HowaboutRAW

Joined on Sep 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 16550, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Mike FL: I thought LEICA replaced once years ago for its bad KODAK sensor, but still use KODAK sensor as the replacement.

It was different (?) mode. LEICA is good for its users.

In other words, KODAK went under that is the best thing for users. We have one less poor quality company.

Kodak poor quality?

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 01:06 UTC
In reply to:

Elliot H: just wondering, have any other cameras had issues with "peeling" sensors?

RM:

Curved micro lens array.

Not at all simply micro lenses.

Next time read and quote what I wrote before embarrassing yourself.

Kodak made these sensors.

It's the cover glass that is hydrophilic. Look up the adjective.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 01:04 UTC
In reply to:

ZeBebito: Old news. But it is the first time this issue is called "peeling" instead of "corrosion" though.

Bashir:

Corrosion generally leads to coatings, or tightly fitting covers, pealing off.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 23:06 UTC
In reply to:

beatboxa: Well, you get what you pay for!

Yeah, at ISO 1000 and below an amazing camera in many ways.

It has its limits and you have to know how to focus manually.

Nope, doesn't do many FPS.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 22:58 UTC
In reply to:

ZeBebito: Old news. But it is the first time this issue is called "peeling" instead of "corrosion" though.

The corrosion is an old known issue.

The replacement, for a hefty fee, with conditions, looks to be a reasonably new Leica policy. (It likely means they've found a source for new sensors.)

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 22:47 UTC
In reply to:

Elliot H: just wondering, have any other cameras had issues with "peeling" sensors?

Just wondering which other cameras are the first full framed mirrorless bodies ever done? Answer: Not one.

And, excluding other Leica bodies, just wondering which other full framed mirrorless bodies have a curved micro-lens array in the sensor plane? Answer again is none.

Look, hydrophilic issues with the cover glass are a known problem with this sensor, but for whatever reason, and it was likely very real, Leica/Kodak chose this cover glass.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 22:29 UTC
On article How do drones fly? (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: The headline should really be

"How drones [remote control paired rotor craft] maneuver"

I read the Wired piece looking for an explanation of the mysteries of lift from wings or rotors. (Remember that yes fast fighter jets can fly upside down for sustained periods, before anyone says that "wing aero dynamics create suction 'atop' the wing/rotor".)

BadS:

It's okay you're not the first person to confuse description for explanation.

And your over-long posts haven't solved this confusion of yours.

"The thrust comes from the engine."

Right, we've gone over this. However, except for thrust vectoring, this doesn't provide a source of energy to keep an upside down plane flying for very long.

"The shape of the aircraft provides lift so that Fy > 9.8 m/s^2. [upside down] Flight is achieved."

This claim you've made is counter to basic aerodynamic theory and practice for the last 100 years or so.

No, quoting the acceleration of gravity, in meters, or feet, doesn't solve your issue.

Yes, you've made my point very well for me--that's repeatedly.

Your insults don't hide you misunderstandings of the issue.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 22:16 UTC
On article How do drones fly? (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: The headline should really be

"How drones [remote control paired rotor craft] maneuver"

I read the Wired piece looking for an explanation of the mysteries of lift from wings or rotors. (Remember that yes fast fighter jets can fly upside down for sustained periods, before anyone says that "wing aero dynamics create suction 'atop' the wing/rotor".)

BadS:

"Other ways of changing the direction of the force is to change the geometry of the aircraft itself (wing flaps etc)."

That won't sustain an aircraft in upside down flight.

"An object will accelerate in the direction of the applied force. You add up all the components of force in each (of three) dimensions; then you take the vector sum of the three summed forces and that tells ... acceleration will be."

Yes, again this is a description, not an explanation. Please ponder the difference.

Or think of it this way: Newton provided no source for gravity. He said there's this force, gravity.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 21:07 UTC
On article How do drones fly? (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: The headline should really be

"How drones [remote control paired rotor craft] maneuver"

I read the Wired piece looking for an explanation of the mysteries of lift from wings or rotors. (Remember that yes fast fighter jets can fly upside down for sustained periods, before anyone says that "wing aero dynamics create suction 'atop' the wing/rotor".)

Bad:

"the unbalanced force comes from the engines of the aircraft : this is why aircraft have engines (and so are not merely projectiles) and require lots of energy to remain elevated."

Right, but force has to have direction.

"As long as the force Fy (the upwards force) is equal or greater than G (the downwards force due to gravity) then the aircraft will NOT lose elevation. It will remain like this FOREVER."

Duh, it's the source of the force keeping the plane flying upside down in the air that is the problem. (But for a small subset of cases, you've not provided a source.)

continues:

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 21:06 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Semi-Pro Interchangeable Lens Cameras (714 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: So this is just full framed semi-pro bodies?

There are of course very serious APSC bodies, like the Nikon D500 and the Canon 7DII, or are those fully "pro" by this way of counting?

And there are others like the Fuji XPro2.

piratejabetz:

Originally, it was something like "semi-pro bodies over 2000usd", there wasn't an upper limit.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 10:35 UTC
On article How do drones fly? (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

BadScience: when did remote control choppers start being called drones?

When W started killing people in Afghanistan with "drones" in 2002. Albeit those are RC aeroplanes. (But like RC quad copters, those airplanes have some on board AI.)

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 00:43 UTC
On article How do drones fly? (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: The headline should really be

"How drones [remote control paired rotor craft] maneuver"

I read the Wired piece looking for an explanation of the mysteries of lift from wings or rotors. (Remember that yes fast fighter jets can fly upside down for sustained periods, before anyone says that "wing aero dynamics create suction 'atop' the wing/rotor".)

BadS:

The sustained period can be more than several minutes.

"it is an explanation...an object will move in the direction of an unbalanced force."

Right, and you've not provided an unbalanced force, absent the special case of thrust vectoring.

"What *your* problem is, is that when you do not understand something, instead of taking a good signpost, and using it to answer the question yourself."

No, I was hinting at something that is not understood. Then you introduced first a description in place of an explanation. Then added technology that wasn't germane to my point, or was only germane in a very limited subset of my point.

"You would rather ask a question, then perfer not to try to understand the answer, and then talk nonsense and bicker."

You've not provided an answer, you've distracted with a special case, that yes, has an explanation for that special case.

The only way that Newton's 2nd law is a factor is providing a force from a source you've not considered.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 00:41 UTC
On article How do drones fly? (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: The headline should really be

"How drones [remote control paired rotor craft] maneuver"

I read the Wired piece looking for an explanation of the mysteries of lift from wings or rotors. (Remember that yes fast fighter jets can fly upside down for sustained periods, before anyone says that "wing aero dynamics create suction 'atop' the wing/rotor".)

"the explanation is simple"

"The vertical components of force on the aircraft must be balanced for level flight. If the force is unbalanced the aircraft will gain or lose altitude."

This is a description, not explanation.

"An upwards vertical force can result from sufficient horizontal thrust via a suitable aerofoil geometry."

If you say so.

"At the extreme, a sufficient horizontal force, with no upwards vertical force applied, will result in the object launching into orbit (if you could throw a ball horizontally hard enough, it would hit you in the back of your head)"

Not germane to my points, and you may run into speed of light for material objects restrictions in that ball throwing case.

"In the case of fighter jets, where aerofoils are minimally designed for horizontal flight; the upwards force comes from thrust vectoring.'

Fighter jets sans thrust vectoring can fly upside down for sustained periods too.

The Youtube link has next to nothing to do with my point.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 23:40 UTC
On article How do drones fly? (19 comments in total)

The headline should really be

"How drones [remote control paired rotor craft] maneuver"

I read the Wired piece looking for an explanation of the mysteries of lift from wings or rotors. (Remember that yes fast fighter jets can fly upside down for sustained periods, before anyone says that "wing aero dynamics create suction 'atop' the wing/rotor".)

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 02:31 UTC as 3rd comment | 12 replies
On article 2017 Roundup: Semi-Pro Interchangeable Lens Cameras (714 comments in total)
In reply to:

davev8: so is the Pentax K1 not in the list as its a full on pro body ?

Dr Blackjack:

The A7R Mark 1 has the big drawback of the incredibly audible, and vibration inducing, mechanical shutter. Also the Sony only shoots lossy raws. It's CDAF only I believe.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 17:01 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (656 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: "Battles rage over whether digital or analog is the better medium."

Only for very low ISO shooting.

Old Cameras:

Note the quotation marks.

Nowhere did I take a side. Just pointed out it's only a debate at lower ISOs.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 14:34 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (656 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: The Olympus XA is a rangefinder?

I see that Wikipedia says it was indeed.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 14:31 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (656 comments in total)

The Olympus XA is a rangefinder?

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 13:41 UTC as 267th comment | 3 replies
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (656 comments in total)

"Battles rage over whether digital or analog is the better medium."

Only for very low ISO shooting.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 13:37 UTC as 268th comment | 3 replies
On article 2017 Roundup: Semi-Pro Interchangeable Lens Cameras (714 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: The Leica SL does not have banding in shadows at lower ISOs, provided one is using the later firmware--this point needs updating.

The SL experienced vast improvements in higher ISO capabilities with later firmware, say v2 or later.

It is in many regards a better high ISO body than the very good Nikon D750.

BigFarley:

Not really, and it is on this DPR list, while the D5 and 1DX aren't.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 02:41 UTC
Total: 16550, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »