Timmbits

Timmbits

Lives in Canada Montreal, Canada
Works as a inventor
Joined on Oct 8, 2011
About me:

Deutscher, living in Montreal Canada.
Cycling, chess, design, inventions, nature, photography, are some of the things I like.

Comments

Total: 1600, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Gabriele Sartori: Who would buy this when a great Nokton 25mm F/0.95 is available?

I presume that it is about size and price (Nocton is twice the price).

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 03:13 UTC

I think you could probably halve the shutter speed and halve the ISO, to get much cleaner pictures.
A while ago, there were some pictures shown on DPR, and I remember an airplane shot at 1/500, and you could see it's propeller blades immobilized.
So if it can stop a plane propeller, I am pretty sure that you don't need that fast for soccer.

Anyways, thank you @DPR, for this. it is very helpful. I will stop yearning for a rx10, just get a longer lens for my nx20 and buy maybe an rx100 or lx100 or something of the sort as a pocketable. for me, these limitations are not worth getting the rx10.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 02:52 UTC as 9th comment

it is all very cute, having 4k on a small screen (and I wonder what the purpose of that would be)... but that aside, I am curious, is this phone water-resistant like one of their previous models? that is the real feature for me...
I've lost a phone to water while wading in water to supervise my young daughter while she was playing in it (and forgot I had it in my pocket and jumped in), another when I had to jump in to rescue a dog that was getting carried away by the current, and twice in a kayak, despite once putting it into 3 ziplock bags to make sure that if one opened, there were still more to protect it, and the last in a special case/bag with dual ziplocks but that cracked at the seam. Between that, and people dropping their phone into the toilet, into a pool, etc, waterproofing is really a very valuable feature for me.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 02:38 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

the Mtn Man: Who cares? The dot pitch is so small at that size that you've passed the point of diminishing returns a LONG time ago.

As for claiming two-days of battery life, haven't we learned by now that manufacturers always exaggerate battery life? It's usually something like "Results are based on an average of 30-minutes a day reading text files with the backlight at its lowest setting with the phone in airplane mode".

if they quote 2 days, and you get half that, that would be pretty good!

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 02:33 UTC
In reply to:

Zalllon: Instead focusing on something that can't be valued, they should focus on their overheating issue. This is why they are nowhere in the % of new handsets sold.

that... or the price maybe?

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 02:32 UTC
On article Super Raw? DxO ONE added to studio test scene (165 comments in total)

It seems that this has a 32mm equivalent lens, but
what is the actual focal length of the lens?
(not equivalent, but actual)

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 02:30 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Ian M.B.: Why bother even producing a camera that delivers prints so small. . I used to own an SX70, why can't Polaroid design a similar size camera, that can retain all the digital files as well as print your favourites, but not tiny 2"x 3" say 3"x 4". . if they were a decent size, (even the SX70 prints were 77mm x 79mm) people would use them at weddings and family occasions at will. . .

who was the SX70 made by? did it use special film or was it a color printer inside?

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 02:25 UTC
In reply to:

Ian M.B.: Why bother even producing a camera that delivers prints so small. . I used to own an SX70, why can't Polaroid design a similar size camera, that can retain all the digital files as well as print your favourites, but not tiny 2"x 3" say 3"x 4". . if they were a decent size, (even the SX70 prints were 77mm x 79mm) people would use them at weddings and family occasions at will. . .

Polaroid went bankrupt.
the Polaroid name was picked up by a chinese manufacturer, and has nothing to do with the original company.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 02:24 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

jennajenna: TG4 STILL has condensation problem of fogging up when you go into the water from a beach. I owned the tg2 AND tg3; stupidly thinking olympus would fix it. Looks like the tg4 still has that fogging condensation issue. Why is it so hard to fix?

@grafguy: it's not about the seals, it's about air being present already, and if you put it into a very cold environment, that air might give you condensation. it might also depend on whether they were assembled in winter or in humid season.
that is why I said, if you open it, wait for osmosis to do it's work, it should be possible to dry it out.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 02:04 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review (867 comments in total)
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: I would like to see FUJI make a rival to this one.

Sony often forgets how users "feel," but Fuji is doing pretty good there.

When you say the Sony is heavy-handed in its processing -- is it able to be reduced through the software (to a degree whereby its not really heavy handed)?

@Sony, are you listening?

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 02:00 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review (867 comments in total)
In reply to:

okashira1: DPREVIEW,

How about a high ISO video still comparison?
ISO 3200 on the RX100 II vs III ??

Your video still comparison doesn't even list ISO!

imaging-resource publishes those at various ISOs

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 02:00 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1579 comments in total)
In reply to:

wallpaper_guy: WARNING: NOT all SDXC UHS U3 class10 cards are suitable for 100 MBit!

When purchasing my rx100 IV 2 days ago i bought a "Sandisk Extreme SDXC UHS I U3 class 10 64GB" card (from an official Sandisk brick & mortar dealer), which SHOULD have been fine for all recording formats / bitrates - as per the article here - and ALSO according to the manual...

BUT: it is NOT accepted by the camera for the 100 MBit codecs/formats - it just goes up to 60 Mbit

so beware - CONTRARY to what is being communicated apparently NOT ALL SDXC UHS U3 class 10 cards are OK for 100 MBit - which also includes well reknown brands!

Bought a "SanDisk Extreme Pro 64GB SDXC U3 class10" card today which works fine, but not happy about the misinformation.

indeed, there are 8Mbits in 1MBit per second.
the standard has it's origins from serial communications, and everything was measured in Mb/s. at some point, however, some ISPs' salespeople and marketing started quoting things in MB/s, not knowing there is actually a difference.
So it is hard to tell, if they really mean MB, or if it's an accidentally on purpose typo on their packaging.
Best test the speed of your cards, and double-check the specs of card and camera's requirements.
PS: usually the write speeds are much less than the read speeds, and very often, they quote the read speed on the packaging.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 01:53 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1579 comments in total)
In reply to:

wallpaper_guy: WARNING: NOT all SDXC UHS U3 class10 cards are suitable for 100 MBit!

When purchasing my rx100 IV 2 days ago i bought a "Sandisk Extreme SDXC UHS I U3 class 10 64GB" card (from an official Sandisk brick & mortar dealer), which SHOULD have been fine for all recording formats / bitrates - as per the article here - and ALSO according to the manual...

BUT: it is NOT accepted by the camera for the 100 MBit codecs/formats - it just goes up to 60 Mbit

so beware - CONTRARY to what is being communicated apparently NOT ALL SDXC UHS U3 class 10 cards are OK for 100 MBit - which also includes well reknown brands!

Bought a "SanDisk Extreme Pro 64GB SDXC U3 class10" card today which works fine, but not happy about the misinformation.

ps: I'm guessing here... when you said class10... but you also said u3. perhaps download a free utility to test the card's actual read/write speeds. good way to detect fakes, or just defective cards.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2015 at 00:20 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1579 comments in total)
In reply to:

PDNM: Two failures so far with the RX100M4. The first camera had metering problems - left to its own devices it overexposed everything by around 2 -3 stops. The second completely died after one week - will not power on. Waiting for another replacement. I hope this is just bad luck.

Has anyone else seen or heard of either of these issues?

where is it made, in China?

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2015 at 00:04 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1579 comments in total)
In reply to:

wallpaper_guy: WARNING: NOT all SDXC UHS U3 class10 cards are suitable for 100 MBit!

When purchasing my rx100 IV 2 days ago i bought a "Sandisk Extreme SDXC UHS I U3 class 10 64GB" card (from an official Sandisk brick & mortar dealer), which SHOULD have been fine for all recording formats / bitrates - as per the article here - and ALSO according to the manual...

BUT: it is NOT accepted by the camera for the 100 MBit codecs/formats - it just goes up to 60 Mbit

so beware - CONTRARY to what is being communicated apparently NOT ALL SDXC UHS U3 class 10 cards are OK for 100 MBit - which also includes well reknown brands!

Bought a "SanDisk Extreme Pro 64GB SDXC U3 class10" card today which works fine, but not happy about the misinformation.

no matter what fancy marketing terms they tag onto it,
a CLASS-10 card is a Class-10 card.

you also have to pay attention to read versus write speeds.
many manufacturers quote in big bold lettering the read speed, which is always much faster. what you need to be concerned with is the WRITE speed.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 23:59 UTC

Lower res and larger pixels...
now there's a concept! ;)

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 23:50 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Timmbits: Is this manufacturer out of touch with reality?
This is 2015 after all. Not 1995, not 2005, but really 2015!

I just don't know what question to ask:

Why are we here talking about, reading about 1/2" sensor cameras?
Why is a Walmart camera being featured here?
Why do they even make this camera with a 1/2" sensor?

Why are you all so enthused about tiny-sensor cameras, still, in 2015, when we know better? If they were so good, they wouldn't have lost half their marketshare to smartphones. 1/2" sensor cameras aren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore, and for good reason.

DPR is a serious website, about photography and great cameras and gear.
Maybe there needs to be something front and center, to better educate teh neophytes, so as to put pressure and better influence manufacturers. Pushing for better quality from the bottom up, instead of just accepting this outdated configuration pushed top down.

I do not believe you. you wouldn't write such masses of insults and provocations if you were not a troll yourself and knew what you were talking about. you don't get to silence everyone just because you bought this model.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 23:39 UTC
Total: 1600, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »