Danel

Danel

Lives in United States Lincoln, USA, United States
Works as a not available
Joined on Jul 29, 2006
About me:

Nikon D7000
Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR
Nikon 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 VR
Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR
Nikon 50 f/1.8
Nikon 35 f/1.8
Nikon 85 f/3.5 macro
Tokina 12-24 f/4
Nikon SB600 flash
Canon G15
Canon SX50
Canon SD800

Comments

Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

This camera is Sony saying: Look we can do high ISO. At very high ISO the A7S is indeed better, but with the low resolution this seems to be a camera for a very small niche, or perhaps purely for bragging rights.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 12:33 UTC as 139th comment | 2 replies
On Nikon D4s First Impressions Review preview (1042 comments in total)

A camera like the D4s is a perfect example of paying very dearly to get that last few inches of technical ability.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2014 at 14:17 UTC as 140th comment
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

It would be a good deal at half the price.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2013 at 19:17 UTC as 306th comment | 7 replies
On IMG_0480 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

High ISO looks very good for a small sensor compact. It will be interesting to see how it compares with the G15 in side by sides.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2013 at 19:18 UTC as 2nd comment
On Panasonic GX7 First Impressions Review article (1201 comments in total)
In reply to:

Danel: I like the looks of this camera. I googled it and found a place saying the suggested retail price body only is $999, or $1099 with 14-42 lens. I wouldn't pay that, but I might pick one up in a year or so for $200 to $300 once the price plummets like it always does on Panasonic cameras.

GX1 with standard kit lens was $799. Within 6 months it was $449. In a year it was around $349, or half the price. I saw it somewhere recently for $199, or 25% of original price, though now the best I see is $299. The GX1 was reviewed here 18 months ago. Maybe you're right and the GX7 will be popular enough to hold its value better than what I have seen with many other Panasonic four thirds cameras.

This camera has all the things I want in a little camera including the pop up flash and the nice eye level view finder. The image quality looks to be terrific. Interesting camera. I'm pretty satisfied with what I have right now, but if the price drops like the GX1 did I might pick this camera up in a year or so.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2013 at 12:58 UTC
On Panasonic GX7 First Impressions Review article (1201 comments in total)
In reply to:

Danel: I like the looks of this camera. I googled it and found a place saying the suggested retail price body only is $999, or $1099 with 14-42 lens. I wouldn't pay that, but I might pick one up in a year or so for $200 to $300 once the price plummets like it always does on Panasonic cameras.

This is Panasonic's GX1 replacement. The GX1 sells between $200 and $300 now. That camera has been around for less than 2 years and was heavily discounted within 6 months of introduction like almost always happens with Panasonic cameras. I said "almost" this time, happy?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2013 at 03:11 UTC
On Prepare yourself for the 41-megapixel watch post (61 comments in total)

What's next a 41MP pinky ring? How about a 50MP necklace?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 20:50 UTC as 48th comment
On Panasonic GX7 First Impressions Review article (1201 comments in total)

I like the looks of this camera. I googled it and found a place saying the suggested retail price body only is $999, or $1099 with 14-42 lens. I wouldn't pay that, but I might pick one up in a year or so for $200 to $300 once the price plummets like it always does on Panasonic cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 19:23 UTC as 201st comment | 4 replies
On Is Sony making a sensor/lens combo for smartphones? post (110 comments in total)

I like it. It will depend on the cost and how well it actually works, but if the price is reasonable and the photos are good, it should be popular.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 02:43 UTC as 41st comment

I tried an Olympus MFT camera to go with my DSLR and found that I was happier with an advanced compact instead. I sold the Olympus equipment and went with a Canon G15. I'm very happy with the decision. I don't need two system cameras and the G15 IQ was surprisingly good. There are some good compact camera choices out there right now that are probably a better choice than an ILC for many people.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 17:12 UTC as 82nd comment | 2 replies
On Nikkor 18-140mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR hints at mid-range DSLR article (191 comments in total)

Will this be a better lens than the 18-200vr? It could be since the zoom range isn't as ambitious. Certainly it covers a useful range of focal lengths. We will have to wait for the reviews. If it is no better than the 18-200vr in the focal lengths they share than it is hard to see what use this lens would have. The price is too high for it to be a kit lens on a lower end DSLR, and the speed seems too slow for it to be the kit on a D300s replacement.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2013 at 13:20 UTC as 58th comment
On 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months article (591 comments in total)

Nice piece Barney. There are many high quality compact cameras out there now that will meet the needs of many photographers.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2013 at 13:25 UTC as 73rd comment
On Samsung Galaxy Camera Hands-on Preview preview (192 comments in total)

This is an interesting concept camera. It will take a few more attempts before someone really gets it right though.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 22:02 UTC as 89th comment | 1 reply
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 preview extended article (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

Danel: I'm sure the camera will produce excellent image quality, but its really a camera that will only appeal to a small niche market. I don't understand why Sony went through the R&D to make this camera unless they somehow though it might embellish the Sony brand in the camera world.

A small subset of the overall market for cameras, in this case, a very small subset IMHO. Much smaller than the number of people who would buy a DSLR, or even a full frame DSLR. I have no idea how many they would have to sell to turn a profit on this camera but I'm very sure the sales will constitute a small single digit percentage of overall digital camera sales. Define "a good number".

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2012 at 23:52 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 preview extended article (282 comments in total)

I'm sure the camera will produce excellent image quality, but its really a camera that will only appeal to a small niche market. I don't understand why Sony went through the R&D to make this camera unless they somehow though it might embellish the Sony brand in the camera world.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2012 at 14:31 UTC as 67th comment | 2 replies
On DPReview Recommends: Top 5 Compact Cameras article (560 comments in total)
In reply to:

Danel: What an odd grouping of cameras. They only have two things in common, they have non-removable zoom lenses and dpreview liked them.

Some of the things dpreview liked and didn't like seem very random. Example: They said the LCD on the RX100 can be hard to see in bright light. Isn't that true of all LCD screens? Isn't, for example, the screen on the G15 also hard to view in bright light? Why no mention of that? I'm lead to believe that the screen on the RX100 more difficult to view in bright light than all the others. I don't have the camera, but I thought it was suppose to have an advanced LCD that actually made it a bit better in bright light. Can an RX100 user comment on whether or not the LCD on that camera is especially bad.

PC Wheeler, This is indeed an odd grouping of cameras in my opinion. They range from a tiny compact $200 camera, to a large advanced superzoom, to another compact that costs $650.

Barney, the word odd is not synonymous with the word bad. I mean its strange and not something I've seen done before. Dpreview can do what ever groupings they want and it won't offend me in the least, of that you can be sure. Might I suggest that next dpreview puts together a group you like that are available in the color red. After all, Christmas is coming.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 21:55 UTC
On DPReview Recommends: Top 5 Compact Cameras article (560 comments in total)
In reply to:

Danel: What an odd grouping of cameras. They only have two things in common, they have non-removable zoom lenses and dpreview liked them.

Some of the things dpreview liked and didn't like seem very random. Example: They said the LCD on the RX100 can be hard to see in bright light. Isn't that true of all LCD screens? Isn't, for example, the screen on the G15 also hard to view in bright light? Why no mention of that? I'm lead to believe that the screen on the RX100 more difficult to view in bright light than all the others. I don't have the camera, but I thought it was suppose to have an advanced LCD that actually made it a bit better in bright light. Can an RX100 user comment on whether or not the LCD on that camera is especially bad.

Barney, I have read the review, in fact I read it when it first came out. Not to beleaguer the point, but in the review dpreview seems to make the comment about the LCD in the context that it is still hard to see in bright light in spite of the "Whitemagic" technology it employs. Above, there is no context. Rather you simply find fault with the LCD on the RX100, but not on the other cameras. This lead me to wonder if the LCD is the worst of the bunch, which is not an unreasonable question, though it apparently is one you can't be bothered to answer.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 21:45 UTC
On DPReview Recommends: Top 5 Compact Cameras article (560 comments in total)

What an odd grouping of cameras. They only have two things in common, they have non-removable zoom lenses and dpreview liked them.

Some of the things dpreview liked and didn't like seem very random. Example: They said the LCD on the RX100 can be hard to see in bright light. Isn't that true of all LCD screens? Isn't, for example, the screen on the G15 also hard to view in bright light? Why no mention of that? I'm lead to believe that the screen on the RX100 more difficult to view in bright light than all the others. I don't have the camera, but I thought it was suppose to have an advanced LCD that actually made it a bit better in bright light. Can an RX100 user comment on whether or not the LCD on that camera is especially bad.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 20:22 UTC as 136th comment | 5 replies

It seems like a terrific little pocket camera. Whether or not putting a larger sensor into a high quality, tiny little camera is one of the 50 best inventions is an open question. Certainly it breaks some new ground, I'll give it that.

Fifty is a large number when someone is trying to list "the best" inventions. Fifty means one has to start reaching down to some products that are merely better than their predecessors or peers rather than being truly revolutionary.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2012 at 14:05 UTC as 65th comment

Optically, this is likely the best super zoom on the market. The questions about the stabilization and focus issues mentioned in the review could be deal killers though. Two things I love about my Nikon 18-200 are how well it focuses and how well the stabilization works.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2012 at 13:12 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »