chadley_chad

chadley_chad

Lives in United Kingdom Nottingham, United Kingdom
Joined on Aug 26, 2011

Comments

Total: 326, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R Preview preview (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

Siff: lol, really? still a preview?

Still no conclusion a year later ... DP really are **** these days/years!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 24, 2014 at 18:24 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R Preview preview (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

utomo99: If money is not a problem for you. maybe this cameras is good.
But if money need to consider, you can consider cheaper cameras.
and also no Zoom is not good for many people.

Maybe a Canon S110!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 24, 2014 at 18:22 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (411 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vilas7: Lot of features on RX100 III as well as Powershot G7 x has been discussed but I want to know if there is any digital zoom on those cameras and how are the results of those digital zooms as far as movie and photos are concerned indoors for school and church programs. I may be shooting from a distance of 30 to 50 feet and the optic zoom may not be sufficient. Does any one know the quality of digital zoom on each camera?

@ the-bunker : I'm considering either the Canon or Sony MII to replace my Mark I Sony. I tried the Canon today and it seemed noticeably slower on shot to shot speeds (using the same class 10 card). Can I ask your feelings on this ... I love the look of the canon (spec wise) over the MII sony but the ability to focus quickly and take repeated shots is important to me. Can I ask your thoughts on this?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 20:13 UTC
On Video preview of the Canon Powershot G7 X article (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: Is canon making a knock off of the RX100 really "one of the most exciting announcements from Photokina"?

Either it's a boring conference or I'm missing something. Can you explain why this is exciting?

THanks!

I find an all-new competitor to the king of 1" compacts (and a competitor with much better specs), quite exciting!!!!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 11:41 UTC
On Video preview of the Canon Powershot G7 X article (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

TFD: Nice but I think Sony trumps them in two areas, Video and Panoramas. From my experience no one is as good at Panoramas as Sony.

Anyone talking about a £600+ camera and 'Selfies' in the same paragraph looses any respect they might have had with me!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 11:39 UTC
On Video preview of the Canon Powershot G7 X article (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

zorgon: It's hard to believe that they can make a lens that small, with that zoom range and aperture. On paper at least it looks better than the Sony RX100III and Panasonic LX100 but I get the feeling that something has to give. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the image quality is like.

Must have? Thats your opinion, certainly not mine!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 11:35 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1864 comments in total)
In reply to:

TimK5: Sony RX100III just got its butt kicked!

.... phew ... I nearly upgraded from the Mark 1 !!!!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 13:25 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1864 comments in total)
In reply to:

hrt: The spec of this camera is impressive indeed.
With 4/3 sensor + 24mm equivalent zoom + low light capability + control dials + EVF + light weight portability, this camera potentially could replace my APS-C DSLR.
With an integrated EVF, there is no need for a tilting screen.
Exterior looks of the camera doesn't matter, so long as it has a good grip, sufficient dials for control, and no sloppy covers that can easily be bent.
Can't wait to see some test results.
By the way, do you know whether it's weather sealed ?

Good luck using that EVF when you're lying down in the mud trying to get a shot 6" off the ground!!!! (or when your glasses keep getting in the way!!!)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 13:24 UTC
In reply to:

chadley_chad: Remind me never to publish my work for all the 'DP CRITICS' to shred into a million pieces!

Cheers

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 21:09 UTC

Remind me never to publish my work for all the 'DP CRITICS' to shred into a million pieces!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 22:42 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Rob: It's a nice effort, but at that level of attempted realism, the CGI work is subpar. She's lacking some fundamental knowledge of visual art, such as how to cast shadows properly in perspective according to light source's angle relative to the subject and vanishing points. That is first year concept art/illustration/industrial design stuff in a good art school.

The creatures themselves are also a bit flat and unconvincing. A much better choice would have been using 3D and doing photorealistic renders that look more like the kind of realism we'd see in movie special effects (which is totally doable with cheap, off-the-shelf 3D software these days if you have the skill). If you guys want to see this type of work done at the professional level, go to cgsociety.org and look in the galleries--all are works done at the level of Hollywood blockbusters, but often by young CG artists who specialize in this type of work, and many are not even pros but hobbyists.

And now Mr Know-it-all backtracks!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 11:00 UTC

Some stupid comments follow ....

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 20:32 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

Rob: It's a nice effort, but at that level of attempted realism, the CGI work is subpar. She's lacking some fundamental knowledge of visual art, such as how to cast shadows properly in perspective according to light source's angle relative to the subject and vanishing points. That is first year concept art/illustration/industrial design stuff in a good art school.

The creatures themselves are also a bit flat and unconvincing. A much better choice would have been using 3D and doing photorealistic renders that look more like the kind of realism we'd see in movie special effects (which is totally doable with cheap, off-the-shelf 3D software these days if you have the skill). If you guys want to see this type of work done at the professional level, go to cgsociety.org and look in the galleries--all are works done at the level of Hollywood blockbusters, but often by young CG artists who specialize in this type of work, and many are not even pros but hobbyists.

I'm sure she was chuffed and her friends impressed ... Which is what it's all about. Know it all art/photography snobs I'm sure are the last of her cares!!!!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 20:30 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: TWO REASONS WHY CAMERA COMPANIES ARE LOSING MONEY: 1. Capitalism is dying (finally), because it is based on faulty mathematics, so it has to end at some point. 2. NOBODY CARES ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY ANYMORE. The only people who care are the obsessives who think looking at an inferior 2-D representation of something on a screen is better than appreciating the real thing with your eyes in real time. Now that everone has a camera, people are waking up and thinking, what the hell is the point of photography? Why don't I just look at the world with my eyes and stop wasting valuable resources and valuable time doing a pointless activity?

Oh dear oh dear Tord ... you've been trolled!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 12:29 UTC
In reply to:

Zerg2905: GoPro should write a letter to Canon, asking how to make a ridiculous amount of money from not interesting / capable / ubermarket / (here you can insert your own word) products... :)

@Mr Blah ... actually, you got it wrong, because Canons recent sales model involves downgrading the hardware and some features before reaming and launching at a higher price (EOS1200D anyone?). The model you're referring to I think relates to Apple .... But this is a photography site and we don't talk about mobile phones here :-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:50 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: TWO REASONS WHY CAMERA COMPANIES ARE LOSING MONEY: 1. Capitalism is dying (finally), because it is based on faulty mathematics, so it has to end at some point. 2. NOBODY CARES ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY ANYMORE. The only people who care are the obsessives who think looking at an inferior 2-D representation of something on a screen is better than appreciating the real thing with your eyes in real time. Now that everone has a camera, people are waking up and thinking, what the hell is the point of photography? Why don't I just look at the world with my eyes and stop wasting valuable resources and valuable time doing a pointless activity?

Do pointless activities include writing nonsense on camera sites!

Luckily it's clear you're trolling; I'd hate everyone to think you were a jerk ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:45 UTC
In reply to:

tom1234567: The Monkey takes better photos than some on here??????????

.... and when a new pocket camera comes out, moans there's no hotshoe or EVF!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:38 UTC

Sorry sir, you dont own the copyright.

If I were him, I'd be going ape!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:36 UTC as 362nd comment
In reply to:

Jeff Seltzer: More predictable than the sun rising, the collection of people here calling someone else's work nonsense and worthless. Probably the same people who walk into a modern art museum claiming, "I can do this...what's the big deal?" Well, here's the thing: you did NOT do it. Someone else did, and this is the case here, too. Maybe one day your pictures of puppies, cute kids, sunsets, and flower macros will be in an art gallery, but until then, try to be more respectful and understanding. Maybe you'll actually learn something.

@EricCul

I merely said I didn't like the work; there's nothing disparaging or discouraging about that; and again, I don't see why I have to show my work to make my comments more valid. I remain polite and civil and stand by my original statement that the technique may be clever, but the outcome, for me, is not something I like or what I find pleasing or impressive to view (more confusing ... and should we really have to explain an image; surely a good image says it all!). Guess I'm not 'arty' enough lol!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 10:56 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff Seltzer: More predictable than the sun rising, the collection of people here calling someone else's work nonsense and worthless. Probably the same people who walk into a modern art museum claiming, "I can do this...what's the big deal?" Well, here's the thing: you did NOT do it. Someone else did, and this is the case here, too. Maybe one day your pictures of puppies, cute kids, sunsets, and flower macros will be in an art gallery, but until then, try to be more respectful and understanding. Maybe you'll actually learn something.

So, because I don't upload any of my work to the forums, I don't have the right to say I don't like someone else's work? As badi rightly says, one does not have to be a painter to like or dislike a painting.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 19:53 UTC
Total: 326, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »