Richard Murdey

Richard Murdey

Lives in Japan Kyoto, Japan
Joined on Aug 21, 2002

Comments

Total: 811, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

A7 already had a front dial...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 08:28 UTC as 181st comment | 1 reply
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (634 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonikon: Well, darn it!
I really like the design concept of the LX-100, which is very close to what I want in a travel camera in terms of size and sensor image quality. However, it fails on on four counts that give me reason to pass on this camera.
1. No phase detection auto focusing. (Sorry, but I am spoiled by my Nikon V1's focusing performance!)
2. No built in flash, and the supplied flash is crude and weak with no bounce capability. At least the tiny flash for my Nikon V1 can do bounce flash.
3. Inferior EVF. There are much better available that do not tear.
4. Despite the hype, my eyes tell me the lens is not sharp enough, especially at the edges, which is a big disappointment considering the price of the camera and the short focal length range.

As it stands, the LX-100 is a bit too disappointing and over-priced for it's performance capabilities. Hopefully the rumored Nikon competitor to this camera will not have these shortcomings.

I didn't know that. Pity. That would explain why I've seen so many of those lenses are on the used market, compared with relatively few J4/V3 cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 23:09 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (634 comments in total)

Within the criteria dpreview uses to judge cameras, they find the LX100 to be excellent.

Your criteria, my criteria ... might well be different, and in my case they are different. The days when digital cameras can be evaluated in an absolute good-better-best sense are long over. dpreview can rank it silver, gold, platinum or chocolate cream with pink sprinkles for all I care ... all that tells anyone is how much they like it, not how much you should like it.

Reading the comments, some people really need to chill. Personal attacks on the authors for liking a camera more than you do is just way out of line. Unacceptable.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 08:53 UTC as 71st comment | 1 reply
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (634 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonikon: Well, darn it!
I really like the design concept of the LX-100, which is very close to what I want in a travel camera in terms of size and sensor image quality. However, it fails on on four counts that give me reason to pass on this camera.
1. No phase detection auto focusing. (Sorry, but I am spoiled by my Nikon V1's focusing performance!)
2. No built in flash, and the supplied flash is crude and weak with no bounce capability. At least the tiny flash for my Nikon V1 can do bounce flash.
3. Inferior EVF. There are much better available that do not tear.
4. Despite the hype, my eyes tell me the lens is not sharp enough, especially at the edges, which is a big disappointment considering the price of the camera and the short focal length range.

As it stands, the LX-100 is a bit too disappointing and over-priced for it's performance capabilities. Hopefully the rumored Nikon competitor to this camera will not have these shortcomings.

@HowaboutRAW

Fair point. I would say the worst N1 lenses run roughly par to the LX100 overall, and it goes upwards dramatically from there.

@A Girard

I cannot understate the value of a compact, powerful bounce flash for indoor people photography with a small(ish?) sensor compact like the LX100. I'm sure you can fit something to the hot shoe, but I don't know of anything as compact and convenient as the Nikon 1 SB-N5.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 08:37 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (634 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonikon: Well, darn it!
I really like the design concept of the LX-100, which is very close to what I want in a travel camera in terms of size and sensor image quality. However, it fails on on four counts that give me reason to pass on this camera.
1. No phase detection auto focusing. (Sorry, but I am spoiled by my Nikon V1's focusing performance!)
2. No built in flash, and the supplied flash is crude and weak with no bounce capability. At least the tiny flash for my Nikon V1 can do bounce flash.
3. Inferior EVF. There are much better available that do not tear.
4. Despite the hype, my eyes tell me the lens is not sharp enough, especially at the edges, which is a big disappointment considering the price of the camera and the short focal length range.

As it stands, the LX-100 is a bit too disappointing and over-priced for it's performance capabilities. Hopefully the rumored Nikon competitor to this camera will not have these shortcomings.

I agree, plus with the V1 you can change lenses. To the 18.5/1.8 for example, if you want less DOF. The 30-110 if you want more reach. As a photographic system, Nikon 1 is superior in so many ways. And, crucially, doesn't give up anything in image quality to the LX100 since the lenses are so much better.

But ... OMG f/1.7-2.8!!! ... woo a shutter speed and aperture dial!!! it's easy to :rolleyes:, but you have to admit there is an legitimate appeal there.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 00:15 UTC

"what it was that photographers needed"

Its a UV filter. As long as the thread size matches...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 00:21 UTC as 11th comment
On Manfrotto introduces new lens filter lineup article (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eric Nepean: Filters are actually tricky to buy - if not good quality glass and coatings, they cause minor degradations to your images, and these are hard to track down. And when you do discover them, the situation may be that you have been shooting with the offending filter for 6 months or a year.

I've become very cautious buying filters.

" they cause minor degradations to your images, and these are hard to track down"

Harder still to prove their existence!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2014 at 08:12 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (377 comments in total)

So just review the damn camera already.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 07:42 UTC as 89th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

AngryCorgi: Pentax pricing is always subject for a good giggle.

Nikon 16-85 DX is currently $629 at B&H. $749 MSRP on the Pentax version doesn't seem crazy-crazy to me.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2014 at 07:57 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M10 Review preview (329 comments in total)
In reply to:

David Smith - Photographer: I bought this camera bout six months ago and I couldn't be more happy with it. It just works like a charm, always, period. Good viewfinder, fast and super accurate autofocus, decent ergonomics, tilting LCD, highly effective in body stabilization and a wealth of high quality compact and lightweight lenses to choose from. This is a mature camera system and I love it.

I'm not sure what dpreview means by "Here we're comparing the E-M10 to the Fujifilm X-M1, which bears a highly capable APS-C X-Trans chip. We'd expect it to out-resolve the Four Thirds E-M10, and it does, and the E-M10 appears to try and bridge the gap by applying slightly heavier sharpening to its JPEGs. ", I don't see it in day to day use. I shoot RAW and I see no significant difference. What I do see is that the output of the X-Trans sensor is cooked. RAW files look soft and processed. Any difference there might be, comes from in camera processing.

"RAW files look soft and processed."

I wish people wouldn't use this phrasing. No one "looks" at RAW data, any comparison is simply between a jpeg image created from sensor data in camera and images created by processing the sensor data on a computer.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2014 at 00:52 UTC
On Google announces Nexus 9 8.9-inch tablet post (39 comments in total)

The price isn't *un*reasonable, but its value is such that you start looking very carefully at the iPad models possible alternatives. The mini 2, now at $299, in particular seems very competitive.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 03:33 UTC as 12th comment
On Nikon releases Capture NX-D 1.0.3 and View NX 2.10.2 article (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

toomanycanons: OK, I'll be the first: is NX-D finally worth downloading?

I've used it since beta. It's good if you tend to use Nikon exclusively and are invested in the Picture Control system. It keeps everything consistent between camera and computer, and has support for older cameras which used Color Mode I,III etc. I find it has the features I need, and is reasonably straightforward to use.

And yes +Micheal Archembault its free.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2014 at 01:59 UTC
In reply to:

TylerQ: I guess some people have no understanding how great film is. Given it's so called limitations, it's a wonder anyone ever took great photographs before the invention of digital sensors.
I remember shooting and not worrying about changing the iso, checking for image quality after each shot, doing a time lapse, 10-20 fps, etc. All those are just gimmicks.
Real photographers knew how to shoot photographs without all the so called "advantages" of digital cameras. You all should try it some time.

"I guess some people have no understanding how great film is."

Film is... okay. It's... distinctive. It's not better than digital anymore though, and its far too much fuss to be able to recommend to anyone in 2014.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 00:26 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Good for them. People who want a pocket sized camera that's full frame will find this has always been possible with this antiquated technology.

I'm with RichRMA here 100%. Sure, I could use a Nikon 28Ti and enjoy a "pocket size full frame camera". Or I could use a Coolpix A.

There is no practical benefit of the 28Ti here. None. Just inconvenience.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 00:20 UTC
In reply to:

Battersea: Wonderful news. There is no downside to this, nobody is taking your cell phone or DSLR away. It's great to have options. Film is an excellent learning and creative tool.

It isn't anymore though. You could go out with your dSLR set to jpeg only, CW meter, and manual exposure and focus. Tape over your ISO button at ISO400, stuff garbage files into your SD card leaving only enough room for 36 jpegs, and you'd have *the exact same learning and creative options* as you would with a Nikon FM2 and a 36 roll of Portra 400.

This notion that film is somehow a learning experience needs to be put to rest. There is an artistic value, there is also a nostalgia value, and some people just prefer it. That's fine. But as a way to learn photography: just get an entry level dSLR for Pete's sake.

I'm not anti film. I still have several film cameras and film in my fridge, but I cannot recommend it anymore as an experience. Digital has got better and cheaper, film has got more expensive and troublesome, its just not worth it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 00:15 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: I saw used original 8mp digital Rebel DSLRs selling for $50 with chargers and batteries the other day. You can buy used 4-7mp point and shoots for $20 or less. Film is his-to-ry unless you have a specific need for the particular look it provides.

@tinternaut

"if you want to shoot medium format"

Been there done that. It was a huge fuss, and very expensive on a cost-per-shot basis. You have to scan your own negatives of course - good luck finding a commercial outfit that will do it for you - and unless you invest in a very expensive scanner the end result is only so-so.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 00:07 UTC
In reply to:

Tal Shachar: film is an environmental disaster, go digital now!

Sure, digital is not clean either, but there should be no argument that is it more environmentally sound than using color film development. Get a grip on reality people.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 00:01 UTC
On HTC introduces the RE digital camera article (102 comments in total)

Wow, this device is really getting slammed just about everywhere you look.

As a tiny (its really small!), remote controlled, waterproof, ultra-wide angle video/stills camera it seems nicely done. Yeah, GoPro and others have already "been there, done that". I think the HTC does it just as well though, especially if "small, simple, and easy to use" is factored in. Certainly something like theSony QX10 seems very clunky in comparison.

If HTC made a mistake, its that the over-engineered it. People might want such a device, but they don't want it so much they'd be willing to part with $200 for one. (People who would, get a GoPro) They are not that concerned about it being nicely made. It should have been built cheaper, dropping features as needed to be able to hit a $99 price point.

Should be interesting to see what these go for in January sales. I'd certainly want to pick up up if I could score one at a bargain bin price.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 02:03 UTC as 8th comment
On HTC introduces the RE digital camera article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: "it looks like a periscope/inhaler/dildo/flashlight..."

It's also a dead ringer for the Nikon LD-1000 led light.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/accessories/led_light_ld-1000/

And it's also a $200 digital stills/video camera with an ultrawide angle lens designed primarily to be controlled remotely from a smartphone.

I realise that's probably a bit too niche to ever be a successful product. (Ricoh, how's that Theta working out for you?) It's more interesting than people commenting here are making it out to be though.

off topic, but yeah, the LD-1000 is super-underrated. It's great for macro as a fill light: its nicely color balanced, diffuse, and so easy to use as you can see the result in advance.

I have a couple of SB-800's, but for quick and dirty the LD-1000 can't be beat.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2014 at 14:43 UTC
On HTC introduces the RE digital camera article (102 comments in total)

"it looks like a periscope/inhaler/dildo/flashlight..."

It's also a dead ringer for the Nikon LD-1000 led light.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/accessories/led_light_ld-1000/

And it's also a $200 digital stills/video camera with an ultrawide angle lens designed primarily to be controlled remotely from a smartphone.

I realise that's probably a bit too niche to ever be a successful product. (Ricoh, how's that Theta working out for you?) It's more interesting than people commenting here are making it out to be though.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 10, 2014 at 07:06 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
Total: 811, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »