abluesky

abluesky

Lives in between heaven and earth
Joined on Feb 23, 2012

Comments

Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

I have an iPhone 6 plus and just experienced the black screen preview issue about one hour ago.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 17:52 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

abluesky: Wait a year - Apple will (reportedly) drop the price, upgrade the processor, and increase the ram.

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-will-drop-price-of-new-macbook-next-year-increase-ram-limit-32gb-2016-11

A very reasonable response, Mr. Hansen.

To the point: for those who don't want to purchase a non-Apple alternative, who complain about the price, adapter up-sell, and lack of memory, waiting a year may be the more prudent option, especially in light of the modest performance boost.

Unless the new MBP creates an immediate and irreplaceable need - which it seems for most that it does not - then the only thing for most people to lose is money.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2016 at 11:35 UTC

Wait a year - Apple will (reportedly) drop the price, upgrade the processor, and increase the ram.

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-will-drop-price-of-new-macbook-next-year-increase-ram-limit-32gb-2016-11

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 16:51 UTC as 126th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

PPierre: Nice move from Apple, but this clearly indicates there's something wrong with Apple right now. Would never have seen this some years ago. Customer-orientation was the key to success, me thinks.

Agreed - Apple has lost touch.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 08:36 UTC
In reply to:

abluesky: I don't agree:

1) the port and card are not cumbersome because the card is thin, easily removable from the camera, and because it sticks out of the lapptop, easily removable as well. What he claims is cumbersome is actually convenient.

2) my camera does not have wifi. Purchasing a wifi ad card is much more expensive. I process my raw images and wifi transfer is slow and cumbersome.

I still enjoy my 2011 MBP. It still functions well for everything I do.

I will be following the Surface line now.

That may be true - there are readers available.

However, that doesn't make sense in the context of Shiller's argument. Shimmer argues that the built in port is cumbersome because the card sticks out. An adapter sticks out more and requires that extra step of attachment.

And my counter argument is that the built in port is actually very convient. I simply eject the card from my camera - a Ricoh GR, very quick and easy to do - and pop it on the built in slot. No extra steps.

I am very used to attaching peripherals to my laptop. In addition to photography I enjoy making music on my laptop, which often requires attaching various devices like keyboards and control surfaces. I understand what's involved in using cables and attachments. The recent trend is to offer wireless connectivity and that has made my little home studio much neater and convient. So I understand the the benefit of using less adapters.

I also understand the argument of wireless connectivity. For applications that require limited bandwidth - like MIDI and control signals - it works great. For RAW file images it does not.

Personally, I never liked Shiller, so I am biased against his argument. But I still think my counter argument is more reasonable than his.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 14:24 UTC
In reply to:

DrSL: Is Phil Schiller still with Apple?
If yes, they have a problem...

I have never like him.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 08:50 UTC

I don't agree:

1) the port and card are not cumbersome because the card is thin, easily removable from the camera, and because it sticks out of the lapptop, easily removable as well. What he claims is cumbersome is actually convenient.

2) my camera does not have wifi. Purchasing a wifi ad card is much more expensive. I process my raw images and wifi transfer is slow and cumbersome.

I still enjoy my 2011 MBP. It still functions well for everything I do.

I will be following the Surface line now.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 08:48 UTC as 207th comment | 5 replies

I can't wait to use this lens with the catch in focus feature of the Pentax K1.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2016 at 18:27 UTC as 46th comment | 2 replies
On article CP+ 2016: Pentax K-1 past and present (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

T3: That rear LCD articulation looks fantastic. Very innovative. I love it when companies are willing to try something new, and to break from the stodgy, conservative status quo.

Who said anything about lying on ones belly?

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2016 at 01:41 UTC
On article CP+ 2016: Pentax K-1 past and present (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

Earthrise: The true colour sensor shift mode Iooks very very interesting. Anyone know if the print on the wall of the models in a studio (I think) shown when the mode is mentioned is taken this way? Just trying to work how broad a range of shutter speeds this can be used at.

Beyond still life applications, creative use of pixel shift seems promising. I used to use an app on my phone which allows me to creative a very high resolution photo from an HD video of a scene. Static objects are rendered very sharp, and moving objects with a unique ghosting, somewhat but not quite equivalent to long shutter speeds using traditional cameras. Earth rise, I'm a big fan of your work, and I think you'll be particularly apt to take advantage of unorthodox yet creative uses of pixel shift.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 18:18 UTC
On article CP+ 2016: Pentax K-1 past and present (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

T3: That rear LCD articulation looks fantastic. Very innovative. I love it when companies are willing to try something new, and to break from the stodgy, conservative status quo.

I'm always trying to find innovative angles to my photos, and the fixed LCD on my cameras limits that ability. A multihinge screen like the K1 will allow me to be more creative with my photography. Anything that allows me to be not crerivr and have moe creative opportunities is useful and has lots of utility in my opinion.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

Seahbc: Maybe the 85mm will morph into a Pentax DFA 85. :p

Ok guys. Enjoy your lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

Seahbc: Maybe the 85mm will morph into a Pentax DFA 85. :p

The FA 77ltd is not a modern optical design, with severe purple fringing and as a appearing on my copy. I found it infuriatingly soft wide open, to the point that others thought the photo was out of focus. On the 16mp sensor. Can't imagine how much worse it will appear on the k-1.

Pentax needs modern lenses for high resolution sensor, especially with pixel shift.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 12:37 UTC
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (609 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Almost everyone unfamiliar with the Pentax lens line up severely underestimates the amount of available FF lenses.

Of course, first there are the new zooms, covering 15mm-450mm. But the list continues:

There are not only some "D-FA" lenses (like the 100mm macro) that carry a "FF compatible" designation, but also (around seven) "DA" lenses that have been sold as APS-C lenses but produce an FF image circle. The DA* 55/1.4 is just one example.

Then there are of course the three Ltd lenses (31/1.8, 43/1.9, 77/1.8) which, despite being initially developed for film, easily outresolve 36MP. These are available new, and if one extends one's search to the used market then there are a multitude of gems available, all AF capable, supporting metering and 36MP compatible.

That's not even counting third-party glass, e.g., from Sigma.

It is just not true that the lens selection is meagre. That argument only applies if one restricts oneself to silent focus lenses with a built-in motor.

The CA and pruple fringing on the FA 77lts was absolutely horrendous on the copy I evaluated on a K-01.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 16:41 UTC
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (609 comments in total)
In reply to:

WordsOfFarewell: I am very curious to see the third party support for the system actually. That's going to be I think the deciding factor for me whether to switch back from Nikon to Pentax or not.

I agree, although my context is intitial FF purchase and system investment. Lens selection is actually going to be the deciding factor, and in willing to give t sometime. I'm not a fan of D750 and can't rationalize a D810 expense by without good lenses (particularly Sigma or new Pentax primes), I can't ratinize a K-1 either.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 16:28 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (391 comments in total)
In reply to:

abluesky: I loved my Dad's XA when I was a kid. I learned photography on that, and took some of the best photos of my life, before I knew a thin about the theory of what I was doing. One thing I played around with was firing the shutter just before attaching the flash unit for some neat effects.

I also loved the mju. To me it was a spiritual successor to the XA.

A DIGITAL XA. Make it as small as the original, with built in finder, same clamshell design. Go nuts on the lens and exquisitely match it to the sensor. Find a way to as IBIS. I can dream.

Until then, I'm not spending the cash on an interchangeable lens camera without a FF sensor. I shoot with a Ricoh GR, and am wrapping up one year just exclusively shooting with it. I also have a Pentax K-01. If I have to carry something around other than a compact, I'm going for the low light, high ISO IQ, no matter how pretty. And the Pen-F, like the X100, is indeed a pretty camera, even if they both border phony nostalgia. But what do I really know - I thought the K-01 looks amazing cool (lack of finder, heavy weight, large size, and poor haptic skilled it for me).

The logic is simple if you view the article as being something more than m43 article and rather about beautiful Olympus cameras throughout history and how the Pen F fits within that legacy as well as on the modern retro nostalgia first generated by the Fuji X100. That actually seems to me to be a more logical reading of the article, since the article doesn't really discuss the virtues of m43 at all. To me, it's not a m43 article - it's one fundamentally about camera and Olympus camera design. The article also made a point to mention how this form of the camera can be more important than the performance, using he X100 pre order history and subsequent AF performance as support for this claim.

I wrote my comment in response to these two aspects of the article. I loved my Olympus cameras and shared my opinion the XA and mju as well as my desire for a digital XA. I then shared my opinion which disagree which somewhat disagrees with the authors that the aesthetics of the camera can be more important than the performance. This is not an indictment against m43 per se, because they could make a m43 XA and I would totally buy one. This is more of me just sharing my opinion that high iso low light performance is important and more important to me than compact size which doesn't really fully fulfill the practical use of compact size.

Seems pretty logical to me if you read the article the way I did.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 05:48 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (391 comments in total)

I loved my Dad's XA when I was a kid. I learned photography on that, and took some of the best photos of my life, before I knew a thin about the theory of what I was doing. One thing I played around with was firing the shutter just before attaching the flash unit for some neat effects.

I also loved the mju. To me it was a spiritual successor to the XA.

A DIGITAL XA. Make it as small as the original, with built in finder, same clamshell design. Go nuts on the lens and exquisitely match it to the sensor. Find a way to as IBIS. I can dream.

Until then, I'm not spending the cash on an interchangeable lens camera without a FF sensor. I shoot with a Ricoh GR, and am wrapping up one year just exclusively shooting with it. I also have a Pentax K-01. If I have to carry something around other than a compact, I'm going for the low light, high ISO IQ, no matter how pretty. And the Pen-F, like the X100, is indeed a pretty camera, even if they both border phony nostalgia. But what do I really know - I thought the K-01 looks amazing cool (lack of finder, heavy weight, large size, and poor haptic skilled it for me).

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 19:28 UTC as 76th comment | 2 replies

I've been waiting to purchase a FF until the K1 and causally after its release because of one thing - lenses. I'm not interested in old lenses because I shot with the FA77ltd on a K-01 and was not impressed. I'm not really interested in zooms unless they are like the SIGMA 18-35 1.8 zoom - an equivalent to a range of fast primes. So, I will continue to wait until I see some lenses on the roadmap. For me, it's not an investment because I don't make money of of the expense. I need to be wise with my money. So I need a system with the right lenses. I prefer Ricoh - Pentax. But so far the lense lineup doesn't motivate me.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2016 at 12:23 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

maximme: well
just the first page of the link, ( showing the concentric ring )
the LX100 and X100T already beat GR2

do you guys see something different ?

Also, compare the green foliage in the upper right hand area. The Fuji shows quite a bit less detail than the GR, in both Raw and JPG.

However it seems to me that the GR is underexposed in this comparison.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 06:06 UTC
In reply to:

maximme: well
just the first page of the link, ( showing the concentric ring )
the LX100 and X100T already beat GR2

do you guys see something different ?

Yes - compare raw files.

I don't know what settings DPR used to compare jpgs, but the GR's engine is very customizable.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 06:02 UTC
Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »