Steve Balcombe

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Jun 16, 2004

Comments

Total: 161, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: It's great to see advances in this area, but for me this announcement only serves to underline how much further the technology has to go to compete with an optical viewfinder. It's not even HD TV resolution.

@Karroly "The OVF of an FF SLR fitted with a 50mm lens gives a picture with about 1x magnification." Actually that's not correct. Where the 50 mm lens comes in is that the stated magnification of an SLR viewfinder is by convention measured when using a 50 mm lens. The 1D X's magnification, for example, is 0.76x and that is typical of the very best full frame viewfinders. The original 7D's OVF had a headline magnification of 1.0x, but that is because the industry decided to continue using 50 mm lenses (instead of same-AoV lenses) for crop sensor cameras and of course they have to be magnified more. The viewfinder image is not actually larger than the 1D X's, in fact the 7D's '1.0x' is *smaller* than the 1D X's 0.76x.

This affects your calculation above, but the basic conclusion is still the same - the pixels are visible in current-generation EVFs.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 08:38 UTC

It's great to see advances in this area, but for me this announcement only serves to underline how much further the technology has to go to compete with an optical viewfinder. It's not even HD TV resolution.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 23:29 UTC as 20th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: If only Canon would understand that this is exactly the right spec for the 6D Mark II. I bet it's not what we get though.

No, I seriously considered that but owing two systems is not just more expensive but also way too complicated. I'd never be able to pack a bag. If I could buy a D750 with an EF mount and EOS flash compatibility then we'd be talking.

BTW I didn't say the 6D wasn't a cheaper camera - just that the product cycle exaggerates the difference. Actual launch prices were 6D $2100 and D750 $2300. That's less than 10% difference.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 19:51 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: If only Canon would understand that this is exactly the right spec for the 6D Mark II. I bet it's not what we get though.

@zlatko - they are at different stages in the product cycle, with the 6d being easier to buy at lower prices. But comparing launch prices the D750 was not that much more. Both cameras are 'entry level' full frame - roughly matching a mid level crop camera, but a low spec for full frame (please let's not have a "how low is low" debate). Significantly Nikon wasn't afraid to give theirs a tilting screen and a built-in flash - both of which I would want for my intended use.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 16:53 UTC

If only Canon would understand that this is exactly the right spec for the 6D Mark II. I bet it's not what we get though.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 15:34 UTC as 99th comment | 16 replies
On article Behind the camera: Beauty photographer Lindsay Adler (30 comments in total)

Lindsay's Flickr account, which includes shots taken from 2007 to 2011, is still available to view - https://www.flickr.com/photos/lindsayadler/

Very brave/honest of her to leave them there - it's interesting to see how far she's come!

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2015 at 18:53 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
On article Readers' Showcase: Giuseppe Milo (32 comments in total)

Very nice work, really good.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2015 at 18:31 UTC as 21st comment
On article 4K video: What you need to know (286 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonathanj: The content is fine, but the presentation is awful. Text too large, way too much scrolling, and no pre-loading of images meant I gave up halfway through.

I'm with you Jonathan. And if we do use Ctrl-minus to reduce the size the column width reduces as well, so we don't really get what we need. This is not how responsive web design is supposed to work.

@Paul JM - we were specifically asked for comments on the design.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2015 at 08:55 UTC
On article 4K video: What you need to know (286 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: I am so fed up with following links and arriving at a web pages which are *HUGE* on my fairly modest 24" monitor. It look like it was designed for viewing from six feet away, and there is far too little in one screenful. It's happened a lot with 'updated' web sites in the last few months. No doubt it works fine on a tablet, and I do own one and use it often so it's not a 'them' and 'us' thing. And I know it can be much better - you don't have to look any further than Facebook for an example of a site which works on both - so it's just poor design.

Black background or white background, I'm not that bothered either way, but get rid of the Jack and Jill look!

That was the point of my comment Mike. I've since seen it on my tablet and I'm sure it looks fine on a large phone too. But it's dreadful on my desktop monitor.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2015 at 08:48 UTC
On article 4K video: What you need to know (286 comments in total)

I am so fed up with following links and arriving at a web pages which are *HUGE* on my fairly modest 24" monitor. It look like it was designed for viewing from six feet away, and there is far too little in one screenful. It's happened a lot with 'updated' web sites in the last few months. No doubt it works fine on a tablet, and I do own one and use it often so it's not a 'them' and 'us' thing. And I know it can be much better - you don't have to look any further than Facebook for an example of a site which works on both - so it's just poor design.

Black background or white background, I'm not that bothered either way, but get rid of the Jack and Jill look!

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2015 at 00:03 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies
On photo 1107dp1 in the Juxtaposition challenge (45 comments in total)

I think you are forgetting, below average joe, that people have long memories and you will always be the guy who lied about Photoshopping his competition entry.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2015 at 18:31 UTC as 18th comment
On article Readers' Showcase: Tudor ApMadoc (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karroly: Subjects are interesting, well framed, but I am bored with these highly saturated - and thus unnatural - colors most landscape photographers used these days. Do these landscapes really need such post-processing to look great ?

@apmadoc - you do realise that you can't win? If you'd used more 'natural' colours, all those who are used to the photographic equivalent of monosodium glutamate would have complained that they were all too dull. Out of curiosity though, for the shots which are processed in Lightroom, which Profile did you use? Was it "Camera Landscape"?

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2015 at 17:37 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Tudor ApMadoc (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karroly: Subjects are interesting, well framed, but I am bored with these highly saturated - and thus unnatural - colors most landscape photographers used these days. Do these landscapes really need such post-processing to look great ?

It's like over-seasoned food - the more you have, the more anything else seems bland.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2015 at 08:51 UTC
In reply to:

AppleDuck: At one time the Polaroid brand meant something and was a very innovative company. For a ggd while I would say they were the most technically sophisticated camera on the market, Crap like this suit, makes me wish Polaroid had never licensed their Name. The new company hasn't shown any sign or inkling of the creativity of the original company that bore the name Polaroid. So I guess they've resorted to filing frivolous law suits to try and prop up their bottom line.

SMH at C&A Marketing for going after GoPro because their camera is a cubical in shape, has a lens in the front and one control button on top. Maybe P.A.R.C. should've gone after Apple for patent infringement on the single button mouse.

People keep referring to this company as Polaroid, it is NOT Polaroid. They just paid a licensing fee to use the brand name. Put the blame where it belongs, C&A Marketing and NOT Polaroid..

I don't actually agree that this is "not Polaroid". If Polaroid collects a licensing fee for use of the name, it can expect to be involved - in the minds of the public - when the behaviour of the licensee is in question. If a product carrying the Polaroid name is good, the Polaroid name benefits. If it's bad, the reputation suffers, regardless of who it is who is using the name on their product. Same applies here - the brand name suffers, regardless of whose name is on the paperwork.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2015 at 08:59 UTC

Great photography, I'm just not sure what it has to do with weddings.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2015 at 08:05 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply

I always find this sort of stuff inspirational, some fascinating work there. But the one which made me want to comment is number 11. The human mind has an uncanny ability to find 'faces' and this shot is a great example!

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2015 at 10:40 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply

Don't let Hasselblad see this...

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2015 at 14:53 UTC as 20th comment
On article Picture this: Our revamped galleries system is now live (115 comments in total)

Great to see a news item with an overwhelmingly positive response! And I agree, a HUGE improvement.

Of the suggestions made so far, one which I'd particularly like to see is for the "Details" to be expanded to one line per "detail". Shouldn't be a problem, there's loads of room, and it would be much easier to take in at a glance.

I discovered that a double-click on the image toggles between the Fit to Screen and 100% views, but 100% always zooms to the centre of the image. It would be better if it could zoom to the place double-clicked on.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 11:10 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (470 comments in total)

Don't get me wrong, I've had any number of gripes with Adobe in the past, not least of which was being forced to upgrade just to get compatibility with new camera models. But as pointed out in the Editorial they have continued supporting CS6 for much longer than previous versions. Anybody who owns CS5 and who exercised their right not to upgrade lost ACR upgrade compatibility years ago.

The subscription model is a good deal (very good actually) but I understand the philosophical objections and fears. Those who don't want to sign up can buy a perpetual licence for Lightroom, and a perpetual licence for Photoshop Elements - in fact Lightroom only is more than capable enough for routine photo processing. Or they can switch away from Adobe, but if you are thinking of doing that please don't whine about it - instead, use your new software for a while then come back and tell us about it. If it's good enough people will want to know.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 11:46 UTC as 73rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

ThePhilips: I can't understand why there are so few 4.0/100mm macro lenses.

2.8 is useless for the macro, and it only hikes up the price and size of the lenses.

@techjedi - just for info - no, it wouldn't affect diffraction.

@Pixel Pooper - that's an important point re the manual aperture, and another reason why this lens looks less of a bargain than at first glance. Not sure it really affects the f/2.8 vs f/4 issue though, as it would apply either way.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2015 at 12:40 UTC
Total: 161, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »