onlooker

onlooker

Lives in United States San Jose, CA, United States
Joined on Jan 11, 2008

Comments

Total: 928, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Sony adds XAVC S support to Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 article (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin87: Sony posting a firmware update for their cameras? That's quite unusual for them

@marc petzold -- That's why I don't pay attention to those marketing games. Both lenses are good for what they are, neither is spectacular. Saying that one is a lot better than the other is drinking marketing coolaid and ignoring reality.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2014 at 16:56 UTC
On Sony adds XAVC S support to Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 article (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin87: Sony posting a firmware update for their cameras? That's quite unusual for them

@Eigenmeat -- Yes, I read that thread. Very good observations. I suppose it is the nature of the beast these days with software correction. I am curious how Sony handles it.

And yes, I was mostly referring to the long side of the range in the previous post, as I think that is the main appeal of that camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2014 at 06:34 UTC
On Sony adds XAVC S support to Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 article (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin87: Sony posting a firmware update for their cameras? That's quite unusual for them

@mosc "The lens on the RX10 is a lot better than the one on the FZ1000"

No, it isn't. Stop reading licensed brand names on the lens or confusing oversharpened jpegs with resolution and look at raws instead.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2014 at 02:45 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (276 comments in total)
In reply to:

SaltLakeGuy: There is essentially NO compelling reason to want this camera. Slow lenses, average performance overall and just a repetition of what's already available from several other manufacturers. I call this "marketing suicide", which I've never thought Pentax would go for. Perhaps Ricoh is the poor influence on this decision. And it's a whooper of a bad one IMHO.

@SUNY, no, twin lens reflex cameras are adorable. Leica rangefinders are adorable. Unprovoked condescension is snotty.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 03:17 UTC
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1 article (276 comments in total)
In reply to:

SaltLakeGuy: There is essentially NO compelling reason to want this camera. Slow lenses, average performance overall and just a repetition of what's already available from several other manufacturers. I call this "marketing suicide", which I've never thought Pentax would go for. Perhaps Ricoh is the poor influence on this decision. And it's a whooper of a bad one IMHO.

" I'll check your gear list to see which P&S you are moving up from..."

Wow... Pentax group must be a pretty exclusive club... snotty attitude comes with no additional charge.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2014 at 00:00 UTC
In reply to:

Infared: Yawn...a slow zoom everything nothing lens...zzzzzzzz

@BarnET: You didn't get that false dilemma reference, did you?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 04:06 UTC
In reply to:

Infared: Yawn...a slow zoom everything nothing lens...zzzzzzzz

@BarnET: Ah, the all-time favorite false dilemma logical fallacy.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

Infared: Yawn...a slow zoom everything nothing lens...zzzzzzzz

@iudex: Hopefully it is more reliable than those three.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2014 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

onlooker: I wish Canon, Nikon, or Pentax would make a rangefinder like this, with lenses to go with it. Then mere mortals could buy it.

I am not sure where the hatred for the M comes from. It's a fabulous, simple camera, with fabulous, simple lenses. I can't afford them, but it doesn't make them bad.

@NetMage: "what's the AF equivalent of a rangefinder?"

Well, that's the point of a rangefinder, isn't it, plus being able to see at 1:1 like your eyes do. There is no AF equivalent because there is no such thing.

I had EOS M. Nicely built, but that's it. Staring at a screen on the back? No thanks. Finally got rid of it and sighed with relief.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 23:59 UTC
In reply to:

onlooker: I wish Canon, Nikon, or Pentax would make a rangefinder like this, with lenses to go with it. Then mere mortals could buy it.

I am not sure where the hatred for the M comes from. It's a fabulous, simple camera, with fabulous, simple lenses. I can't afford them, but it doesn't make them bad.

@NetMage's "What's wrong with the EOS M?"

What's wrong with chicken soup?

How did EOS M make it into a rangefinder conversation?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 20:13 UTC
In reply to:

onlooker: I wish Canon, Nikon, or Pentax would make a rangefinder like this, with lenses to go with it. Then mere mortals could buy it.

I am not sure where the hatred for the M comes from. It's a fabulous, simple camera, with fabulous, simple lenses. I can't afford them, but it doesn't make them bad.

@brendon's "You can use these Leica M lenses"

What Leica lenses? The whole point of my post was affordability. If I was going to buy a few Leica lenses, the M-P body would be peanuts compared to that.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 20:11 UTC

I wish Canon, Nikon, or Pentax would make a rangefinder like this, with lenses to go with it. Then mere mortals could buy it.

I am not sure where the hatred for the M comes from. It's a fabulous, simple camera, with fabulous, simple lenses. I can't afford them, but it doesn't make them bad.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 02:56 UTC as 61st comment | 14 replies

It's almost scary to think, but I owned that album when it came out. Time flies... :|

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 19:50 UTC as 30th comment
In reply to:

SirSeth: Why the cost? Just curious. It seems like a good lens but I thought Ricoh was trying to bring affordable medium format to morals.

@Dave: I did, although long time ago, in the film era. My post was mostly in jest in reply to the SirSeth. Not always easy to convey that in writing. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 03:36 UTC
In reply to:

SirSeth: Why the cost? Just curious. It seems like a good lens but I thought Ricoh was trying to bring affordable medium format to morals.

It did. Now enough people bought it, and they are ready to be milked.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 00:10 UTC
In reply to:

artwine: Lesson 1 - which should be obvious by now - is that if you post anything on the Internet, anywhere, then it's now in the public domain. You have relinguished your rights to it, in essence. If you don't like it, don't post! There's a price to pay for "advertising".

@artwine: " then it's now in the public domain. You have relinguished your rights to it"

Utter nonsense.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 22:30 UTC
In reply to:

ravduc: What a great shot. More credit should be given to the Russians for defeating Nazi Germany with a Russian death toll of over 25 million people. However, I can't commend Stalin for having killed millions in his own country in order to eliminate opposition.

@JonB1975: Britain would have lost if it had gone to war in 1939. That's why it did not (despite hot air declaration of war). Aircraft deliveries in 1939 rose compared to 1938 but stood steady throughout the year around 2000 per quarter. It was in 1940 that production reached 4000 per quarter (and in Q3 exceeded 4500), thus giving Britain (in combination with American planes), the necessary tools to fight.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 18:56 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)
In reply to:

FrankS009: Where is the G7?
F.

No, I meant G6 over GH3. Got ahead of myself here a bit since we were talking about G7. Part wishful thinking, I suppose.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 15:35 UTC
In reply to:

ravduc: What a great shot. More credit should be given to the Russians for defeating Nazi Germany with a Russian death toll of over 25 million people. However, I can't commend Stalin for having killed millions in his own country in order to eliminate opposition.

> the other who had to participate in the war because western europe was too slow and too lazy to react on inner threat, and murdered millions in the country he ruled

Just to correct you on this one issue - Stalin murdered millions even before the war. War had nothing to do with his insanity.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 02:24 UTC
In reply to:

ravduc: What a great shot. More credit should be given to the Russians for defeating Nazi Germany with a Russian death toll of over 25 million people. However, I can't commend Stalin for having killed millions in his own country in order to eliminate opposition.

@ipecaca: What exactly are you talking about?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 01:13 UTC
Total: 928, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »