GodSpeaks

GodSpeaks

Lives in Thailand Bangkok, Thailand
Works as a Retired
Joined on Sep 6, 2002
About me:

Livin' la Vida Loca

Comments

Total: 749, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: The Panasonic DMC-CM1 is a far better option and costs essentially the same. Plus you get the phone part for free.

Actually, very good phone.
Unfortunately, neither Panasonic (CM10 does NOT count) nor any other manufacturer followed up on it. The potential is there. DxO is NOT it.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 00:52 UTC

If there was ever a good reason to actually avoid buying a product, this is it.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 00:37 UTC as 15th comment

The Panasonic DMC-CM1 is a far better option and costs essentially the same. Plus you get the phone part for free.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 13:44 UTC as 18th comment | 4 replies
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (274 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Can't you buy digibacks for medium format SLR cameras?
What am I missing here?

The gist of the topic is about 35mm film cameras, not medium format.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 12:32 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (274 comments in total)
In reply to:

medon78: The idea of putting a digital "film" into an old SLR is fascinating.
In the end though, one would combine the disadvantages of the old body with the disadvantage of DSLRs (mainly: more bulk).

So: Why?

I think actually any modern DSLR put to the "PASM" modes would roughly provide the same shooting experience. Especially, if you tape the back screen (or turn it around like in a Canon 80D).

If I remember correctly, some early Kodak DSLRs where based on Nikon SLRs?

Em, if you say so. LOL

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 12:27 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (274 comments in total)

Back at the dawn of digital (early 2000s), when most everyone still had a film SLR, it made some sense to be able to slap a "digital back" onto your SLR body. It never came to pass for technical, and likely cost, reasons.

But today, late 2017, when DSLRs and mirrorless are quite mature, it really makes little sense. Today, my D800E is so much better than my F2A ever was. Personally, I would give any "digital film" for SLRs a big pass.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: Go back to about 1983 when IBM introduced the PC/XT, which included a 10 MEGABYTE drive. We all wondered how we would ever fill it. Of course, today, that wouldn't even hold a single RAW file.

I owned an original Commodore PET computer back in the mid to late 70's. It came with 8K memory that I had expanded to a huge 16K. It also used a cassette tape drive for storage.

Now THAT brings back memories.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 00:57 UTC
In reply to:

barrym1966: Spinning disk drives will be dead long before 2025

Don't count on it. Have you checked the price per terabyte of SSD vs HD lately? Personally I am waiting for holographic crystal storage to make a breakthrough.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 00:48 UTC

This is just a rant by someone who hates the product. Pointless.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 00:40 UTC as 101st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

vadims: Michael Reichmann, who shot Hasselblads, top PhaseOne MF backs etc. once complained on his LL site that camera phones became too good and got himself some cheap ($20?) toy camera making 1Mp or so images, just to have some fun with it.

One thing I miss since film days is a sense of wonder I had while developing film and then printing it (I was always doing that myself): what would come out of that shot? And that shot? For that reason, I'm still thinking about getting a digital camera with just an optical viewfinder, w/o any LCD at all. Leica M-D obviously fits the bill, but only metaphorically; a wee bit too expensive for that sort of use... ;-)

I'm not saying Y35 is for me; those cartridges are, well, bonkers. But I wouldn't judge anyone who'd buy Y35 for fun, let alone call them "fools" (as Mr. Murabayashi did). Anyone who even mentions image quality while discussing Y35 is simply clueless; it's all about fun. And anyone who tries to tell me what is and what in't fun may go to hell.

By default, I have the LCD on my DSLR turned OFF, as is auto-review.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 00:38 UTC

No 4K video. Pass.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 00:25 UTC as 21st comment

They had my interest, up to the point where they stated the camera has a new propriety lens mount. Groan, just what the world needs.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 01:10 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon's official D850 lens recommendation list (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ruy Penalva: That is interesting and shows Nikon was making lens with poor resolution since years. If you look at Canon, almost 5 years ago Canon is making lens with a HR profile. Not to say their Cine lens line.

Actually not true. I use some of the older (1990s vintage, maybe even late 80s) lenses that perform just fine on the D800 series cameras. The newer lenses have more electronics, in lens AF motors and improved lens coatings. Would you actually expect Nikon to recommend older lenses no longer in production, or have I missed your point?

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 01:36 UTC
On article Nikon's official D850 lens recommendation list (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

PanoMax: Most Nikon users would rather use Sigma lenses on their D850, specifically the Art lenses

As I Nikon user since the mid-70s, I would not buy Sigma lenses over Nikon. In fact, I have had nothing but bad experiences with Sigma lenses.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 01:31 UTC
On article Nikon's official D850 lens recommendation list (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

beavertown: Why no mention of any Sigma and Tamron at all. Totally biased recommendation.

Read the title: NIKON releases official D850 lens list.

Would you really expect Nikon to recommend you use a Sigma or Tamron lens?

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 01:29 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Smaller sensor and narrower aperture than my iPhone. Wow. This camera must have a tiny lens.

The fruity "ecosystem" is the one reason why I will never buy any fruity product. EVER.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 00:37 UTC
In reply to:

LEGACYMOMENTSPHOTOGRAPHY: Tiny sensor, no point. I get the idea but do it like Fuji, have it on a menu for diff styles.

I think that's the point. Most people are not very tech savvy and do not want to learn to operate a complex camera. They just want to "point and shoot". The cartridge and limited controls solves that problem. At $124 I think Yashica might just be on to something. They should just market it normally and kick Kickstarter to the curb.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 00:29 UTC
In reply to:

Autriche78: So where's all the ILC haters who scornfully point out that anyone who doesn't use a DSLR needs a backpack full of batteries? Here, you need a backpack full of digifilm if you want to change the ISO while you're on a day trip. Even more aggravating considering it's an arbitrary limitation, not a functional one.

@cgarrard, rechargeable LiIon batteries are 3.2 volts, not 1.5 like AA batteries. You are of course, correct about rechargeable AA batteries, NiMH (1.2 volts, by the way).

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 00:21 UTC
In reply to:

User9362470513: Ricoh had a camera with interchangeable elements and it bombed. I suspect this will too.

Was the Ricoh camera priced at $124?

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 00:15 UTC

Odd design. Old retro styled body, including advance lever, limited shutter speeds, small sensor, digiFilm cartridges, but at least it is very well priced. This has potential.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 00:10 UTC as 135th comment
Total: 749, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »