TimT999

TimT999

Joined on Aug 11, 2011

Comments

Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

JJ10: What is the point of this news item if it is restricted to one country only. I thought this was meant to be an international site. Why cant I watch this simple promo video here in Australia?

There seems to be way to much restriction on this site of late.

I don't mind the font choice as much as the fact that it is white on black. That has a nice artsy look in a headline but is a bad choice if you're reading an entire review.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2014 at 17:25 UTC
On Readers' showcase: Landscape photography article (107 comments in total)

DP, it's nice you have a "full screen" mode, even though it's not that much bigger for some of these shots. But for most photo web sites I know, you can scroll through the pics while in that display mode. Making users go back to the tiny display between each shot is bad usability.

I don't mean to complain, but these shots deserve to be displayed properly.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2014 at 13:45 UTC as 38th comment
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (424 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Instead of lamenting, congratulate your mums, dads, sisters, brothers, girlfriends, and yourself for helping Apple make the iPhone the most popular camera ever. It is as expensive as a real camera, and with a plan, the cost is high even as buying pro DLSR gear. But it is sooo convenient, so easy to use, you need no knowledge of photography, and it does it all for you, you do instant Facebook updates, right?
Now the most popular camera's maker has introduced its own developer substance for its negatives, that does it all of you, they way they like — whether you like it or not.
You didn't want have a real camera with you because it was so "inconvenient"? Now you are given no real photo software too and the most inconvenient of all news. Let's clap to ourselves, for we have been sooo smart.

I don't quite get your attempts at sarcasm, Zvonimir. The iPhone (and all the other smart phones out there) don't claim to be DSLR level gear -- any I've never heard anyone say these phones have that kind of photographic firepower.

A smartphone is a pocket computer, that makes calls, does email, messaging, video and yes, takes snapshots. And the huge cost you mention is mostly for access to a 4G network -- that money goes to the provider. So if we're going to get on a soapbox, let's attack the service providers for charging so much and locking folks into a 2 year phone plan.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 04:07 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (424 comments in total)

I'm a bit disappointed that Apple took so long to admit that it was moving all its resources over to their Photo app, but I'm not too surprised. Aperture 3 came out ages ago and it didn't make sense for them to have parallel development of a consumer and pro photo app. That said, I've always preferred the Aperture approach to usability.

Apple has always tried to keep focused on their core strengths rather than spread resources too thin. That's why you have only a handful of Apple phone choices rather than the 40-odd that Samsung sells.

I just hope that Adobe doesn't move Lightroom users over to the monthly rental model they use for Photoshop.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 03:53 UTC as 71st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

TimT999: The level of copying that's going on with the Mi Pad and all DP can say is "aimed at Apple's iPad Mini. " Let's at least be honest here, this is a level of theft that probably won't be allowed outside China.

Fairly common in China of course. You go into any big market area in Beijing or Shanghai and the booths are full of knock-offs of international brands. You can get a great price on a real, authentic "Rolex" that falls apart after a month.

I assume the hardware for the Mi Pad isn't that level of cheap crap. But the real issue is the software interface. If it's standard Android, it could very well take market share away from Samsung. The Mi Pad could definitely undercut their tablets.

I don't think it competes as much with Apple regardless of Mi Pad's flagrant copying. Many of the folks in China who have the money for Apple won't want to own a brand that screams knock-off.

Will, I have no problem with someone who buys a product that imitates another company's product. You like the original company's design and want to save some bucks, then go for the cheap version.

But in a forum like this, people should be able to share ideas without being called names. I'm not a "snob." You know nothing about how I've lived my life. Calling someone who disagrees with you a name just tells others that you're willing to trash others just to win an argument.

I also didn't say "everything" out of China is a knock-off. But clearing many folks on this site can see some shameless imitation going on. And anyone who's lived there knows that too many companies there do cheap knockoffs. That's a fact.

As a product manager, I care about creating something good. My company spends hours and hours sweating the details. And I know what its like to have someone else steal the idea instead of doing the work themselves. So please, stop the name calling, Will. It cheapens you.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 16:41 UTC
In reply to:

TimT999: The level of copying that's going on with the Mi Pad and all DP can say is "aimed at Apple's iPad Mini. " Let's at least be honest here, this is a level of theft that probably won't be allowed outside China.

Fairly common in China of course. You go into any big market area in Beijing or Shanghai and the booths are full of knock-offs of international brands. You can get a great price on a real, authentic "Rolex" that falls apart after a month.

I assume the hardware for the Mi Pad isn't that level of cheap crap. But the real issue is the software interface. If it's standard Android, it could very well take market share away from Samsung. The Mi Pad could definitely undercut their tablets.

I don't think it competes as much with Apple regardless of Mi Pad's flagrant copying. Many of the folks in China who have the money for Apple won't want to own a brand that screams knock-off.

Thanks for the info on their brand of Android. As far as everyone copying Apple, I won't disagree with you on that one. One of Samsung's internal docs from the first trial had over a hundred side by side features and UX elements that the Samsung designers decided to copy. But then again, they lost that case and their branding suffered.

As far as Xiaomi being "much more than just another knock-off brand," if they are really aspiring to be something great in their own right why become known as a knock-off brand in the first place?

A company's reputation is immensely important. And whenever I see a company that gets that shameless, that obvious, I lose respect.

You are right that everyone copies. Having a "best of breed" product means you will occasionally grab an idea. However, you ultimately want to see if a company can raise the bar.

But you're right, these guys are going after Samsung and a consumer that doesn't mind a Samsung will get a better product with this Mi Pad.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2014 at 23:19 UTC

The level of copying that's going on with the Mi Pad and all DP can say is "aimed at Apple's iPad Mini. " Let's at least be honest here, this is a level of theft that probably won't be allowed outside China.

Fairly common in China of course. You go into any big market area in Beijing or Shanghai and the booths are full of knock-offs of international brands. You can get a great price on a real, authentic "Rolex" that falls apart after a month.

I assume the hardware for the Mi Pad isn't that level of cheap crap. But the real issue is the software interface. If it's standard Android, it could very well take market share away from Samsung. The Mi Pad could definitely undercut their tablets.

I don't think it competes as much with Apple regardless of Mi Pad's flagrant copying. Many of the folks in China who have the money for Apple won't want to own a brand that screams knock-off.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2014 at 22:32 UTC as 12th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

TimT999: Wow. I'm surprised that DP Review made such an amateur mistake. The review compared the Zeiss' image quality against the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. Canon has two 50mm lenses that are considered far better than the 50mm 1.8 -- the f 1.4 and f 1.2. So why use the 1.8 -- at $100 it's the cheapest lens Canon sells.

It's true that the Zeiss is a 1.8. But anyone who is a pro shooter would be looking at Canon's 1.4 or 1.2. So DP should have used a Canon lens of comparable value and cost and then dialing one of those lenses up to 1.8 to do an apples to apples comparison.

Wally, your point about the use of a 36 MP sensor also backs up my point about this not being an apples to apples comparison. You have several Canon lenses that are better in low light and sharper than the $100 Canon. But the $1000 Zeiss is compared to the cheap plastic Canon and the (admittedly amazing) level of resolution you get with the Zeiss is partly a result of having a camera with a sensor that's far sharper than what's on a Canon.

The lens is obviously a thing of beauty but the writeup weakens the test because they made the $100 Canon their reference lens. If DP had used the $1600 Canon f 1.2, they would have made their case far more effectively.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2014 at 19:07 UTC

Wow. I'm surprised that DP Review made such an amateur mistake. The review compared the Zeiss' image quality against the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. Canon has two 50mm lenses that are considered far better than the 50mm 1.8 -- the f 1.4 and f 1.2. So why use the 1.8 -- at $100 it's the cheapest lens Canon sells.

It's true that the Zeiss is a 1.8. But anyone who is a pro shooter would be looking at Canon's 1.4 or 1.2. So DP should have used a Canon lens of comparable value and cost and then dialing one of those lenses up to 1.8 to do an apples to apples comparison.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2014 at 17:57 UTC as 67th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

digitallollygag: All of these "clip-on" gadgets are a compromise. Why won't Apple simply make a digital camera first that also happens to be a smartphone second, as an OPTION to the iPhone device we use now? Then they'd once and for all beat Canon and Nikon at their own game since those two are not particularly cutting-edge with connectivity...

What I find "unbearable" is commenters who attack others just because of the product choices they make. Why call someone names just because you prefer a different product?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2014 at 03:01 UTC
On DxOMark investigates Samsung NX cameras and lenses article (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

yabokkie: I don't think any of these can be called good,
by which I mean "can compete with 35mm format."

never the less these are no worse than Japanese. mirrorless is the future that established Japanese makers do not want to face. because it opens a new world for many new comers to join, Koreans, Chinese, and maybe even German (not rubbish brands like Leica or Zeiss, but their real talent to actually design and make cameras and lenses).

Actually Howabout, your assumption is incorrect. I was looking at the actual test images here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx210/5
and here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx210/6
and then dialing in the Canon 5D III to compare both at different ISO levels.

I suggest you look those images yourself to see how a full frame compares with the Samsung -- especially at higher ISOs. I think you'll agree that at 1600 and 3200 ISOs the Samsung JPGs just turn into mush.

I agree with Mescalamba that it's ridiculous to compare the Samsung with a full frame. And that's why my initial response was to Viking, who says that the camera DOES compete with a full framer. Comparisons of the Samsung with APS-C cameras are totally appropriate since they are similarly priced. But let's not pretend that the IQ is the same as a full frame.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2013 at 21:26 UTC
On DxOMark investigates Samsung NX cameras and lenses article (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

yabokkie: I don't think any of these can be called good,
by which I mean "can compete with 35mm format."

never the less these are no worse than Japanese. mirrorless is the future that established Japanese makers do not want to face. because it opens a new world for many new comers to join, Koreans, Chinese, and maybe even German (not rubbish brands like Leica or Zeiss, but their real talent to actually design and make cameras and lenses).

Viking, I'm not sure which full frame you are comparing the Samsung to. But when I dial in the Samsung against the Canon 5D III in the DP comparison tool, the IQ is not even close.

Compare the two in jpg and the Samsung 210 image turns to mush above ISO 800. Even in raw the Samsung image is unusable by 3200 -- essentially the same IQ as the Mark 5 III has at 128,000.

The Samsung can't begin to compete with any of the better full frame cameras out there. And as the DP review points out, it isn't even competing with the better crop DSLRs at the higher ISOs.

I don't know about you, but I use 3200 and 6400 a fair amount for indoor/night shooting (and get great results with the Mark 5) so for me the Samsung is a non-starter.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2013 at 16:59 UTC
On Lens reviews update: DxOMark data for Sony NEX primes article (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

TimT999: I'm disappointed by the lens reviews. For many of us, the excitement of the mirror less approach is to have near-DSLR quality in a smaller form factor. Yet these lens reviews don't include DSLR comparisons to give us that context.

Obviously the Nex lineup can't come close to a full frame -- and no one would expect that. But if I'm going to consider one of these mirror less systems, I want to know if it can come close to (or better!) the crop systems that Canon and Nikon is coming out with now.

After all, these Sony lenses are priced comparably -- I can currently get the Canon 24-105mm L for under $800 from lots of vendors. So why not include a Canon/Nikon crop body/lens system in the mirrorless system reviews done by DxO and DPReview so we know how these newer technologies stack up?

Andy, I appreciate your replying to my comment about not including more context of NEX or 4/3 reviews against DSLRs. And I have certainly used (and appreciate) your side-by-side compare tool.

My point is that your reviews do provide context between mirrorless systems -- how a Panasonic stacks up to a Sony Nex. But I feel we should have that same level of context to the DSLR system in the article text. As it is, someone has to dig into the compare tools to do that groundwork.

If mirrorless is is ready for the big leagues, you need to say it. And if it's still not up to snuff you need to tell us.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2013 at 18:39 UTC
On Lens reviews update: DxOMark data for Sony NEX primes article (54 comments in total)

I'm disappointed by the lens reviews. For many of us, the excitement of the mirror less approach is to have near-DSLR quality in a smaller form factor. Yet these lens reviews don't include DSLR comparisons to give us that context.

Obviously the Nex lineup can't come close to a full frame -- and no one would expect that. But if I'm going to consider one of these mirror less systems, I want to know if it can come close to (or better!) the crop systems that Canon and Nikon is coming out with now.

After all, these Sony lenses are priced comparably -- I can currently get the Canon 24-105mm L for under $800 from lots of vendors. So why not include a Canon/Nikon crop body/lens system in the mirrorless system reviews done by DxO and DPReview so we know how these newer technologies stack up?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2013 at 14:24 UTC as 22nd comment | 11 replies

I expected a bit more meat on this article when I clicked on it. As it is this is hardly more than a link through to Forbes.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 00:11 UTC as 42nd comment
On We put the HTC One's ultrapixels to the test post (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

GatanoII: What's the point of comparing an Android phone camera to an iOS phone, no one is going to switch system based on a camera.

Redo the test with the best selling Android phone as a reference and then it's a fair comparison, Galasy S3 vs HTC One that's what could be interesting, even if the One must be compared to the S4 as this are the phones that are going to battle in the stores ... and do extended video comparison as many people care more about video on a phone than photos now, since memory space is not a problem any more (especially the phones with big microSD cards)

Actually the iPhone 5 is significantly better than the 4S in low light -- a feature that several of the tech sites have pointed out. Here's the Gizmodo review comparing the iPhone 5 with the 4S:

"Apple's greatly improved the image processing on the iPhone 5 [over the 4S] such that the camera can now shoot up to a sensitivity of ISO 3200 while still ending up with less noise. This is a sea change."

So a test between the HTC and the 5 would have been a fairer test in terms of capabilities. And of course why compare phones using an older model anyway unless you are trying to give the new phone a little extra advantage. Regardless of the reasoning, using a 4S instead of the 5 was the wrong choice.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 30, 2013 at 14:44 UTC

After reading all the possible uses of these glasses, it seems like a lot of hype for very little actual value. Lifelogging, helping fight crime, a spycam, proving to your spouse where you are -- what do any of these abilities have in a person's daily life?

It would be nice to have a camera that I can carry easily, but only if it were far higher quality than my camera phone. I don't see any killer app that's come out of the Google Glasses discussion so far. Just a lot of media hype that has more to do with Minority Report than a usable product.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2013 at 23:14 UTC as 53rd comment
On Hands-on with the Samsung Galaxy S4 post (135 comments in total)

I think I'm going to avoid these "hands-on" features from now on -- especially for these over-hyped consumer devices.

Every other paragraph seems to start out with a feature straight out of the company marketing materials and then says, "...but we didn't get to actually test it to see if it works properly."

A bunch of marketing specs are of absolutely no interest to a thoughtful reader. I want to know if the "feature" actually works as promised and how useful it would be in a real life situation. If you didn't test it, it's barely better than vaporware.

The same goes for the specs. The fact that the unit has 13 MP sounds great. Wow, it must be as good as a lot of point and shoots out now -- almost as good as a 14 MP DSLR. Oh wait, but what if the sensor is the same size as the old 8MP one -- some tiny chip that can't touch even a point and shoot. If that's the case then the added resolution is almost useless. Of course DP doesn't give us that fact. Just more corporate marketing.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2013 at 00:37 UTC as 41st comment | 11 replies

I love the fact that so many people have such strong, antagonistic opinions on a subject based on a few paragraphs -- on a tech site that hasn't even used the device.

I see the same simplistic comments when I go to sites devoted to political issues. Thoughtful, considered judgements have become a rarity. And the fact that people get so angry about a phone seems particularly bizarre. Oh well.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 23:39 UTC as 58th comment | 7 replies
On Review: Nokia 808 PureView article (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

TimT999: A fun review but unfortunately a bit breathless and hyped. The ability to use cropping to zoom is useful but the real issue isn't the pixel count, it's the sensor size. And we have yet to see whether the sensor is as good as the reviewer says.

The reviewer seems to want to believe that the Nokia has an IQ that's as good or better than a point and shoot. And on occasion he even suggests the camera is as good as an entry level DSLR.

But if you're going to make big claims, back it up. Show how the IQ stacks up against the G12 or a Rebel in low light -- use the standard DP Review test suite! The reviewer doesn't take that step and his "review" is not up to the usual level of this site as a result.

I'm glad Nokia chose to push the envelop and when they give the phone a more usable operating system, it will be worth a look. But the most exciting aspect of this story is that it raises the bar for the other smartphone manufacturers.

I stand corrected. Generally the DP reviews integrate the picture comparison tool right into the review. Here there was a link that opened a new page and I missed that link.

I would disagree with resuyaber though. I don't think the image quality (as opposed to the # of pixels) was any better than that of the G12 or other comparable point and shoots, and at 1600 ISO the Nokia was clearly worse.

And of course with a real camera you have a lens that can zoom in instead of cropping it's image with a digital zoom. So compare a G12 zoomed in to its 5x max with the Nokia for a true comparison.

As I said, this camera is raising the bar on what a camera phone can do but let's not pretend it's equivalent to a better P&S.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2012 at 16:20 UTC
Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »