Stephen McDonald

Stephen McDonald

Lives in United States Eugene, OR, United States
Works as a Videomaker-Writer
Has a website at None
Joined on Sep 21, 2006
About me:

Sony HX400V, HX200V, HX100V, HX1, TX100V, Webbie HD, Sony HC9, an HDV camcorder, Canon S5, Olympus C-2100UZ. Former Sony H5, H9 and Canon SX1 User. Raynox DCR-2020PRO, Raynox HD2200, Sony DH1758 & DH1774 telex lenses.

Comments

Total: 76, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

Maybe this will spur more interest in shooting with film or maybe using analog camcorders again. It's possible that a high-resolution analog format could be developed (or revived and improved) for photos and videos, that would have no vulnerability for receiving any interference signals.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 09:23 UTC as 67th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Stephen McDonald: What improvements? The aerial and street views of my neighborhood were taken in 2011. Even though there's a copyright date of 2016 on the images, the cars in driveways and the colors of since-repainted houses, tell a different story. The sections of the neighbor's dead tree that fell on my roof in 3/11, is still scattered around on their yard.

I am talking about the overhead view, as well as the street view. If the upgrade is involved only with the view from 100km, it will make almost no difference to us who are on the surface.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 02:01 UTC

What improvements? The aerial and street views of my neighborhood were taken in 2011. Even though there's a copyright date of 2016 on the images, the cars in driveways and the colors of since-repainted houses, tell a different story. The sections of the neighbor's dead tree that fell on my roof in 3/11, is still scattered around on their yard.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 23:07 UTC as 8th comment | 6 replies

I'll bet you see a sharp drop in new sign-ups, as long as the "light" theme comes up as default for visitors.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 23:59 UTC as 137th comment | 1 reply

You'd think that all these experiments and decisions about the "look" of the pages were made by 20-somethings. The "light" or dark on white option has type that is so faint and small, that it's much more difficult to read and it's harder to go up and down a page and find relevant things. The threaded view in the dark mode is essential to being able to follow a thread and spot what you want to find. I can still read the smaller type in the text box, but will I be able to do it 10 years from now?

My first reaction to the "light" look that was imposed by default when I opened up today, was to be appalled. It wasn't easy to find this explanation-----you should have posted a pop-up notice about it that would be quickly seen by anyone, anywhere on the forums. And the light background for photos is very degrading to them. We have an option of either now, but for how long? After reading some of the pro-light comments, I realize that we need a "dislike" button.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 22:52 UTC as 147th comment | 1 reply

I made mine from a sheet of typing paper and scissors. Focusing functions are provided by my eyes and putting them the right distance away.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 22:37 UTC as 5th comment

Ten years ago, this might have been newsworthy.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 10:23 UTC as 14th comment
On article 2016 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (114 comments in total)
In reply to:

texasfz8: I always thought a "long" zoom was greater than 200mm. Glad DPR corrected me. I guess small sensor bridge cameras aren't for enthusiasts. For the kind of money the Sony costs it seems you could go M43 with more reach.

Why not wait until all the likely superzoom models for the year have been announced? There are still several that are expected. As far as being "consumer-level", some of them may outperform the "enthusiast" models in many ways. The glaring omission of the Nikon DL24-500 from this current roundup, makes it incomplete.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2016 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

AlexCHStudio: I was hoping to play with DL24-500 on vacation. Well, looks like Sony RX10 III would be a toy instead...

Do you think that the Sony RX10 III will be available soon and won't be delayed by the disruption in parts production?

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2016 at 23:20 UTC
In reply to:

Stephen McDonald: I didn't notice the price before I read the article. I guessed that it would be overpriced at about $100. Little did I know. I've found bags that were the equivalent of this at Goodwill that were $5. or less. Sometimes I've bought two or three at that price and plucked off the best parts and put them all onto one.

Actually, the best camera bag I have is by Ralph Lauren. A friend found it discarded by a roadside and gave it to me. Once, someone asked me how much a bag like that would cost and all I could do was smile.

All I'm after is good pictures. I'll let others blow their money on superfluous luxury gear.

It's common to see things like that in the neighborhood, so it could have been.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2016 at 22:08 UTC
In reply to:

N13L5: If you don't mind a constant skeletal, muscular imbalance while walking about with your (usually weighty) gear, by all means, get a messenger bag.

Well if you always just shoot out of your car window, with the bag on the passenger seat, I see no problem either.

But if you like to hike places to get the exact pictures you want, don't get any bag with a strap for only one shoulder.

The best camera pack system I've used, put 60% of the weight in a backpack and 40% in front in a belly pack. Items frequently used like batteries, cards, tapes, add-on lenses and a flash-bang for bears, would go in front for quick access. The whole rig was balanced and caused me no discomfort or soreness.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2016 at 22:47 UTC

I didn't notice the price before I read the article. I guessed that it would be overpriced at about $100. Little did I know. I've found bags that were the equivalent of this at Goodwill that were $5. or less. Sometimes I've bought two or three at that price and plucked off the best parts and put them all onto one.

Actually, the best camera bag I have is by Ralph Lauren. A friend found it discarded by a roadside and gave it to me. Once, someone asked me how much a bag like that would cost and all I could do was smile.

All I'm after is good pictures. I'll let others blow their money on superfluous luxury gear.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2016 at 22:33 UTC as 46th comment | 2 replies
On article Hands-on with the Sony RX10 III (308 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnoy: How do you get 2.35mp from 1024x768?

I wonder how consistently this 3X dots/pixels formula is used by different manufacturers? Does my Sony 921K viewscreen actually have only 307K pixels? I wish they'd put more of those dots/pixels on the viewscreen of this model, as that's all I ever use, with a diopter viewing loupe. I'm very glad it doesn't have a touchscreen.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 04:38 UTC
In reply to:

jaykumarr: Thou Shalt Do Unto Panasonic as Panasonic did unto you - Sony Marketing

Sony marketing must have found out that, People chose 200mm longer reach FZ1000 over RXII. So with with RX-IIISony is doing the same 200mm longer over FZ1000.

For 4K video, the reach of the Sony RX10-III is only marginally longer than that of the Panasonic FZ1000. The comparison is 585mm for the Panasonic and 600mm for the Sony. This is due to the Panasonic not having full-sensor readout and using only an 8-MP inner-sector of the sensor for 4K.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 18:10 UTC
On article Flickr makes Auto-Uploadr tool a Pro-account exclusive (97 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stephen McDonald: I've been paying $25. for years for a "Pro" account there. Not a pleasant surprise to find that it now will cost $50. And this Auto-uploader is something I never use. Too bad that anyone uses it. The pages of photos, when you want to look at a certain model's results, are often clogged with thousands of photos from single subscribers, who post every exposure they take. One such guy boasted that his camera was so good, that every shot he took was a keeper. He often takes and posts dozens of shots of exactly the same thing. I never saw even one from him that I would have put there, if I'd taken it.

I also may take dozens of shots of the same subject and maybe one or two or sometimes none, will get posted there. It's better to be your own toughest critic, than to wait for someone else to do it. If you do take excellent photos, but post all the others with them, they will mostly be lost in the jumble, to anyone viewing them. This is the downside of digital photography.

They charged me $25. last year and said that would be the price for one more year after that. But apparently, according to this article, they have raised the price for new "Pro" subscribers. But I wouldn't count on anything they might say about the future, because the main company has trouble. My best hope is, that if they re-structure Yahoo, that they will spin off Flickr to some group that will run it to serve only its own interests and those of its users.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 08:34 UTC
On article Flickr makes Auto-Uploadr tool a Pro-account exclusive (97 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stephen McDonald: I've been paying $25. for years for a "Pro" account there. Not a pleasant surprise to find that it now will cost $50. And this Auto-uploader is something I never use. Too bad that anyone uses it. The pages of photos, when you want to look at a certain model's results, are often clogged with thousands of photos from single subscribers, who post every exposure they take. One such guy boasted that his camera was so good, that every shot he took was a keeper. He often takes and posts dozens of shots of exactly the same thing. I never saw even one from him that I would have put there, if I'd taken it.

I also may take dozens of shots of the same subject and maybe one or two or sometimes none, will get posted there. It's better to be your own toughest critic, than to wait for someone else to do it. If you do take excellent photos, but post all the others with them, they will mostly be lost in the jumble, to anyone viewing them. This is the downside of digital photography.

They charged me $25. last year and said that would be the price for one more year after that. But apparently, according to this article, they have raised the price for new "Pro" subscribers. But I wouldn't count on anything they might say about the future, because the main company has trouble. My best hope is, that if they re-structure Yahoo, that they will spin off Flickr to some group that will run it to serve only its own interests and those of its users.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 08:34 UTC
On article Flickr makes Auto-Uploadr tool a Pro-account exclusive (97 comments in total)
In reply to:

quiquae: Any suggestion for a replacement to Flickr as a place to share images with the general public? I do like Flickr's proposition of community-based photo sharing, but their execution of the concept has been rather suspect for some time now.

I do not enjoy 500px as it is way too slanted towards the popularity contest aspect, and too often "the best Photoshopper" contest at that. DPR is too slanted toward gear talk, and few photo sharing opportunity apart from contests. Instagram is, well, Instagram. I generally want to brush up my photos carefully before sharing with the entire world, and Instagram runs exactly counter to that philosophy.

To paraphrase Churchill, there is no photo-hosting site worse than Flickr, except all the others.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 03:48 UTC
On article Flickr makes Auto-Uploadr tool a Pro-account exclusive (97 comments in total)

I've been paying $25. for years for a "Pro" account there. Not a pleasant surprise to find that it now will cost $50. And this Auto-uploader is something I never use. Too bad that anyone uses it. The pages of photos, when you want to look at a certain model's results, are often clogged with thousands of photos from single subscribers, who post every exposure they take. One such guy boasted that his camera was so good, that every shot he took was a keeper. He often takes and posts dozens of shots of exactly the same thing. I never saw even one from him that I would have put there, if I'd taken it.

I also may take dozens of shots of the same subject and maybe one or two or sometimes none, will get posted there. It's better to be your own toughest critic, than to wait for someone else to do it. If you do take excellent photos, but post all the others with them, they will mostly be lost in the jumble, to anyone viewing them. This is the downside of digital photography.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 22:36 UTC as 25th comment | 4 replies
On article Sony introduces Cyber-shot DSC-HX80 30x travel zoom (79 comments in total)

Ho-hum. One more little camera with a pinhead "1/2.3-inch" sensor and no 4K video. Will they release a large superzoom model with a bigger sensor and UHD, to get one-up on Panasonic and Nikon? What happened to "2/3-inch" sensors? I had a camcorder with them 28 years ago. One of those in a fullsized superzoom with 30X and 800mm would be a winner.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 01:36 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

mgblack74: How did we get to the point of mixing fractions with decimals? 1 over 2.3? 1 over 1.7? How is that possible? It's like saying 1.3 miles. Its either 1.3 kilometres or 1 1/3 miles. Imperial is idiotic (don't get me started on Fahrenheit). Saying a sensor is 1/1.7 means what? It's 0.7" larger than 1? Or rather it's 7/10ths larger than an inch? It's bizarre that we have 1" or less measured in fractions of an inch. We even have view cameras measure in inches; 4x5, 8x10. But APS-C, full frame ("35mm format. Millimetre), crop frame medium format (44x33) and full frame medium format (60x45) are measured in millimetres. We have standard hotshoes. Standard film/sensor sensitivity. Standard focal length nomenclature. But come sensor size..... it's all over the map. mm is just more accurate too. Anyway. :-)

I use the Metric System extensively. I find that it is better for some things and not so good for others, So I use the standard system for those things. After all, who would be thrilled to see someone run a sub-four minute 1,604-meter race? Or clear 2.13 meters in the high jump? I might have a running workout of 6 miles, but never think of it as approximately 10,000 meters. The Metric System lacks good conceptual units that are shorter or longer than a meter. So I have three measurement standards to use, instead of only one. It's just like knowing how to speak several languages.

The fact is, that American and I assume also English surveyors, use the foot as a standard, but divide it decimally.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 08:41 UTC
Total: 76, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »