Jeff Peterman

Jeff Peterman

Lives in United States USA, MD, United States
Joined on Jul 4, 2002

Comments

Total: 118, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

jim seekers: On Video mode, does the s8 have better stabilisation than the s7 and is the still and video better on the s8 than the s7.

Great imagination. But any data?

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 03:09 UTC

I love my Note 5. I was planning to upgrade to a new Note at the end of this year - but the death of the Note 7 makes unlikely. Maybe the success of the "refurbished" Note 7s will make the Note 8 a possibility.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2017 at 18:13 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

ZC Lee: I have a synology 2 Bays and a qnap 6 Bays, Are there any reason to have a DroboDR?

No advantage to Drobo? Being able to increase storage space by swapping out a single drive is a HUGE advantage.

I have used Synology and Buffalo NAS units for work. The Buffalo ones have been terrible - any time a drive has failed, I have been unable to restore the RAID with matching replacement hard drive. So far, the Synology ones have been OK, but without the upgrade advantage, or built-in battery backup of the Drobo.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

ZC Lee: I have a synology 2 Bays and a qnap 6 Bays, Are there any reason to have a DroboDR?

The advantage of the Drobo is the easy upgrade. If you have another brand configured with, for example, a set of 2 TB hard drives, the only way to increase the space is to copy everything off to another drive, rebuild the RAID with a complete set of new, bigger, drives, and then restore all the data. With the Drobo, you can just replace the hard drives one drive at a time, letting it rebuild the RAID with each replacement - the new drives don't have to match in capacity or speed.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 12:37 UTC

I've had a Drobo 5N for almost three years. I've had to contact support a few times with questions (I extended the warranty) without too much trouble. I have it set with two drive redundancy, so I should be able to have two drives fail without risk.

I've upgraded my system multiple times, one hard drive at a time - starting off with three 1 TB and two 2 TB drives, replacing the 1 TB drives one at a time, to five 2 TB drives, and recently replacing one of those with a 3 TB as I move to all 3 TB drives. Never any problems. I did once have it report that a hard drive had failed, and I replaced that drive with another and let it rebuild the RAID, without any problems.

I love that fact that the drives don't have to match, in size or speed - it makes it much easier for me to maintain/upgrade it over time.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 01:32 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

parakalien: That's a load of poo. I'll be flying back to the US from Istanbul Turkey in April coming back from shooting a documentary. I don't want to check $10,000+ work of camera gear so it can get lost of broken!

Just make sure that you change planes in a country not on the list and there won't be a problem - this only covers direct flights.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:59 UTC

Are spare Lithium batteries included in the ban? If so, this will be a big problem because they are not allowed in checked bags. If not, then the item most likely to be dangerous will still be allowed in the cabin (the "Samsung" problem can easily be induced on purpose!).

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:58 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

taktak91: This is getting confusing.
In some airlines, you are required to carry on all electronic devices.

The issue is the batteries: You are not allowed to pack Lithium batteries - unless they are securely installed inside a device.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:56 UTC

The issue is only for direct flights from those countries, so it doesn't affect any US airlines - unless they stop in the UK.

I stopped flying with Virgin Atlantic a decade ago because their carry on weight limit (imposed after 9/11) was too low to allow me to carry on my camera gear and computer. I wouldn't trust packing either in my checked bags - because of the damage and theft risks. I travel all over the world for work, but fortunately not to any of the specified countries: I have considered flying Emirate Airlines to Asia (they have a great reputation), but now the will not be on my list.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 02:30 UTC as 46th comment | 2 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: the Olympus C-2100UZ (107 comments in total)

I bought an Oly 2020z for personal use in 1999 - I'd already been using a D-620L at work (for documenting engineering prototypes) for about a year. As someone who'd been using Oly SLRs for over a decade, the Oly digitals were a logical choice. I was very tempted to get the Ultrazoom, but decided to wait for the 3000UZ, with a 3 MP sensor - which never appeared. From what I remember, the lens on this camera was licensed from Canon, who decided not to let Olympus take it further to higher resolution models.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 15:05 UTC as 52nd comment
On article Throwback Thursday: the Olympus C-2100UZ (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

jrg: There's an old saying in this still relativity young digital world, and that's "don't ever sell your Uzi 2100." I still have mine and loved it. What a camera. ..! I should dig mine out and slap some AA's in and shoot around. Oh the early 2000s! Takes you back!

AAs are easy to find. Smart Media cards, and card readers, are a little tougher!

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 13:42 UTC
In reply to:

junk1: If only batteries from certain supplier(s) failed, that would point towards the batteries. But if all of them failed, then it's likely something else.

The rule for flying is that LOOSE batteries must be in the carry on, but that batteries connected inside a device may be packed in checked bags - this is the international rule, and what I have encountered flying in the US, Europe, Asia, and Australia. The primary concern is that the battery contacts could short out if the battery was in a checked bag, and that this is not an issue if the battery is installed in a device that is safely turned off.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: Pity. It was a great phone and I hated having to trade it in.

I gave up on iPhones two generations ago.

I loved my Note 3, and my Note 5. I was looking forward to switching to a Note 8 at the end of this year. With all the bad press on the Note 7, there is a good chance that there won't be a Note 8.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 06:21 UTC
In reply to:

junk1: If only batteries from certain supplier(s) failed, that would point towards the batteries. But if all of them failed, then it's likely something else.

If the problem is a flaw in the battery design, it wouldn't matter who made them. A design that is too intolerant of flexing, for example (which could happen from the normal heating/cooling of the battery in use) could cause a runaway current flow and lead to temperatures high enough to ignite the plastics.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 06:19 UTC
On article Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS II USM sample gallery (131 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jeff Peterman: Why would someone buy this over the 55-250 STM lens? (The extra 50mm on the long end isn't that much.)

"The new 70-300mm ... is nano usm" - are you sure? Here it only said USM. The combination of the 18-55 and 55-250 STMs is a great pair of optically very good (if slow) lenses. Throwing in a mid range prime is typically only done when the prime is needed for low light or low DOF shots, rather than being carried around in the general kit. I often travel with just the 18-55 and 55-250 lenses.

Now, if the lens is nano USM, and if someone is seriously considering FF (or has FF) then the new 70-300 would be a big deal, but for a typical APS-C shooter it could be a different matter. As I said earlier, I'd love to see a comparison between the 55-250 STM and the new lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 18:48 UTC
On article Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS II USM sample gallery (131 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jeff Peterman: Why would someone buy this over the 55-250 STM lens? (The extra 50mm on the long end isn't that much.)

True, full frame users don't have the option of the 55-250, but for APS-C users, is there a good reason to buy this new lens over the 55-250 STM (my STM compares very well, optically, to my 70-200 f2.8L IS mark I)?

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 17:32 UTC
On article Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS II USM sample gallery (131 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: I would love it if it were compared to the 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x at ~280mm

Or the 55-350 STM at 250mm.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 15:28 UTC
On article Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS II USM sample gallery (131 comments in total)

Why would someone buy this over the 55-250 STM lens? (The extra 50mm on the long end isn't that much.)

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 15:27 UTC as 22nd comment | 15 replies
In reply to:

justmeMN: I guess Cannon brand is the Chinese counterfeit version of the camera.

But they are a blast to use.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 20:51 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff Peterman: The problem with most of this type of bag is the weight. Making it from leather and making it "flexible" adds a lot of weight. I prefer my Thinktank UD60 with backpack kit - light and flexible. But not stylish enough for a "hipster."

I don't know where you read the weights of the Switch bags, but it is not on the Web site from the company (I read the whole thing and did a search too). If it really is that light at that size then the leather must be really thin.

Plus, as others have said, their bags let you carry a small amount of camera gear, but you have to put the bag down to take gear out or put it back. I prefer my UD60.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 13:26 UTC
Total: 118, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »