nicoboston

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Feb 4, 2003

Comments

Total: 123, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Modern cameras, fast lenses and high speed imaging give really nice olympic images. A lot of nice images.
Heavily equipped photographers shoot continuously, take millions of images every day, and show us the most spectacular or fun ones.
Ultimately, sport will be "imaged" from multiple angles with high speed video cameras, and the best frames will make nice "pictures".
Nevertheless, as far as I'm concerned, the Games and most resulting images are more and more boring. Action cameras and smartphones can generate nice images. Now everything is possible, but the magic is gone. Most "technically perfect" images captured during the games will not even be archived. And the public will spend more time talking about crappy selfies of doped athletes.
Is the magic really gone? Or am I already an unimpressed old fart? ;-)

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 19:10 UTC as 11th comment

iPhone 9 will do that.
And cats will look amazing.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 13:52 UTC as 13th comment
On article Lensbaby Twist 60 real-world sample gallery (98 comments in total)

Nice gallery. The effect is kind of fun when the background is interesting. I'm not ready to give $300 for such a lens though.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 17:20 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

nicoboston: I got one of these toys for my daughter and it's just a waste of money.
IQ is pathetic, the camera drains batteries instantly, it is terribly slow (the shutter lag is so long that kids are very likely to take mostly pictures of their feet).
In addition, waterproofing is questionable (I saw condensation under the front glass after one day at the beach).
If you want to discourage you children to love photography, that's the tool you need.

@soundknight21
The Olympus TG-4 is indeed much better, but pricey, bulky and not designed for kids.
I had only one affordable, fun, waterproof and kidproof camera in the past: the Canon D10 ! But it failed after a few years. I have tried another Nikon (AW120) and sent it back rapidly... Although the experience is totally different, now kids have fun with a GoPro HERO Session in a big orange floaty... In 2016, i don't think that there is on the market a kid-friendly camera that captures better images that the crappiest smartphone.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 17:15 UTC
In reply to:

CheersUK: Im not going to knock this. Anything that introduces kids to photography is good by me.

You're right, but this piece of junk is probably the worst way to introduce kids to photography.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2016 at 18:39 UTC

I got one of these toys for my daughter and it's just a waste of money.
IQ is pathetic, the camera drains batteries instantly, it is terribly slow (the shutter lag is so long that kids are very likely to take mostly pictures of their feet).
In addition, waterproofing is questionable (I saw condensation under the front glass after one day at the beach).
If you want to discourage you children to love photography, that's the tool you need.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2016 at 18:38 UTC as 4th comment | 3 replies

My first digital camera was a Kodak DC3200...
https://www.dpreview.com/products/kodak/compacts/kodak_dc3200

My goal was just to "try"...
1 million pixels, CF card, affordable... A miracle !
I took hundreds of pictures with this toy and they are unforgettable memories. The camera is still functionnal. Despite the questionnable IQ (even by 2001 standards), the DC3200 convinced me that film cameras were doomed (for a non-photographer like me).
So one year later I got a Canon G2. I started really enjoying digital photography, and I discovered the pleasure of playing with raw files! I still take care of the Kodak though, I don't want my kids to play with it...

PS: "...Sam opening up some images in Adobe Bridge, going full-screen to see the image at 100% – and it actually shrank compared to the filmstrip view"
That's hilarious. Now I want to look at old files on my "5K" iMac!

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 15:23 UTC as 75th comment
On article Adobe Lightroom launches for Apple TV (23 comments in total)

"it's for viewing photos only"
:-)))
Too bad ! Processing images with the Siri Remote could be fun ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 16:30 UTC as 1st comment
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (295 comments in total)

"C'est en faisant n'importe quoi qu'on devient n'importe qui."
(It is in doing whatever that we can become whomever)
Rémi Gaillard

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 18:49 UTC as 52nd comment
On article Raw capture coming to iPhone in iOS 10? (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

DFPanno: For those with existing phones I reccomend PureShot. It will generate a "dRAW" file.
"The term “developed RAW”—dRAW—is used to describe a TIFF image that has had no in-app post-processing applied and, critically, no JPEG compression at any stage."

http://jag.gr/pureshot/

I have used this app for a while and tried to like it; I processed files with lightroom and other softwares.
The bottom line is "PureShot" has only one obvious effect: making pictures files more than 10 times bigger than original iPhone files.
PureWasteOfTime IMO.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: So where are some sample images from this marvel? At least one black and white image would be nice to see ... or is that too much to ask for?

They do not show onion cells in the original paper...
They show images of 1951 USAF resolution test chart formed by the metalens taken with a Cannon (yes, Cannon!!!) DSLR camera, different laser wavelengths. It almost looks like a review on DPR :-)))
It is a Science paper guys ;-)
Interesting technology !

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 21:22 UTC
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (331 comments in total)
In reply to:

Macist: DP should stop calling cameras without GPS capabilities "travel" cameras.

Travel cameras should be able to tag your photos with location data. Every major cloud storage site for photos shows location maps nowadays, so I expect to be able to use these with a "travel" camera.

If this is a "travel" camera, it's one for people who don't really travel far.

@Macist Travel cameras have become available long before the Geek Positioning System. You need to tag your pictures? Good for you. Most people don't. And Panasonic knows.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 21:21 UTC
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (331 comments in total)
In reply to:

Macist: DP should stop calling cameras without GPS capabilities "travel" cameras.

Travel cameras should be able to tag your photos with location data. Every major cloud storage site for photos shows location maps nowadays, so I expect to be able to use these with a "travel" camera.

If this is a "travel" camera, it's one for people who don't really travel far.

Ridiculous... Do you have dat documenting the percentage of photographers who actually use GPS functions? When it is available on a camera, I turn it off...

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 14:48 UTC
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (331 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike FL: Tilt LCD is very useful for high, low angle, and selfie. I do not know why Panasonic DMC-ZS100/TZ100 has NO Tilt LCD.

Poor usability. Oh this thing has no NFC too.

Poor usability???
And what about those who couldn't care less about "tilt LCD", selfies and NFC? The ZS100 is a serious travel camera, it was not designed for narcissistic gadget lovers. 100% usability, as far as I'm concerned...

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 14:42 UTC
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (331 comments in total)
In reply to:

afm: Gold Award!!

Totally deserved gold award for a unique (to date) TRAVEL camera!

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 16:17 UTC
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (331 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zenza R: Damn it, why not make the EVF right!

Th EVF will be right for most users. It is small but the quality is sufficient, as far as I'm concerned. More importantly, it is available instantly (unlike the nice but complicated rx100 pop-up EVF).

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 16:16 UTC
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (331 comments in total)
In reply to:

Baba Ganoush: I was seriously considering the TZ100 as a (near) pocketable replacement of my bulky Sony RX10, and had almost put in a pre-order for it, but after looking at the TZ photo gallery and doing a comparison using the studio scene, I am disappointed in the IQ of the TZ and glad I did not complete my order. The IQ of the TZ is inferior to that of both the RX10 and the RX100. Unless it turns out DPR got a poor copy of the camera to review, it's no sale for me. IMO, the TZ100 is a 1" sensor camera with a MFT camera price and 1/2.3" camera performance. Too bad. I was really hoping it would match the IQ of the RX10.

Good for you. I got this camera a week ago and it's fantastic. The "gold award" is fully deserved and the last sentence reflects exactly what I think: "Overall, though, the ZS100 is a top-notch travel zoom that's not to be missed."
It is NOT a camera for pixel peepers. It is a camera for those who like taking a lot of pictures, everywhere, without carrying un bulky camera.
Something else, I have the "silver" version" and it is absolutely not a dust and fingerprint magnet. I have very large hands and I can handle the camera very easily.
So far, it is exactly the travel camera I was looking for.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 16:31 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1140 comments in total)
In reply to:

M H S: I'm confused by the following (quoted from the review)

"Raw dynamic range cannot match the best from the competition, but in real-world shooting, as long as you pay careful attention to your exposure, you won't likely have any problems"

I've been hearing ad nauseum about how valuable massive DR is... Including last week's Lubzecki interview and editors' commentary, having that tulip photo trotted out endlessly, gushing words about the amazing high DR makers /models, etc...

Is there something I am missing here? Is it OK from a Leica but not from other brands?

@SmilerGrogan
May I respectfully disagree?
Their only obsession is to make us order new cameras and, possibly, the most expensive ones.
Despite the obvious fact that 2016 cameras do not necessarily make nicer cat / babies / old rusted cars images.
As matter of fact, most users will not make nicer images with a 2016 camera.
But DPR is owned by Amazon.
Therefore, we all need more pixels, marginally better DR etc.
The market is the connection to external reality ;-)

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 19:53 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1140 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicoboston: "...the Leica Q is an excellent camera for documenting the world around you."
Really?
I feel so sorry for all the cameras that fail to document the world around you guys!
Luckily I live in a different world though. And in my crazy world, 75-90% cheaper cameras can "document" very efficiently.

"the Q is a camera that lends itself well to being a frequent photographic companion"
OK. But seriously, we are in 2016. The Q is certainly a great "photographic companion", but I think it is just the minimum we can expect from such an expensive camera.
And your LONG list of "Cons", which includes very serious issues, makes the final statement very suspicious. A non-Leica camera with similar issues would have been slammed.
That said, I am not on this market anyway. I have been successfully documenting my world with cheap Japanese cameras ;-) and most of them were / are a joy to use.
The review is instructive: as far as I'm concerned, it shows very clearly that "more expensive" is not "better".

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 19:23 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1140 comments in total)
In reply to:

M H S: I'm confused by the following (quoted from the review)

"Raw dynamic range cannot match the best from the competition, but in real-world shooting, as long as you pay careful attention to your exposure, you won't likely have any problems"

I've been hearing ad nauseum about how valuable massive DR is... Including last week's Lubzecki interview and editors' commentary, having that tulip photo trotted out endlessly, gushing words about the amazing high DR makers /models, etc...

Is there something I am missing here? Is it OK from a Leica but not from other brands?

+1
- slippery...
- Dynamic range lacking...
- Noise 'banding'...
- Severe lack of customization options...
- Card write times are slow...
- Continuous autofocus can be unreliable...
- Autofocus modes are poorly organized and may not behave as you expect
- Touchscreen is poorly implemented...
- Video mode is uncompetitive...

Their words: slow, lacking, unreliable, poorly, uncompetitive...

But in the end, the pricey camera is "an excellent camera"!!!

There is also something I'm missing here ;-)

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 19:09 UTC
Total: 123, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »