 Waterproof Camera Roundup preview (123 comments in total)

Among the many comparative attributes, wouldn't you please like to mention is any of these support RAW format?? For me, its an essential feature, surely of higher interest than e.g. how many megapixels the sensor has. I even wish I could per cookie preference suppress news and display of any camera without RAW support.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 20:00 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

carlos roncatti: same old sluggish raw timings?

They are stubborn, they waste money on maintaining 2 raw formats, instead of using DNG.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2014 at 15:50 UTC

Well, yea, "shame about the price." I offer $1400. Want more? Nope, not from me, you keep the lens. I am endlessly patient. I will rather take my old 80-200 F/2.8 with extender.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 05:23 UTC as 35th comment | 3 replies

A "mini update" for the Least Important Customers of Nikon: The passionate photographers with skills. Or so it looks. We waited for years and years to get the same sensor, which the beginner models had for a long time. Canon is more clever about that: they simply placed the same sensor in all DX cameras, and so the speed of operation, functionality versus size are the differentiators.

But, lets nonetheless see here the Silver Lining: We have a new mid-range DX model at last, our existence has been noticed by Nikon's product planers.

However, the D7000/D600 controls in terms of their ergonomics are not my favorites, and the D7100 does not correct the mess in any significant manner. I really hate this left side mode selector, and the bizarre under wheel even more. Its op in the dark or with gloves is not possible.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2013 at 15:29 UTC as 32nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Liu_BR: The Simpsons would say: "like you've never seen them before", so weird...

I said already in the forum: Homer Simpson designs a Camera Body. I really have to wonder about Nikon... And the new battery! Even the D800/D600 use the EL15, and that is a good thing. Here the Battery-o-Mania resumes into next act and scene. I Think I will grab than the Olympus and move from CX to m43. They have lenses I would like to have...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 14:53 UTC

This interview is very disappointing. Reviewer did not asked any "difficult" questions. The celebratory claim of Nr 1 in Europe (without numbers!!) contrasts the massive list of user wishes, dramatic downfall in value, questionable J2 release, year waiting for any wide lens, year waiting for firmware upgrade, which is a minimalist change rather.

I understand that Mr. Jasper is a PR-man, he has to smile and sell roses and lilies, but Dpreview should know better what happens with the Nikon 1 system, and how desperate users are for improvements. Foremost Jaspers claim of "see, press, done" speed of operation angers me in context of the camera deep-sleep mode, 4-6 sec to wait time to boot, which I regularly clock, and the dreaded forced preview in viewfinder. Luminous Landscapes put it well in their terse writeup about the camera, and even put the name Pronea in context of Nikon 1.

One star for the interview, job not well done, Dpreview.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2012 at 14:48 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
Total: 39, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »