Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 926, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On a photo in the Pixel 2 sample gallery sample gallery (1 comment in total)

The sky is blown out and the water is full of noise.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 13:26 UTC as 1st comment

An expensive and cumbersome device that doesn't solve either of the biggest two problems with cell phone cameras - lack of focal length range and stabilization that actually works.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 14:00 UTC as 21st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

joe6pack: I have been to places with little light pollution and a clear sky. I would go out on a limp and say that all those photos and videos are lies. Milky way isn't all that visible. The photos are result of long exposure that human eyes aren't capable of.

Yes, even if naked eyes, it is beautiful. I can make out where the milky way is but it is no where as clear as shown in those photos. See the milky way next to a light house? Get real!

My whole family was there, and all four of us saw it.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 15:32 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: I have been to places with little light pollution and a clear sky. I would go out on a limp and say that all those photos and videos are lies. Milky way isn't all that visible. The photos are result of long exposure that human eyes aren't capable of.

Yes, even if naked eyes, it is beautiful. I can make out where the milky way is but it is no where as clear as shown in those photos. See the milky way next to a light house? Get real!

HB1969 is correct. You can see the detail shown, but not the color due to how our dark-adapted eyesight works.

I'm amazed by the sensitivity of the eye. What I can see in a tenth of a second through an eyepiece takes a 15 second exposure at at least ISO 6,400 through the same scope.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 03:03 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: I have been to places with little light pollution and a clear sky. I would go out on a limp and say that all those photos and videos are lies. Milky way isn't all that visible. The photos are result of long exposure that human eyes aren't capable of.

Yes, even if naked eyes, it is beautiful. I can make out where the milky way is but it is no where as clear as shown in those photos. See the milky way next to a light house? Get real!

I have been to a truly dark place, where I could see my shadow on the ground by the light of Jupiter and the Milky Way was bright and all the wispy detail was immediately visible.

You have to be at a very dark place and have your eyes dark adapted for at least a half hour for that.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Oh, heck yeah!

We shouldn't just get away from light pollution, we should reduce it. Look to Flagstaff, AZ for a guide.

"Light pollution is a by product of civilization. "

So are air pollution and water pollution but using a little intelligence we can reduce them all by orders of magnitude.

Simply changing outdoor lights to what are called "full cutoff" lights (lights that don't wastefully send light up into the sky) reduces light pollution by about 90%. Reducing unneeded lights (i.e. with motion sensors) and reducing light levels where they don't need to be as bright (i.e. car lots with massive lighting all night long) can reduce it substantially more.

In fact, we can probably reduce light pollution by a factor of about 10-20 without changing our quality of life in the city at all, and save money doing it.

And light pollution most definitely has a harmful effect on human health.

http://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/human-health/

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 19:36 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Oh, heck yeah!

We shouldn't just get away from light pollution, we should reduce it. Look to Flagstaff, AZ for a guide.

"Light pollution can be easily avoided by just driving out of the city. "

Most people who say this have no idea what it takes - it takes getting at least 60-100 miles from the nearest significant source of light. From my house, the nearest dark place is a 2 hour drive each way, and I'm lucky. People on the coasts often have a 5-10 hour drive to a dark site.

And making the sky darker saves money by not wasting light illuminating the sky. And then there are the health effects (well documented) of living in a place that doesn't get dark at night.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 19:22 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Oh, heck yeah!

We shouldn't just get away from light pollution, we should reduce it. Look to Flagstaff, AZ for a guide.

"The whole idea of reducing light pollution in major cities is a joke. "

Then why does it already work in Flagstaff? Compare Flagstaff to, say, Pueblo CO (similar in size) and you'll find a HUGE difference.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 19:19 UTC

Oh, heck yeah!

We shouldn't just get away from light pollution, we should reduce it. Look to Flagstaff, AZ for a guide.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 16:50 UTC as 39th comment | 17 replies
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: $1,700 for a fixed-lens camera. That's about three times what I'd pay, no matter how good it is.

Maybe I'll get a used one off ebay in a year or two.

I'm not the king, nature is.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman

I'm just giving you the facts of physics. Some people just don't want to listen.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 13:57 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: $1,700 for a fixed-lens camera. That's about three times what I'd pay, no matter how good it is.

Maybe I'll get a used one off ebay in a year or two.

You two go read page 4 of "What is equivalence and why should I care?" That way you might not be ignorant anymore.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 02:34 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: $1,700 for a fixed-lens camera. That's about three times what I'd pay, no matter how good it is.

Maybe I'll get a used one off ebay in a year or two.

Howard you don't know what you're talking about. Light gathering is just about the lens. Total system performance has sensor efficiency in it but modern sensors of similar generations are all about the same so it's really just about light gathering by the lens. And light gathering goes just like I said it does. A 72/2.8 doesn't magically match the performance of a 400/2.8 just because you make the sensor behind it smaller. I can't believe I even have to say that.

Look, everything I said is true. DPReview even has an article confirming it. Look it up and educate yourself.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 01:08 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: $1,700 for a fixed-lens camera. That's about three times what I'd pay, no matter how good it is.

Maybe I'll get a used one off ebay in a year or two.

I'm getting sick of explaining equivalence to people after doing it a thousand times over the last 10+ years.

It is NOT a 600mm/4. It's a 220mm/4 (it says so on the front). Since the sensor is smaller than a 35mm sensor, that lens does the exact same thing for that smaller sensor as a 600mm/10.9 lens does for a 35mm sensor. They have the same angle of view, total light gathering, diffraction effects and every other important parameter.

Same with wide end - 8.8/2.4, not 24/2.4. Equivalent to a 24/6.5 on a full frame camera.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 00:25 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: $1,700 for a fixed-lens camera. That's about three times what I'd pay, no matter how good it is.

Maybe I'll get a used one off ebay in a year or two.

I'm specifically talking about both total light gathering and DOF. That's why I said "equivalent". Don't argue with me unless you like being wrong.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 23:46 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: $1,700 for a fixed-lens camera. That's about three times what I'd pay, no matter how good it is.

Maybe I'll get a used one off ebay in a year or two.

It's not 24-600/2.8-4. It's 24-600 equivalent f/7.6-f/10.8 equivalent. The Tamron 18-400/3.5-5.6 is say, 29-640 equivalent and f/5.6-f/9 equivalent (on Canon), and $650.

This is why I constantly argue against these deceptive manufacturers using equivalents for focal length but not for f/stop. It confuses most consumers. It started with, what was it, the FZ10, claiming something like 400mm and f/2.8?

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 21:53 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: $1,700 for a fixed-lens camera. That's about three times what I'd pay, no matter how good it is.

Maybe I'll get a used one off ebay in a year or two.

1" is smaller than an APS-c dSLR, but it's still a decent sized sensor, and you can both crop and print large, just under a narrower range of situations. For me the comparison to a dSLR ends when you need an f/2.8, f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens, or when you need either wider (I have two lenses than go wider than 24mm equivalent) or longer (I have two lenses that go longer than 600mm equivalent).

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 16:57 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: $1,700 for a fixed-lens camera. That's about three times what I'd pay, no matter how good it is.

Maybe I'll get a used one off ebay in a year or two.

Well, it can't replace my ILC because it isn't versatile enough. The focal length range isn't wide enough, the lens isn't fast enough, it doesn't have an optical viewfinder and the battery life is too short. So it's just a supplement for limited situations. I already have a hyperzoom for that, for which I payed $129. This one is better in most ways, but it's still just a supplement to be used in certain, relatively moderate situations. And that makes it worth about $400-$500 to me - more than my current hyperzoom, but no where near what it actually costs.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 14:09 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated (182 comments in total)

$1,700 for a fixed-lens camera. That's about three times what I'd pay, no matter how good it is.

Maybe I'll get a used one off ebay in a year or two.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 13:27 UTC as 42nd comment | 30 replies
On article 6 things we want to see in the Google Pixel 2 (79 comments in total)

Don't need two cameras, need three (or four) - 24, 50, 100mm equivalent (adding a 200 would be even better), all with optical stabilization that actually works. I'll be carrying a pocket camera in the same pocket as my Galaxy S5 until something comes along that can replace them both, and nothing on the market can, at present. So, no one will be getting any money from me for a new phone until that time.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 14:06 UTC as 33rd comment

Every single GoPro remains the wrong shape for me. I'm going to be moving them through the air at 100mph on a model airplane so a big rectangular box with all that frontal area is a non-starter. I need one shaped like a Mobius but with the ability to remotely trigger 12+MP still captures. I also need a narrow-angle option like 60 degrees instead of these 120-170 degree devices.

Still can't find exactly what I need so I still haven't bought anything.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 19:20 UTC as 31st comment | 6 replies
Total: 926, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »