scott_mcleod

Lives in Australia Australia
Works as a student
Joined on Jun 2, 2007

Comments

Total: 61, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article First Impressions: Using the Fujifilm X-Pro1 (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

designdef: This may be a great camera but... it is badly let down by it's 'retro-rangefinder' styling. What is it with the Japanese? Designers are being churned out of educational establishments by the million and all Fujifilm can come up with is more 'I wanna look like a Leica'. This has just go to stop, put your faith in new and talented designers, stop churning out this retro rubbish, create a product that is worthy of the technology inside! (please:)

You mean like Pentax did with the K-01? (cough-cough)

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2012 at 03:46 UTC
On article First Impressions: Using the Nikon D4 (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

scott_mcleod: Slightly OT but is it safe to assume that since you're using the new 85/1.8G for the still-life shots, a full test of this lens is coming (soon)? The published MTFs are just unreal for a $500 lens...

Thanks for the detailed D4 info - I look forward to the full review even though I'm not in the market for one!

Awesome - thanks! IMO, DPR lens reviews present what you really need to know to make buying decisions - without getting any weird/unpleasant surprises - in a very usable way.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2012 at 04:06 UTC
On article First Impressions: Using the Nikon D4 (183 comments in total)

Slightly OT but is it safe to assume that since you're using the new 85/1.8G for the still-life shots, a full test of this lens is coming (soon)? The published MTFs are just unreal for a $500 lens...

Thanks for the detailed D4 info - I look forward to the full review even though I'm not in the market for one!

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2012 at 03:41 UTC as 86th comment | 4 replies
On article Sigma shows latest products at Focus on Imaging (42 comments in total)

With the new sensor, and if the lenses are as good as the previous versions (i.e. very, very good), the DP2 M could very well be on my shopping list for a carry-everwhere camera, provided the speed is at least comparable to an "average" compact (and the price is not outrageous). I hope the much greater amount of data to be processed off the 15.4MP chip hasn't made it worse... 45mm was always one of my favourite FLs!

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2012 at 22:19 UTC as 12th comment
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark III hands-on preview and video (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

kbphotography: Ahhh, why only 6 FPS! 8 frames to match the 7d would have been a much desired upgrade. This might be a decision killer for me.

For certain specific applications, more fps *is* better (even 1 or 2 more). I shoot fast-accelerating rockets and if I could afford a 1DX that would be even better than the 8fps of the 7D. With these things, a lot can happen in 1/6 of a second...
www.pbase.com/smcleod965/rockets&page=all

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 21:55 UTC
On article Canon announces EOS 5D Mark III 22MP full-frame DSLR (488 comments in total)
In reply to:

scott_mcleod: $500 too expensive, 1fps too slow (at least you can shoot for 3 seconds)

I was *so* hyped that this could replace both my 7D and D700... so much for that idea... :(

I upgraded from a D300 to a 7D to get access to Canon's excellent medium-tele lenses, 26% more resolution and more fps without the added bulk and weight of a $500 grip.

If the original specs (6.9fps - almost the speed of the 7D) had been true, and if the image quality turned out to be at least equal to the D700 in low-light, the 5DIII *would* have been a good replacement for both cameras (the 200/2.8L would get me the same image magnification as the 135/2L on the 7D). What's so hard to understand about wanting to consolidate two cameras with different mounts into just one? Is it also hard to swallow that the price seems a *bit* OTT compared to the (slow) D800?

And why is it so difficult to believe I have gear from 2 manufacturers? Not everyone who isn't going into spasms of ecstasy over the 5DIII is a troll... sheesh...

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 08:22 UTC

It would be nice if every hotshoe-mounted accessory for Canon bodies (not just flashes) had a built-in AF-assist lamp instead of that awful strobe (or for bodies without a flash)

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 05:35 UTC as 39th comment
On article Canon announces EOS 5D Mark III 22MP full-frame DSLR (488 comments in total)

$500 too expensive, 1fps too slow (at least you can shoot for 3 seconds)

I was *so* hyped that this could replace both my 7D and D700... so much for that idea... :(

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 05:30 UTC as 150th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Percival Merriwether: Don't worry, Adobe will come out with the "Fuji Big White Blob Remover" tool in their next version of Photoshop.

Or an emoticon... or something equally useless

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2012 at 23:10 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I suppose this will kill the popular and often expressed theory that Dpreview shills for camera makers.

It sure looks like they are trying very hard to be objective and to provide the most accurate information they can.

I'd like to think so too but conspiracy theorists are pretty hard-core - they'll just spin it to "Ah-HA! I *knew* that Canon/Nikon were trying to torpedo Fuji! Now we have PROOF!!!" and similar lines of utter BS :(

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2012 at 23:02 UTC

So are these new lenses only going to be available in silver *or* black, depending on model, but not both (like the silver-only 45/1.8)? Considering the (questionable) color range of the PEN bodies, this just seens weird...

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 07:08 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
On article Just Posted: Nikon D800 hands-on preview (265 comments in total)
In reply to:

philo123: So Guys Nikon has put a 36MP FF sensor in the D800 and just a 16MP in the D4 and which model is aimed at the pros? Hmmm.....Smells of marketing hype to me for the prosumer/enthusiast market. Looking at the replies here it looks like a good picture has yet to be taken because we've never had a 36MP sensor. Keep your money in your pockets and buy good glass as that's what really counts.

Nikon obviously disagrees about lenses... otherwise why would they show so many pics of the D800 with the 24-120 f/4 VR attached? Kiss your 36MP goodbye ;)

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 02:32 UTC
On article Nikon D800 and D800E 36MP full-frame DSLRs announced (271 comments in total)
In reply to:

backayonder: How much for your old D700?

A lot less than I would have got last week :(

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 06:16 UTC

Could it be the new Aptina MT9H004 sensor rather thna the Sony one? 4.78um pitch, 4,928 x 3,280 = 23.56mm x 15.68mm, 16.16MP with HD capability (though the MT9H004 can shoot at 1080p30)? I guess we won't know until further details get released... this module is not even on the Ricoh site page for the GXR yet!

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2012 at 06:53 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply
On article NASA captures the earth at night with Nikon D3S (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paulo Macedo: HD Camera developed by NHK Japan,
nicknamed the SS-HDTV camera...you said Nikon D3s...quit the BS!!

They're *time-lapse* movies made from stills (as the captions on the NASA site says). If you click on the links to individual frames you will see the original resolution was... 4256 x 2832 - the same as a D3s. How about that!
Some of the daytime stuff at the bottom of the page has an original res of 4288 x 2848 so I assume they used a D300 or D300s for those.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2011 at 21:35 UTC
On article Lytro camera overview and discussion with CEO Ren Ng (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

scott_mcleod: Before anyone gets too excited you'd all better read this (all of it):

https://www.lytro.com/legal/terms-of-use

I shall say no more... (except a thanks to Thom Hogan for pointing this out in his blog)

BTW Canon is legally obliged to roll over for the h.264 codec, as is everyone else held hostage by these guys. I recall reading somewhere that at least one DSLR maker was looking at creating their own codec to get around this (can't remember which one). Intellectual property is one thing but the video codec game is a license to print money IMO.

You don't see people being sued for selling prints made from JFIF-encoded files, do you?

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2011 at 22:18 UTC
On article Lytro camera overview and discussion with CEO Ren Ng (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

scott_mcleod: Before anyone gets too excited you'd all better read this (all of it):

https://www.lytro.com/legal/terms-of-use

I shall say no more... (except a thanks to Thom Hogan for pointing this out in his blog)

But if you can't even view the image without using Lytro (or their approved) software, then surely any print would have to be made using Lytro content (with attribution)? The really "interesting" part is found under User Content, e.g.:

...with respect to content that you submit to Lytro.com you grant us a non-exclusive, fully-paid, royalty-free, worldwide, sublicensable and transferable license to:

◦Copy, store, display, and distribute such content;
◦Modify and create derivative works of such content by using our light field picture player or another player approved by us. We may allow our users and visitors to create other modifications or derivative works and print your content for their personal use;
◦Transmit copies of such content to, and embed such content on, other websites;
◦Display the Lytro trademark with such content; and
◦Display and feature in public areas of Lytro.com, at our discretion, certain of your public living pictures selected by us.

Nice deal for Lytro, huh?

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2011 at 22:17 UTC
On article Lytro camera overview and discussion with CEO Ren Ng (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

scott_mcleod: Before anyone gets too excited you'd all better read this (all of it):

https://www.lytro.com/legal/terms-of-use

I shall say no more... (except a thanks to Thom Hogan for pointing this out in his blog)

I did not imply it was in any way illegal - but can you imagine any other camera manufacturer placing such OTT conditions and restrictions on the images *you* create? No commercial prints without their express permission? And so on... maybe some are okay with this but even if I was interested in the Lytro (which I am not), their T&C's and the non-replaceable battery would be deal-breakers

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2011 at 01:38 UTC
On article Lytro camera overview and discussion with CEO Ren Ng (103 comments in total)

Before anyone gets too excited you'd all better read this (all of it):

https://www.lytro.com/legal/terms-of-use

I shall say no more... (except a thanks to Thom Hogan for pointing this out in his blog)

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2011 at 21:57 UTC as 17th comment | 8 replies
On article Lytro camera overview and discussion with CEO Ren Ng (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

tfeltz: With high frame rates (10+ fps) becoming more common on conventional cameras, focus bracketing could become an option for non-Lytro cameras. Via software similar to HDR (high dynamic range), the areas of focus can be selectively determined during post processing, including extended depth of field.

Any 3D effect cannot simulate a separation greater than the diameter of the front element, so it's going to be less than half that of the average spacing of the human eyes. Unless they release a humungous version, which is unlikely to fit with their target demographic. Lytro - the ultimate one-trick pony.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2011 at 21:52 UTC
Total: 61, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »