Joined on Feb 10, 2012


Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8
On article Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know (608 comments in total)

I get to click through 10 pages just to read the thoughts on one new camera? Gonna have to be a really cool device before nudging me into laboring over the review. Just in case anybody is wondering. PS: Given that Canon has traditionally installed the worst viewfinder in history - really a joke on the idea of photography at all - in the G series, one should factor that in during the whole should I click another page choice.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 22:50 UTC as 74th comment
On article Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge (733 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: A Sony press release is not exactly an unbiased source of information.

In a May 27, 2015 financial document, Sony states that their ILC market share is only 11%.

Maybe their overall market share is indeed 11 percent (while probably increasing due to Canon having grown lazy on the innovation front). Yet the article seems to have been concentrating on and illustrating growth in the mirrorless portion of the ILC market. And given the starting point of mirrorless apparently being the only area experiencing growth, impetus for concentrating there is contained within. Thus, rationale for publishing the information, leastwise for this reader.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 13:40 UTC
On Connect post The best in smartphone photography 2013 (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The S4 zoom is the only modestly interesting development in phones with cameras and it didn't even get a mention that I saw. A fixed lens with a fixed focal length makes a cell phone a nearly useless device for photography for me and, in fact, I don't use my S3 for photography at all. I'd like to see a pureview style approach with a short fast zoom like the one in the S120. Then cell phones might begin to be useful for photography. Until then, I'll continue to carry a small but vastly superior compact camera.

#Lars, The S4 is an actual phone by any measure known to me at this time, but then goes a step further by adding a really cool amazingly long zoom of 10x. I can see no reason why it should be forbidden from competing in the group on this page dedicated to smartphone photography and informing readers of the choices.

If there is a reason, I guess including that verbiage in the article would sort of make up for the oversight, a little anyway. For example: "While a 10x zoom creates a category of its own, this piece will examine phones continuing to rely on the traditional non-zoom camera design.

Still a useful piece, though slightly misleading by neglecting to provide the full shelf of items available. Well, one can always count on the comments area for missing stuff. And by the way, I realize no feature can cover every possible contingency. Leaving out the king of phone cameras though, not the road I would have taken.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 24, 2013 at 16:31 UTC
On article First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 (354 comments in total)

Does it still have the worst viewfinder since the throwaway paper cameras of yesteryear? What I remember from the G12 and giving up on the series right then was a tiny plastic square with NO information inside, no focus ability, just a tunnel showing the other side of the camera that frames an approximate size of what the photo is going to be.

Now I see here and backwards one number (G15) absence of the articulating screen. Plus you're still dealing with a measly 5x zoom. Waste of an idea. At least Nikon and some others continue trying to make what photogs actually want.

What once looked like an attempt to offer a useful tool for pros (G6) now appears to be a psychology study in turning off all enthusiasm among the faithful. That way when ultimately curtailing production altogether, the CEO can tell shareholders that sales were too low. What he won't be telling anyone on that day is that money from customers walked away after investment and innovation were withdrawn by the company.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2013 at 17:46 UTC as 85th comment
In reply to:

Nathebeach: I am curious if and how comments have contributed to improvements in dpreview and even in product manufacturing.

Ask yourself that question. If you designed a camera, would you not want to read the comment section below reviews to obtain direct feedback from buyers or potential customers?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2013 at 16:16 UTC
In reply to:

Ybor: This has to be the single dumbest Comment section related to a DPR article since the inception of the site. And, after reading through most of the comments I want to puke so I think I will. I am not a fan of DPR forums or articles but they provide occasional entertainment.

Curiously enough, your arrogant disposition left me feeling a wee bit toward the vomiting end of the scale. For decades, many people KNEW that the major news networks and most of the big-city newspapers in America were run by liberal atheist liars. Yet their fake TV news programs permitted NO feedback while the newspaper owners decided which letters to the editor would be allowed public airing.

Now we are in paradise at last, the ability to hear what honest citizens think of stuff. And let me tell you, the results aren't pretty down below stories by ABC, NBC, NPR (which started heavily moderating) and CBS. AP stories also.

Thanks to talk radio, Fox News, other regular people on the internet and forums, we have entered an era where masses are learning true history and getting real news. THEY are speaking up. Yayyyyyy.

As for camera / product reviews, VERY OFTEN the reviewer fails to mention 80% of the features that annoy the crud out of me. Yet I learn about them in the comments.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2013 at 16:12 UTC

Control-freak, everybody must think like me moderators MAKE THEIR OWN labor by presiding over every conversation to keep their readers from, oh my, hearing the unapproved thoughts from independent thinkers.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2013 at 16:03 UTC as 63rd comment | 5 replies

THAT is considred an EXCELLENT response??? It's kaka. The photographer deducts RENT and nearly everything else on the planet from the $50,000 earned in four months to justify charging $2500 for shooting a wedding!!

You don't get to deduct rent because EVERYBODY has a housing cost. it is not intrinsic to wedding photographers, dopey.

Then the photographer wasted $400 month on a leased vehicle. My 1995 Villager costs ZERO per month and gets me around just fine, including a sunroof, digital gauges, leather seats and more. The insurance is just about nothing because given the small worth of the car I only buy liability.

Enough already. Whoever called the response excellent is living in dreamland. I am a photographer, having worked for a newspaper, an insurance company and done freelance.

But making $50,000 in four months is a LOT, given 8 more months to earn money). Our angry "insulted" photographer is being a twit. Just admit gouging because you can, and get on with your day, Nikki.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2012 at 20:10 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8