samfan

Joined on Sep 20, 2012

Comments

Total: 407, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Shiranai: Why didn't they put it in, in the first place? Its not like this is some kind of latest technology that wasn't available before.
First, saving a buck in production cost and now probably a lot of people complained about it, so they release that lame fix.

Well at least they did fix it.

Also, considering how lame some of the wireless implementations in cameras are, if this doesn't turn out well, they can make a mark II adapter, unlike with built-in chips.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 13:41 UTC
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: Seems an odd and kludgy way to go about it. I mean it's not like the camera body is so small that they couldn't fit that amount of circuitry in there somehow without taking away a DIFFERENT resource! And It's not like this is a new technology that snuck up on them overnight. WiFi in cameras has been real for 2 or 3 years, at least, and has been asked for by users for a good 5 years at least.

What is going on at Canon? All I can do is shake my head in wonderment.

Actually I think it's a rather smart solution because the Wi-Fi is upgradeable (in theory at least) and if you don't want to use it, you just remove the card and you're completely off-line.

Tho I think they should make a CF version as well for people who prefer to use SD cards for storage.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 13:40 UTC

I bought 2 of these about 10 years ago, a gold and a black one... Then sold them about 3 years ago for several times as much.

I used to dream about this cam when I was a kid, but when I finally got it, I wasn't a fan to be honest. Really slick-looking cameras, but the automatic flash was an incredible annoyance - it was always on by default, which completely negated the advantage of the clamshell (speedy startup) since I always had to double click a teeny rubber button to turn it off.

The lens was good, but just 35mm, so... Meh.

I much rather used Canon Ixus II - an APS (!) compact camera: even smaller, better build, 28mm lens, and memory for the flash setting. If someone you know had one, you could probably get it for free or for like $5 off ebay. And tons of film almost for free. The IQ was the same as 35mm film and Kodak BW400CN (not sure about the name) was the best C41 BW film.

In short, I never looked back at the Mju II. You really should do a throwback about APS!

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 02:49 UTC as 6th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: when studio lenses retire (203 comments in total)

I've never owned this lens myself since I was lucky finding a great sample of 50/1.8 (old non-D AF) which is super-sharp from f/2.2 on 10 MPx DX. Before that, I had a 1.8D which was garbage. At that time I've also tested a few samples of the 1.4 and neither seemed as a step-up from the oldie 1.8.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2016 at 16:45 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: It was all downhill when camera makers switched from CCD to CMOS sensors.

True, but CMOS have been pretty good for the last 3 years or so. I still love my Samsung EX1 but those compacts with 1" CMOS sensors are better now.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 02:26 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: Oh hell, the compact camera of those times were just terrible. Slow, often clumsy, noisy as hell, zoom lenses that started at 35mm. The worst were the ultrazooms where the more pricey one were almost as expensive as the cheapest DSLR but the difference was just incredible. I got my first 'proper' digicam in 2006 (Canon A610) and replaced it with DSLR in just a few months.

That said, if you want to remember one digicam from Fujifilm, it would be F30. They had enough sense to repurpose the SuperCCD for high sensitivity, so the camera could take pics with ISO 800 with ease, something which only DSLRs managed to do at the time.

To be clear, I always liked digital camera. I was looking to get a second hand as soon as around 1998 but they were still expensive. Then I got a 2MP fixed-lens one in 2003 - I think I got a 256MB card with it which cost almost as much, but haven't considered them tools for proper photography.

It's the manufacturers' own fault that mobile phones took over. If they kept making digital compacts as good as film compacts before, they could've evolved sooner. Instead they were just producing garbage so any photographer worth their salt had to buy a DSLR. Now they know better but it's too late to get compact cameras back into mainstream.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 17:42 UTC

Oh hell, the compact camera of those times were just terrible. Slow, often clumsy, noisy as hell, zoom lenses that started at 35mm. The worst were the ultrazooms where the more pricey one were almost as expensive as the cheapest DSLR but the difference was just incredible. I got my first 'proper' digicam in 2006 (Canon A610) and replaced it with DSLR in just a few months.

That said, if you want to remember one digicam from Fujifilm, it would be F30. They had enough sense to repurpose the SuperCCD for high sensitivity, so the camera could take pics with ISO 800 with ease, something which only DSLRs managed to do at the time.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 17:37 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
On article 2016 iPhone Photography Award winners announced (75 comments in total)

Seriously nice for the most part. Just simple and enjoyable photography, unlike many of the photo contest winners we've seen lately which value political messages or hipster 'art'.

That's not a comment on iphone vs. regular cameras btw, although it may seem like that. Just on this particular contest.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 15:56 UTC as 10th comment
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

norman shearer: Reading all the contradictory comments about AF reminds me of the UK referendum - you just don't know what to believe. I suppose it is all comparative and those that have experienced much better AF are not afraid to say so. However I do wonder if Pentax defaults are partly to blame and user inexperience also?
Whatever, it seems clear that if Pentax could up their game with AF then they could wipe the floor with the competition. So hopefully Pentax are listening and prioritize AF development for the K2.

Pentax has been wiping the floor with competition for a long time (in some areas anyway), but people still rather buy the mainstream stuff. Even I've opted for a Nikon back in the day, dammit.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 00:06 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): I'm glad that there are people insane enough to imagine and build lenses like this. And that there are entities and people who will pay for them to get built.

Maybe in the 60's, today it would be more like 1%.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 23:48 UTC
On article D500 owner formally accuses Nikon of false advertising (475 comments in total)

So we can expect a D510 with proper Wi-Fi in a couple of months?

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 23:45 UTC as 148th comment
In reply to:

webber15: I've though street view was an ill conceived idea from the beginning...
Really,,apart from having your home "cased" by occasional burglars/professional gangs...what use is it??

@AlanG you nailed it! Ban the streets. To get across town, we'd need to go through other people's houses and properties, potentially through windows. That would keep everyone so much on alert, burglars and terrorists wouldn't have a chance.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 00:44 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: If the Mumbai attacks involved photographic reconnaissance separate from Google's Street View, what does that tell us?

Ban all photography, that's what.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 22:14 UTC
In reply to:

webber15: I've though street view was an ill conceived idea from the beginning...
Really,,apart from having your home "cased" by occasional burglars/professional gangs...what use is it??

And we should also ban all maps, GPS navigation and compasses, and maybe computers and eyes too, because all these tools can help you find and see someone who, despite giving you information on where to find them, doesn't want to be found.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 22:13 UTC
In reply to:

Old Cameras: I do t know that the street view function serves any necessary purpose. Maybe for businesses but I don't particularly like a picture of my house being so easy to access. It's just not necessary, they do it for geewhiz factor and because they can. Those images could easily become higher resolution, and to no purpose. India may have more nefarious reasons for denying it, however. Google Maps? Yes, I'm a regular user, I depend on it to navigate to job sites. It's invaluable. But street view? I have no use for it. Yes, you can drive by the house yourself, but that's a lot of trouble. This is an example of just more and more information being gathered and crunched that someone might leverage to make a buck. Just extrapolate, what if the images were updated more often? Like everyday? What if it was a continuous high resolution live feed? Where do you draw the line? If a tree trimmer knocked on your door and said "I noticed on Googke street view that your tree limbs could use some trimming...." Then you'd get mad...

Maybe you'd talk differently if you'd need to go to places with horrendous parking. When I'm going somewhere, I often literally scope for possible hidden parking spots in advance. It's pretty invaluable.

I value my and everyone else's privacy very highly but I also believe that what you can see from the street is inherently not private.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 21:58 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: While Google street view may be good for the honest individual, I think in general it's a bad idea. It raises security concerns (and for those who are concerned about security, I'm with you). I mean, yes, the images are often times outdated, but the neighborhood and houses don't generally change that much themselves, so yes it is a concern that every American (or rather, everyone across the world) should be concerned about. I know Google probably created it with good intentions, but like other services (Facebook for example) the bad guys exploit the services for their own good, thus giving it a bad name and reputation.

What is the concern, exactly?

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 21:48 UTC
In reply to:

razadaz: We seem to live in a world where photographing people and things is becoming taboo. It looks very bad for the future of photography. I look at some of the wonderful documentary photography taken in the 20th century and wonder if future generations will have the same quality of records for this century. If Cartier-Bresson had been born in this time he would probably have been arrested for privacy violation by now.

Exactly. People overshare so much that there are apps to find nearby people based on their breakfast sharing facebook posts, but take a photo of a stranger and all hell breaks loose.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: As much as I dislike the Google big brother (I probably shouldn't be writing this from my own, internet-enabled computer, right?), Street View is one of the most practical things on the internet, second only to Wikipedia. Where I live, the roads and traffic signs are pretty crazy so when I'm going somewhere new, I often check the area in GSV in advance.

I don't quite get the privacy/security concerns in this particular case. GSV is basically just a bunch of photos. If you tried, you could probably get the same photos from Flickr or whatever, just with less convenience. So this seems like the same kind of fear mongering like when cops used to stop everyone from taking photos of bridges. I knew a guy who was stopped by a cop because he was drawing a sketch of some government building.

In other words, people are often completely fine with having everything about their personal lives out there on social networks and clouds, often fully public, but flip out when a tourist takes a photo which contains the back of their head while they walk the street. That's a bit backwards if you ask me.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 20:08 UTC

As much as I dislike the Google big brother (I probably shouldn't be writing this from my own, internet-enabled computer, right?), Street View is one of the most practical things on the internet, second only to Wikipedia. Where I live, the roads and traffic signs are pretty crazy so when I'm going somewhere new, I often check the area in GSV in advance.

I don't quite get the privacy/security concerns in this particular case. GSV is basically just a bunch of photos. If you tried, you could probably get the same photos from Flickr or whatever, just with less convenience. So this seems like the same kind of fear mongering like when cops used to stop everyone from taking photos of bridges. I knew a guy who was stopped by a cop because he was drawing a sketch of some government building.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 20:04 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Rexgig0: My wife has been using a Sun-Sniper sling since shortly after its introduction. She later added another type of attachment point, that allows for tripod mounting, made by a company other than either Sun-Sniper or BR. Perhaps because she lived in Europe for several years, she prefers the version with the metal cable inside the strap; perhaps thieves cutting camera and bag straps is more common in Europe than North America?

Following my wife's lead, I acquired a Sun-Sniper sling system, but I disliked the camera being upside down. It works better (for me) when attached to the tripod foot of a telephoto lens, with the tripod ring rotated so the camera hangs more upright.

I misplaced my Sun-Sniper sling, and substituted a Magpul sling; rather than something inspired by a carbine sling, I now use an authentic carbine sling. (When not using a large tele lens, I prefer using a Peak Design Slide, Think Tank Strap, or Leica strap, depending upon the size/weight of the camera/lens.)

I've been using a PacSafe strap http://www.pacsafe.com/camera-bag-accessories.html for a couple years. Strangely, it's also one of the more comfy straps I've had, despite its hardness.

My favorite thing about it are the slugs (is that the right word?) like on a bicycle chain which can be used to strap it directly to the camera. It's pretty badass and very easy to take off.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 10:01 UTC
Total: 407, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »