ThomasH_always

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

Sailing-Flying-Photography

Comments

Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Beta: try out our new 'light' color scheme (596 comments in total)
In reply to:

Les Hall: There's a reason why books have white and not black pages. It may be just about using less ink, but it is also much more legible when it comes to text. Reading forums just wears me out with that inverted color set-up.

As for images, I think black is too much for that too. 50% grey would be perfect.

Well, a paper is a "passive display". It reflects or absorbs different percentile of the ambient light. That percentile stays constant regardless how much light we have. If you so want: The display quasi auto adjusts to the energy of the ambient light. Furthermore, the spectrum of the reflected light always corresponds to the spectrum of the ambient light.

That is never so with active displays, unless they have some active spectrometer attached to them, such as Pantone Huye for example.

I agree with gray: a neutral, luminance around 30-50% gray seems to be optimal for imaging.

True is that present day LED based displays do not impose the same side effects, which we have had with CRT based technology: They generated electromagnetic fields, even a spurious x-ray component. The darker the screen, the better it was for all of us...

There are many reasons for the popularity of Dpreview, I claim the dark "photo ambience" is one of these factors.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 17:41 UTC
On article Beta: try out our new 'light' color scheme (596 comments in total)

I hate white theme. I love the dark one. The issue is that the display is active, isn't it? A white background is like a lamp shining into someone's face. Especially late evening, when one still works in a dim room, or maybe even, a noble idea: Makes photography with Lightroom , or any other photography application. Now, why is it so that these all programs reached their ergonomics by using a dark, color neutral background. These shining white backgrounds burn my eyes, literally, I am getting tears. This here is relaxing.

You are doing fine, do not spend money or "breaking what ain't broken".

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 13:30 UTC as 174th comment
In reply to:

ThomasH_always: There it is again: No Viewfinder, No purchase. Got it, Nikon?

By the by, it always fascinates me that the new cameras are proudly presented how _others_ see them, not you, the photographer and user. I am interested in the outlook of the back side and of the top side rather. This is what I will see while using the device. Of course, in the vague understanding of physics, no LCD display will be able to compete with the energy of the sun light. The sun is bigger, and will always win. We need a viewfinder, or "the device" is not "a camera". I will not be plugging in some external contraptions for $200, which can get lost. Ridiculous.

Dear Studor13, Nikon is terrified of each and every customer, who is leaking to Sony (or any other competitor for that matter). And they do not care about a forum. Gross of Nikon's revenue are the cameras and lenses. Its not like Fuji or Ricoh, who run a "hobby department" with cameras.

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 15:31 UTC

There it is again: No Viewfinder, No purchase. Got it, Nikon?

By the by, it always fascinates me that the new cameras are proudly presented how _others_ see them, not you, the photographer and user. I am interested in the outlook of the back side and of the top side rather. This is what I will see while using the device. Of course, in the vague understanding of physics, no LCD display will be able to compete with the energy of the sun light. The sun is bigger, and will always win. We need a viewfinder, or "the device" is not "a camera". I will not be plugging in some external contraptions for $200, which can get lost. Ridiculous.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 07:05 UTC as 136th comment | 4 replies
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (616 comments in total)

I am glad to see that Pentax is still a player, not a major in terms of market share, but they really make splendid products. I used to own one of the really petite film SLR's, ages ago.

Regarding to the text of this commentary: Dpreview should not place links to paid web pages (luminous-landscape, the Contax review). Its not about "the dollar monthly", its about the potential hassle if we would have to subscribe to each and every web site separately. This is simply not the way, and such places do not deserve the ad by Dpreview.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2016 at 13:59 UTC as 19th comment

No Viewfinder: No Interest. That's that, short and simple, the definitive "don't buy" criterion.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 15:48 UTC as 37th comment | 3 replies

I do not think that this is "newsworthy". We have had several jpeg variants presented in the past, with the same claim. For example Jpeg2000. All of these failed due to lack of support. And than we have the png these days, created due to the patent-scavenging practice of a Forgent Networks company, and prior to that, Unisys's attempt to monetize on the patent.

For me the deal breaker is the 8-bit color depth in jpeg. Whoever is used to work on 14bit, or the older 12bit raw files, will not use such file format. The difference in processing latitude is drastic and obvious. Size of the customary jpeg files on the web is these days almost meaningless.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2015 at 15:25 UTC as 86th comment | 4 replies

This is a shockingly tiny, outright microscopic amount. Just think of Apple's multi-billion spending for some no-name headsets called, Bits or Bids, whatever.

I would rather expect a price in the range of 50 Billion. Even than this would be bargain for Sony.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2015 at 03:46 UTC as 22nd comment | 4 replies
On article RX aeternus? Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 II review (269 comments in total)

Your "compare to FZ1000" table incorrectly omits the fact that FZ1000 also supports 4K video format.

For me, especially considering the sky-high price tag of the Sony, the RX10 is not a viable alternative to the FZ1000.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 13:41 UTC as 63rd comment | 1 reply
On article Graava action cam automatically edits POV footage (47 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.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 16:28 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
On article Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know (612 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.

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.

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.)

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 13:46 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know (612 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.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 19:24 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know (612 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.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 19:18 UTC as 83rd 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.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 14:39 UTC as 7th comment
On article Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know (504 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.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 14:04 UTC as 26th comment | 3 replies
On article Photokina 2014 Video: The Canon G7 X (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.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 20:50 UTC
On article Photokina 2014 Video: The Canon G7 X (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.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 14:05 UTC as 4th comment | 2 replies
On article Fast and full-frame: Nikon announces 24MP Nikon D750 (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.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 05:42 UTC as 65th comment
Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »