mick232

Joined on Oct 23, 2011

Comments

Total: 484, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

In my company, the marketing department runs ad campaigns. The actual product is defined by product managers who are part of engineering.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2017 at 15:51 UTC as 113th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

TN Args: The DPR article and Dell website are equally shy about mentioning its screen resolution...

They do mention it: QHD

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: Nikon never recovered from the "earthquake". Sony's news is about its dominance in sensor not about their camera.

Sony lost in cellphone war ... portable music player ... stereos ... computers ... purchase of Nokia and so many lamentable business decisions.

Sony leaves markets when the products are no longer sophisticated enough to require a big player but can be designed by basically anyone. That is true for all of your examples.

But pro cameras, gaming consoles, image sensors etc. won't be designed overnight by a newcomer.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 19:53 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: So a guy found a roll of film from 1965 inside an old camera and it's an internet sensation.

This appears to be taking advantage of some recent finds of very old film. But in this case only the camera is old. What does the 1929 date in the story headline have to do with the photos?

I found an SD card in an 1870s cupboard. Should I share the images?

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2017 at 17:57 UTC
In reply to:

Advent1sam: Is this for real, how about GH5 or a7s ii against the red epic?

Sony A7Rii vs Red Epic W

https://youtu.be/w8C39nPyWO8

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 19:27 UTC
In reply to:

Sunshine7913: If Canon and Nikon manufacture their own curved sensor, then Sony mirrorless system will be in big danger cause curved sensor allow them to make much smaller lens but much better optical quality. Look at 400mm F2.8 for Medium format. That's really impossible unless they make it really huge. It is similar to 300mm F1.4 in 35mm but it used only 5 elements! in 35mm FF, it will be much smaller like pancake lenses or a little bit bigger. If you ever complained about small mirrorless camera body with huge lens, then the curved sensor is for you. So far, Sony still developing curved sensor since several years back but we'll see. Zoom lenses might be very challenging tho...

Who knows, maybe the problem is that Canon couldn't get their sensors flat enough and will now coincidentally have an advantage as their sensors always have been twisted?

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

George Landis: My serial number was one of them so I boxed it up this morning and got it dropped off for UPS to send it to the repair center in Los Angeles. I hope they are quick with the fix as I need it for a Las Vegas trip in 3 weeks. The only problem I ever had was one that nobody else seems too. In single shot mode it will occasionally fire off two shots instead of one. Other than that I think the camera has been great but I couldn't pass up getting a new shutter for free and supposedly better than the one that was in it. My body was also made in Thailand like the photo above.

Not sure it's a good idea to send it in right after the recall was announced. So will thousands of others, and the repair center will have to queue them for repair.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 07:44 UTC

Only Nikon has it - the global shutter (recall)!

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 22:23 UTC as 45th comment
On article SainSonic launches 50mm F1.1 lens for APS-C cameras (248 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Looks perfectly reasonable. So, let's hope this helps bring prices on classic old f/1.2 50-58mm lenses back down to earth.... For example, the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 is a truly outstanding lens, but it's often at $500 or more, while I think it's real value is more like $300-$350 (which I paid for mine).

Paid EUR 17 for a Rokkor 58/1.2 at flea market about 5 years ago, and that included the camera it was mounted on.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

J A C S: You forgot to add "II" to the shooting experience link (the yellow box).

Not a mistake. There is so little innovation that the shooting experience is basically unchanged.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 10:33 UTC
In reply to:

Ernest M Aquilio: For every "no 4k" rant, rampage, or rebuttal... the horse is dead. Leave it please. Focus on what Canon has done to improve this line and embrace the great options we do have for 4k

DSLRs won't see as much innovation as mirror less, that is a given as the underlying technology limits the possibilities. But there are areas where innovation is achievable, such as 4k. If that doesn't happen, the frustration is amplified.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 10:29 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I see the viewfinder coverage as been increased from 97% to 98%.

Would it have killed them to bump it up the extra 2% to 100%? Is it a contractual obligation that a 100% finder is reserved for the 5D series?

The remaining 2% are costly to achieve for otical viewfinders. Not in this price class. It is an understandable decision, but pressure is increasing as EVFs give you 100% easily.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 10:26 UTC
In reply to:

pdxtrojan: Cool phenomenon, but that's a rather poorly balanced and composed image.

Tell that to the moon and venus.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 16:44 UTC
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

beavertown: Will the 89% score be modified soon?

This was answered by DPR already, scroll down. The score won't change.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 10:02 UTC
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

walker2000: I thought mirrorless camera did not have AF problems for still. I'm curious why?

The AF may be able to determine the exact point of focus, but that doesn't mean that the lens can navigate to that point with the same level of accuracy or reliability. So, much of the chain is eliminated, but not all of it.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 20:59 UTC
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

oldfashioned: not to worry: nobody looks at pics at 100%. What I'm kinda suspecting is that the 100% rule only applies to this particular camera. But it's absolutely true that a photo taken by Marino Parisotto will look spectacular at any pixel count (he shoots on film btw) , and a 300 2.8 shot of the 4mp 1D mark I of a baseball player at night looks breathtaking and iphones look amazing on those little screens and the only reason why pro sport photographers insist on using 400 2.8 on FF instead of iphones is because iphones don't have 400 2.8 lenses. So it all comes down to reality, when it fits the needs of the moment?

If nobody looks at pictures at 100%, then why are people willing to pay big money for high megapixel sensors or lenses that are three times as much for a bit more resolution?

In reality, people crop images, print large, or simply spot a lack of resolution even at less than 100%. So it does matter. Not all the time, but often enough.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 20:54 UTC
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)

Wouldn't that correction justify an increase of the overall score in the review by 1 point? Or does the sharpness not have any influence on the score at all?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 18:22 UTC as 89th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Nice little project/demo. Foolish me, I would have moved the film plane to focus... the electrowetting is so much cuter. ;-)

It's obviously a demo of what is possible, not of what is easiest. Otherwise they could have just used a stock camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 00:13 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: I once brought a water lens with me on a trip, but I got so thirsty that I drank it before I got to that scenic overlook.

Why didn't you wait a bit longer and reclaim the water?

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

dennis tennis: water lens is too heavy to use on mirrorless.

You don't have to use heavy water, also because it's radioactive. Just take tap water.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 21:15 UTC
Total: 484, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »