Greenville

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 24, 2006

Comments

Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Lomography launches Simple Use Film Camera (50 comments in total)

I am at a complete loss on what is the market for a disposable camera in 2017. So many have a mobile phone with them, and even the low end phones will probably take a better picture than an disposable camera. I guess they know the market.

I also don't see the market for low income people - how are they going to buy on-line disposable cameras and then find a way to send film off to be processed. I would guess just for one camera and file processing and prints the cost would be close to $40. Not a cheap for low income people.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 17:32 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

jackspra: Must be able to listen to a president who thinks 'The Flintstones' is a documentary.

Sorry, everyone on both sides are eating too many coco puffs. Each side are a bunch of bickering children.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 23:12 UTC
In reply to:

faterikcartman: FujiFilm uber alles! But seriously, while I have wet darkroom equipment in boxes, including condenser and dichroic enlargers, my wife would kill me if I ever tried to go back to that. If the Hasselblad scanners were cheaper I might have made a play for developing negatives and printing inkjet. But as it stands it just looks like a fight I won't win and isn't worth the trouble.

I don't know about death - but I would leave photography completely if I had to do any darkroom work. I used film for over thirty years, nothing could get me to go back.

To each their own. I even know people who still use typewriters. If Analog is your thing then enjoy. Just don't try to convince those of us who used film for many years to try and go back.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 00:12 UTC
On article Archos to make Kodak-branded Android tablets (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Will they have 300dpi high dynamic range super amoled dispjays?

More like 640x480. As cheap as they can make them. Will probably sold in bargain bins of discount stores.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: Loved Kodachrome, will never use it again. Don't get me wrong, it would be cool if they succeeded. But it's pure foolishness most likely. Kodak's flunky management from before somehow infected the thinking of these new guys.

Kodachrome is very expensive to make, process and support. It's also difficult to pass environmental standards. So the volume will have to be significant to make it go. What about today's depressed photography market makes Kodak think there is enough volume to support something that couldn't survive in a boom cycle?

One had hoped the new Kodak would have a clue.

I agree with Stevo23, I don't see Kodak outsourcing this work to China. I don't see a lot of Analog film expertise in China. I did see a statement that they may have the work done in the UK. The economy of scale for this type of production is going to limit to a company that has the chemical manufacturing facilities in place. I do think non pros are going to have a sticker shock on the price of the film and the developing.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 05:31 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: Loved Kodachrome, will never use it again. Don't get me wrong, it would be cool if they succeeded. But it's pure foolishness most likely. Kodak's flunky management from before somehow infected the thinking of these new guys.

Kodachrome is very expensive to make, process and support. It's also difficult to pass environmental standards. So the volume will have to be significant to make it go. What about today's depressed photography market makes Kodak think there is enough volume to support something that couldn't survive in a boom cycle?

One had hoped the new Kodak would have a clue.

I see no prices, but my guess is the cost will be quite high. I shot a lot of Ektachrome and Kodachrome back in the day. I shot my last film at the 2002 Winter Olympics. I think it is great the Kodak is bringing back film for those who still want to shot Analog. I don't think the cost of these films are going to be cheap since Kodak said they are aimed at professionals.

Personally after 30 years of shooting thousands of analog images I don't have any interest in shooting film, but I think it is great that those who like it have an option.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 00:43 UTC
In reply to:

Lan: It costs a MiNT!

Yes, great name choice. I guess there is a market, but wow this is expensive.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 22:59 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosinaphile: i think they are all flimsy junk with a very nice lenses and an awesome 1 inch sensor , and really nice iq

i wish fuji would make one with proper controls and the spectacular build and mechanical robust zoom lens .... i love my x 30 , but if fuji would give me a corner evf that didn't pop up like a chincy flash like the x30 has a one inch sensor ,,,, id drop a
8-900 bucks in a heartbeat for that the x30 was 600 usd so a litllle more for a bigger sensor ?

im really troubled by the build quality of the sonys , they feel rfeally cheap like an 80 dollar point ans shoot, and also i would never subject myself to sony controls and menus as intuitive as a sony betamax

sadly i think fuji has lost its way a little bit

I have no idea what you are talking about. My MKIII is built like a tank. I have taken it around the world, out on rough hikes, amusement parks and I have never been gentle with the camera. I have had more expensive cameras that break on much less abuse.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 00:18 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beckler8: So many variants but all with, essentially, little to no telephoto capability. Why the hell don't they just make a slightly larger version with a proper zoom range? Something in-between rx100 and the pointless 30x zoom of their small-sensor models? Also as mentioned by others, non-ridiculous design would be nice too.

There are already options to meet your needs. Sony sells a lot of rx100s. I am sure for the same reason I bought one, it easily fits in your pants pocket. For family outings this is great. At Universal Studios I watched all the bigger camera guys having to get a locker to go on the rides. I just slipped my MKIII in my pocket. Yes, you give up things like reach, but it meets my need. If I need something with a longer range I can bring my mirrorless or one of my DSLRs.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 00:14 UTC
On article Spoilt for choice: which Sony RX100 is right for you? (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: Sony-sponsored content? It's hard to tell the difference between that, and DPRs regular content.

Not sure why, I liked the article. I am mostly a Canon person, but I bought a RX 100 III earlier this year and it has become my go to camera for all family and plane travel photography. I would have like this article last year. I personally spent a lot of time debating between the III and the IV. I came down on the III because I just don't need 4K video.

I choose the Sony because I wanted some thing that would easily fit in my Jeans pocket. I did not want another small sensor P&S. I like the Panasonic, but I already have a small mirrorless camera, but it is too big to fit in my pocket. The Panasonic was too big, if a camera is going to require a bag, then I might as well go a little bigger with a Fuji or a m43rds.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 00:10 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony RX100 Mark V real-world samples (275 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: The size of the camera is too small for my hands. Size matters. Bigger is better. No sale here.

Size does matter. The reason I bought a MKIII was the size
Great little camera and it easily fits in my jeans pocket. If I only had one camera this would not be the one. But for fun family outings and for business trips when I have some time for sightseeing the camera is perfect. The main reason I bought mine was for a family trip to Orlando. While others had to lock their cameras in lockers for a lot of rides, I just slipped mine in my pocket.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 07:35 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V (234 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alphoid: And I just wanted 135mm, a flash hotshoe, a microphone input, and maybe a touch screen. The size of an LX100 would be just fine, thank you.

I guess I'm waiting for the VI.

The main reason I bought RX 100 III was the size. If you want an LX100 size camera why not buy the LX100. For me the top requirement was size - some thing I could easily slip into my pocket. Once a camera can't easily fit into my jeans pocket the size really does not matter. I would move up to an A6500 range camera.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 05:07 UTC
On article Sony a7R II versus a7 II: Eight key differences (399 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nick932: Last week I wanted to go purchase an A7RII or possible the RX1R MKII. To my suprise, the Sony online store is CLOSED and seems that they have closed many retail stores. Either, camera has been hard to find in a store.

I just wonder how sound the SONY business is.

That would be a trick, Sony has a Market cap of 42 Billion and Canon cap has fluctuated between 36 and 40 Billion. So I don't think Sony with its debt will be buying Canon anytime soon.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 21:44 UTC
On article D500 owner formally accuses Nikon of false advertising (473 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: I believe the buyer is not right. It is like configuring an Audi and then issue a complaint because the Park Pilot cannot park your car (that's included in thd Park Pilot Plus, btw...).

I have no idea why someone can have such blind loyalty to a camera brand. Nikon's marketing of the D500 is at best poorly worded, but too many is deceiving. They say integrated wifi, they have other products that use the same language. I think a reasonable person would conclude that the D500 has built in wifi. No additional purchases required. If a WT-7 is required this should be noted at least by a * and footnote.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2016 at 18:43 UTC
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (454 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alec: Hasselblad A7RII, with a wooden grip. Actually the entire camera is made of wood, including the optics. Highly collectible.

Besides the general limited edition, serial #s 1 through 100 will be "exclusive premier select limited", made of the rarest wood species responsibly hand-picked and salvaged. Will come with a VHS tape of celebrities, brand ambassadors, company management and other qualified individuals sharing how holding the Hasselblad A7RII makes them feel completely differently from any other camera.

I think this has more of a ring of truth to it than just being funny. Do they even have any engineers still working for the company? If they do what have they been doing for the last 10 years.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2016 at 18:38 UTC
On article D500 owner formally accuses Nikon of false advertising (473 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: I believe the buyer is not right. It is like configuring an Audi and then issue a complaint because the Park Pilot cannot park your car (that's included in thd Park Pilot Plus, btw...).

The comparison only works if Audi said it worked in the Park Pilot. Nikon claimed in their marketing that the feature was in the D500.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 18:39 UTC
On article D500 owner formally accuses Nikon of false advertising (473 comments in total)
In reply to:

Blotty: He is absolutely justified and I wish there more like him. Advertising is generally based on selling sizzle, sometimes steak, with a mix of half-truths which are confusing.
The sad part here is that Nikon kit is up there with the best; in this case the engineers who make the equipment so good have been let down by marketing half-wits who have damaged the brand.

It may have been, but that does not excuse the marketing department in promoting the camera with false or at best misleading claims. Personally I would be equally upset.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 18:36 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras (502 comments in total)
In reply to:

jesus_freak: I'm still blown away by how much the RX100 IV costs. There are a lot of other options available for $950.

I really liked the LX100, but I bought the Sony MK3 instead because of the size. For my personal needs I want my small camera to easily fit in my pants pocket. Once a camera is past pocketable size it fits in another category for me, and I already have a relatively small mirrorless camera. I do like the Panny and if the size is right for you it is a great choice.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2016 at 16:33 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras (502 comments in total)
In reply to:

jesus_freak: I'm still blown away by how much the RX100 IV costs. There are a lot of other options available for $950.

I like a lot about the IV, but the cost does seem high. I really have no interest in 4K video for my needs. I choose the MK III earlier this year and really like the camera.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2016 at 14:16 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras (502 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Schroeder: I was seriously considering to finally buy my first compact since the 2004 Olympus C-70/7000Z, a Panasonic ZS100/TZ100, although at 700€ it would have cost a substantial amount of money, until all tests showed abominably bad image quality, including dpreview. At the same time their words talked about good image quality, even if it was described at "slightly soft" in some cases. It's not "slightly soft"; at 25mm (equiv.) it completely lacks sharpness and resolution at the edges, and at and above 50mm (equiv.) it severely lacks sharpness and resolution over the whole frame.

I then decided to buy and use an Olympus E-M10 with a Panasonic 14-140 II for that purpose (beside my E-M1 and the lenses I already had) – and the combination cost me substantially less than the ZS100/TZ100. If no manufacturer wants to make a 10x zoom pocketable camera with decent image quality, I don't want to have one.

A camera is only as useful as it is at hand. If you don't need a small camera that can fit in your pocket, then stepping up in size is a great choice. To me, having a great low light pocketable camera was very important. I bought the RX 100 III earlier this year and love the camera. So easy just to slip in my pocket. If I need some thing bigger I have other options that will work. For a light small camera I like my little Sony.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2016 at 14:13 UTC
Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »