samfan

Joined on Sep 20, 2012

Comments

Total: 770, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Ergo607: Let's face it, what Samsung does best is saying how good it is (and rarely proving it...)

When OLED was clearly the new kid on the block in tv technology (and LG invested billions in OLED factory plants) they backed out for obscure reasons. Now that every manufacturer has an OLED tv (made with LG displays) all Samsung could come up with was take 2016 LED technology and name it QLED.

When they cooperated with Pentax they just copy-pasted Pentax technology. All Pentax got in return was a mediocre 14.6 MP CMOS sensor coming from an obscure company from Israel...

I wouldn't call Samsung neither premium nor B.

As an example, I had (still have) a pair of XL20 LCD displays. They were among the first AdobeRGB displays with internal calibration available to consumers, together with NEC and LaCie I think? Except cheaper and in some areas better.

Some of their cameras were truly great. EX1 is still my favorite cam of all I've ever used and you can hear nothing but praise on their MILCs (at least as soon as the reviewer/commenter gets over their "fridge maker" association).

I'm not a fan of their smartphones as they are overly expensive and filled with bloatware, but then again I prefer to buy cheap unknown-brand Android phones. It is true however that it was Samsung that really got Android from the ground and helped it fight the Apple dominance.

I do agree though that it was a much more adorable company before. If nothing else, they had those nice cameras and LCD displays.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 21:59 UTC
In reply to:

Ergo607: Let's face it, what Samsung does best is saying how good it is (and rarely proving it...)

When OLED was clearly the new kid on the block in tv technology (and LG invested billions in OLED factory plants) they backed out for obscure reasons. Now that every manufacturer has an OLED tv (made with LG displays) all Samsung could come up with was take 2016 LED technology and name it QLED.

When they cooperated with Pentax they just copy-pasted Pentax technology. All Pentax got in return was a mediocre 14.6 MP CMOS sensor coming from an obscure company from Israel...

What does either of those have to do with anything?

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 00:37 UTC

Samsung made some amazing cameras. EX1 is still my favorite. The NX series had very noticeable Pentax heritage.

While it's a bit of a shame that every Samsung camera had some really strange design decision that got on my nerves, overall they were really well made and the designers were obviously thinking as photographers and not as engineers or salesmen.

I was really hoping Samsung is not gonna give up (or mess up) and will receive some recognition eventually. Sadly, everyone kept thinking of them as the fridge makers. It's a shame really because they were able to blow even the traditional camera makers out of the water with some design choices, not to mention the digital newcomers.

As a funny side note, out of the purely digital camera makers (e.g. Casio, Sony, Panasonic...), Samsung was the only one that actually has made some film cameras (Panasonic was selling some rebranded OEMs I believe).

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 00:35 UTC as 2nd comment

Okay but it doesn't mean anything. Obviously Nikon has to introduce another MILC at some point because they can't be doing just DSLRs forever.

I like DSLRs but MILCs have their advantages and it makes perfect sense to have both variants in one system, just like Canon does.

It's only a question when will Nikon come out with a MILC and what it's gonna be like. Or to put it more how I actually feel about it, whether enough people will still care when they do.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 00:05 UTC as 22nd comment

Well, people who think this case is really simple, riddle me this:

If I rented a camera from a store, then handed the camera to a person, and they handed it to another person, and they handed it to a monkey who would take a photo, who would own the copyright to the photo?

The store, because it's the owner of the equipment, me, because I legally rented it, or the last person who had the camera in their hands?

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 23:55 UTC as 82nd comment | 6 replies
On article Nikon D3: The camera that changed everything (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: Umm agreed that the D3 was a smash hit, but I wouldn't say Nikon was lagging in the enthusiast market at that time. Especially the D70 and D200 were ahead of the Canon competition (350D, 30D) and the (also enthusiast) Nikkor 18-70 and 18-200 lensed crushed anything what Canon had at the time, especially for the price.

Also, autofocus? Umm, can't really agree with that. Again the D2 and D200 had AF on par, if not better in some situations with the counterparts (D200 definitely had).

Plus, ironically, Nikon seemed to support DX better than Canon did with their crop system at the time. Canon APS-C cameras were pretty much considered as just an entry point to full frame. Canon users kept collecting FF lenses as an upgrade path, there wasn't even a decent basic affordable zoom.

Yea, Nikon of the 2000's is worth defending, unlike the Nikon of today.

Also I noticed the 1D III AF problem the first time I got that camera in my hands. Nobody believed me at the time, until it blew up later.

Sorry for the late reply as I wasn't around, but, to answer your question, well I might want something between 55 and 70mm, obviously.

Or some alternatives. Nikon had good and affordable 18-55, 18-70 and 18-200 lenses. It took Canon a long time to catch up.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 23:47 UTC
On article Nikon D3: The camera that changed everything (283 comments in total)

And DPR PLEAAASEEE can you stop with those notes under the article nonsense? Seriously HOW do you expect people to read them? Scroll down and then back up, trying to find both where the article ends and where we left off? FOUR times? Or to try to remember several super minor points in the article until we finish reading it so we get the context of those notes?

Come on! You write about usability and look what you're doing.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 01:57 UTC as 49th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon D3: The camera that changed everything (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

beavertown: Nikon 1: The cameras that ruined the company.

How exactly did N1 ruin them?

N1 was a symptom of the illness in post-2008 Nikon which is their utter ignorance of the customer's needs and trying to push and manipulate their users instead.

The idea behind N1 was okay (a small, fast MILC system). The way they eventually made it (overpriced, with poor lenses, no compatibility with DSLRs and retarded control schemes) was utterly idiotic, but again it was a symptom of what Nikon has become, just as their software, their push towards FX, QA issues etc. etc.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 01:34 UTC
On article Nikon D3: The camera that changed everything (283 comments in total)

Umm agreed that the D3 was a smash hit, but I wouldn't say Nikon was lagging in the enthusiast market at that time. Especially the D70 and D200 were ahead of the Canon competition (350D, 30D) and the (also enthusiast) Nikkor 18-70 and 18-200 lensed crushed anything what Canon had at the time, especially for the price.

Also, autofocus? Umm, can't really agree with that. Again the D2 and D200 had AF on par, if not better in some situations with the counterparts (D200 definitely had).

Plus, ironically, Nikon seemed to support DX better than Canon did with their crop system at the time. Canon APS-C cameras were pretty much considered as just an entry point to full frame. Canon users kept collecting FF lenses as an upgrade path, there wasn't even a decent basic affordable zoom.

Yea, Nikon of the 2000's is worth defending, unlike the Nikon of today.

Also I noticed the 1D III AF problem the first time I got that camera in my hands. Nobody believed me at the time, until it blew up later.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 01:27 UTC as 50th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Arca45Swiss: I just can't see the point. You already got a Nikon full frame D810 and a Canon m 5Dsr for those lenses this is a kludge

Apparently some of those lenses can cover a larger image circle than the FF so they can be even useful on the MF imager.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 14:20 UTC
On article Looking back: Canon's eye-controlled focus (208 comments in total)

Heh. I never had a chance to use it but indeed I've heard wildly opposing views. Some say it was useless, some desperately cling to the memory and want it back. That said I don't know anyone who stuck with film for longer just in order to keep using this tech, so it probably wasn't as groundbreaking.

BTW some video cameras at the time (the tape ones, VHS-C and Hi8 or whatevs) had eye-controlled AF as well. I don't know if it was just Canon or other brands as well. I remember some people complaining that when shooting say, a family vacation on a beach, the camera would "inadvertently" focus on some bikini girl walking by.

It would be interesting to connect this technology with the modern-style AF systems, so one would be able to select a face or object just by looking at it and have the camera figure out the exact point to use. Then with tracking/AF-C it would be selectable how long would the camera hold the object while the photog looks around etc.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2017 at 10:10 UTC as 135th comment
In reply to:

mattmillus: These photos are amazing! If you don't mind me asking, which specific filters did you find yourself using most often in Iceland? Your timing could not be better - I am about to buy this lens for my trip to Iceland next weekend. They are expensive so I will only be buying one ND plus one GND, not the full line. Should I go for 3 or 6 for the ND? For the GND was a hard or a soft grad more useful?

Sorry, I can't help with the filters and didn't mean to sound condescending. I hope you enjoy it.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 18:11 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: Thanks! It's always great to read how equipment can actually help discover new things photography - especially with lenses!

We keep hearing how a slightly better AF system or some new camera menu control scheme can make things a little easier or get a few more keepers out of a dozen-image burst. Which, of course, is fine. Cameras and technology are important. But it's really the lenses which are the most important parts of the equipment.

Sure you do, but camera bodies and the often minutiae differences between models definitely get more space on DPR compared to the massive improvements a lens can make to photography.

So I'm just saying I'm glad to see a lens article, that's all.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 13:59 UTC
In reply to:

mattmillus: These photos are amazing! If you don't mind me asking, which specific filters did you find yourself using most often in Iceland? Your timing could not be better - I am about to buy this lens for my trip to Iceland next weekend. They are expensive so I will only be buying one ND plus one GND, not the full line. Should I go for 3 or 6 for the ND? For the GND was a hard or a soft grad more useful?

Shouldn't you be buying a lens more in advance of a trip? To get a better hang of it and all.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 03:27 UTC

Thanks! It's always great to read how equipment can actually help discover new things photography - especially with lenses!

We keep hearing how a slightly better AF system or some new camera menu control scheme can make things a little easier or get a few more keepers out of a dozen-image burst. Which, of course, is fine. Cameras and technology are important. But it's really the lenses which are the most important parts of the equipment.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 03:26 UTC as 51st comment | 2 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta DiMAGE X (134 comments in total)

Wow, this was considered 'soft' in 2002. Most smartphones don't go anywhere near this IQ even when downscaled to 2 Mpx. Look at the Union Jack; that pattern coming from a smartphone always ends up as some overprocessed mush.

Not to mention the contrast and clarity which can only come from an actual camera lens and not a tiny droplet of plastic.

These old throwbacks always fascinate me in this regard.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2017 at 10:42 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies
On article Sphere of frustration: Nikon KeyMission 360 review (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

Quantum Scientist: Mission Impossible.

Plus, VR headsets will probably go the way of 3D TV, in the recycle trash pit of failed technology.

Why? 3D headsets are a useful accessory for many purposes. Admittedly silly video clips aren't exactly one of them.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2017 at 04:23 UTC
On article Sphere of frustration: Nikon KeyMission 360 review (202 comments in total)

Epic review of an epic fail of a product.

2.5 stars seem way too generous. Imagine a DSLR that would fail to capture photos half the time, its shutter button could not be disabled etc. etc. It's just retarded. The first Kodak camera had more usability then this.

Seriously how can Nikon be failing so spectacularly in anything but the higher-end DSLRs?

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2017 at 04:22 UTC as 30th comment
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (503 comments in total)

I have to wonder if the A9 really ends up being such a big deal or it kind of fizzles out.

Minolta also used to have top-notch pro sports cameras, in fact even better cameras than the equivalent Canons and Nikons in many respects,but still didn't get any traction. Because with a pro tool with a price like that, it's just too risky an endeavor to experiment with something else than the established systems.

The advantages of the MF MILCs are pretty clear and the amount of units sold in the MF world are pretty tiny anyway, so there's a new camera and boom, suddenly it has half the market share. The A7 also have advantages if that's what you're looking for. With a pro sports camera, I don't see that as clearly.

I mean it's technically impressive but there have been lots of cameras that had amazing specs or ergonomics (again, Minolta) and nobody bought them.

I'm not against this camera at all, competition is good, just wondering how big of a splash it really ends up making at the end.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 13:37 UTC as 115th comment | 1 reply

I can only say: lolwut?

(And yes I'm a Nikon 1 user.)

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 00:07 UTC as 24th comment
Total: 770, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »