Joined on Dec 15, 2009


Total: 208, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom (101 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artak Hambarian: Olympus, I am honestly waiting for C8080 modern incarnation:
- larger sensor - 1" or could be MFT
- in body stabilization
- could be ted bit larger with 24 - 240 mm lens is enough - no need in superzoom
- GPS and wifi.

Since when is a 10x optical zoom not a super zoom? What mad world are we living on? I wouldn't usually consider any zoom over 3x!

Plus when you turn it on, you need to be able to shoot at 35 or 50mm equivalent in a hurry, not 24mm, in my opinion. That was another problem of the c8080.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2017 at 09:32 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom (101 comments in total)

I had it, my first camera. Build quality was lovely and some really beautiful images...but it was ridiculously slow. I learned to hate the lever-based zoom, and raw file saving locked up the camera to the point of making it impossible. I wished I had bought the Konica Minota Dimage a200 instead, or perhaps even better, the Canon equivalents of Pro 1, or (later) G series. The Canon if I recall correctly may have been better at video also, and had a firmware upgrade to improve focus.

I had obsessed over image quality, poring over reviews. It was a purchase that taught me the importance of useability over absolute image quality. Still the look of that massive lens was to die for, and the Olympus colours were lovely.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2017 at 09:25 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

GiovanniB: Boring. Why not f1.8 or f2.0? The Sony FE 28 f2.0 remains more versatile and is small and light enough for me.

I kind of agree. This is the first lens that has got my attention for the Sony system. But I'm left wondering what is the point when a Canon or Nikon 35mm f2 potentially does a better job in almost the same size package. It does look a bit smaller though, and these days high iso means f2.8 is enough for practically any shot.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2017 at 08:53 UTC
In reply to:

Kwick1: I agree with the comment that this truly isn't Virtual Reality. Until a true Holodeck is developed, where all of your senses are used and it is truly immersive, we won't have VR. We just have 360 video, and crappy quality video at that.

Have you seen some of the Skyrim mods for PC; there are so-called 'screen archers' who play the game only to create art from screenshots at resolutions that can only be played at 5-10 frames per second on current hardware?
They can be incredible, and essentially photo realistic or to coin an old red dwarf phrase - 'better than life'. People can essentially create 3d models and faces that look like specific real people, famous or otherwise and have them interact in-game, and the objects and landscapes can likewise appear realistic. This is possible due to the huge number of hours people have put into creating and sharing high resolution textures.

I kind of agree with you about the holodeck thing, but you might be surprised just what kind of level of photo-realistic graphics and animations are viable with current or near-current technology. Not every house can fit a holodeck, but a VR headset that does something relatively similar -eyes and ears not touch - is achievable now /next year

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 19:49 UTC
In reply to:

coase: Since both VR and 3D make me dizzy and annoyed and I know I'm not alone in this, it will have to come a looonnngg way before I'll even try one again.

I dislike the term fanboy as it seems rather derogatory. You are free of course to ignore my comments, which I had hoped you would find interesting.

Certainly I do think some 3D is good, as do many others, as proven by cinema ticket sales. And yes, actually a good home theatre setup is typically a better experience than any of the cinemas I have been to, especially for audio. We seem to be in agreement that some people do not like 3D. As a matter of fact, I watched something at a children's theme park cinema the other day in 3D and hated it. It didn't help that the glasses were covered in chocolate from the previous user, but the image was dark and the glasses and picture combined to be low resolution, nothing at all like the 3D most of us see everyday with our eyes, and which can be replicated by a good 3D setup or VR.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

coase: Since both VR and 3D make me dizzy and annoyed and I know I'm not alone in this, it will have to come a looonnngg way before I'll even try one again.

The Epson works with Samsung 3D glasses, which probably means the active Samsung TVs were / are fine also now. The TV industry in particular seem particularly capable of this type of mess-up with their manufacturing business focus, and the type of competition in the sector.

I don't really have a solution for it, I only wish they had the good sense to keep the features they invest in for longer, so as to allow people's opinions to catch up with their iterative technological advances.

Then again, VR is a neater solution than 3D tv/projection in many ways, since the viewing angle is predefined by the headset itself rather than expecting the consumer to project the image /mount the TV low enough for a good on-axis presentation.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

coase: Since both VR and 3D make me dizzy and annoyed and I know I'm not alone in this, it will have to come a looonnngg way before I'll even try one again.

Bad experiences with first generation(s) of tech is the problem, with lots of companies chasing the same thing and doing it imperfectly.

It was the same with 3d as you say. I swore for years (over a decade) I would wait for a 4k 3D passive TV so as to avoid headaches etc. Finally LG released some OLEDs in 2015/2016 that could do this and they are apparently excellent for 3D. Unfortunately they were only available as OLEDs and several thousand pounds. This year, none of LG's or any other manufacturer has 3D built in, and although 3D blu rays are no longer ridiculously priced, the consumers (so it is thought) just don't care anymore.

This year I bought a 3D (and 2d obviously) projector, an expensive Epson tw9300, despite the fact it has active 3d technology rather than passive. i.e. could induce headaches. But Epson have increased the refresh rates on the glasses to something like 120/140hz so the result is a headache free, perfect 3D experience on a massive's amazing!

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 15:09 UTC

I guess the joke is too high brow given the predominantly confused, vitriolic comments. There's a sad irony.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 07:11 UTC as 72nd comment

One shouldn't ignore the many used lenses already in the market and in photographers bags. Canon L and high quality Nikon lenses still in use probably value billions of dollars/euros. The quality of many such lenses combined with slr or mirrorless body is likely good enough for most imaginable purposes. It is an obvious competitive advantage for Canon and Nikon especially to cater to the demand to use these legacy lenses with slr or mirrorless or whatever.

I don't see the problem personally.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 10:23 UTC as 203rd comment

I guess 2nd hand prices will drop by about 982+ euros plus bother reduced demand due to imperfect customer they'll still cost a gazillion euros then.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 09:45 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

Mal69: 100 million to 1 contrast ratio......translation....real world figures of between 1000:1 to 3000:1 contrast ratio.

Naturally. But this is a reasonably useful consumer signal in an imperfect market is it not? Competitors being how they are, each company must signal how their device compares, at least until legislation and enforcement occurs - which let's be honest is not the most important thing in the world right now and so unlikely to happen, not to mention it would arguably just increase prices...

My takeaway from this figure is that the contrast ratio is really really good for this type of technology. It also hints at higher brightness for HDR editing. That's all!

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 08:13 UTC
In reply to:

dccdp: What kind of news is this? These specifications look like those you can read on the packaging of a cheap chinese tablet. No panel type? 100 000 000:1 contrast? Really? This is either an OLED (in which case one has to ask why they don't brag about it), or it's that kind of "dynamic" contrast, i.e. fake. I have learned to be skeptical of such announcements, because usually when manufacturers leave out key info (and make up unsubstantiated numbers) it means their product is just a common and uninteresting piece of hardware.

Please, dpr, don't leave out the most important specs about a possibly useful device.

If you know all that then why get upset about it? Not all companies reveal the innards of their products, and stated contrast ratios have been consumer signals rather than absolutes for years.

A five second Google search shows other articles stating it is an LED of some sort - most wouldn't be interested in OLED anyway unless the price was the standout message. From my point of view this is an interesting monitor which could be a contender to replace my excellent but non-4K Dell u3014, or perhaps simply increase competition and reduce prices in the market.

Incidentally I like how the bezel seems to be free of logos.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 08:02 UTC
In reply to:

Tequila MockingjayBird: Where is the said photo?

The catchlights in the eyes seem more than just 'drew inspiration from'.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 19:00 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L (116 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: With the lens hood in place, all zoom [trombone] movement is inside the hood!
A truly remarkable design and such a joy to use.
Still a current stable.


Agreed. I vowed never to sell mine, the extra contrast and safety provided by the innovative lens hood is more valuable to me than extra resolution, which if needed is better in primes anyway. Since I prefer to use primes these days, the 24-70 is a great base lens; anything extra in the bag is a bonus.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 12:45 UTC
On article Manfrotto launches stylish Windsor Collection bags (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

Goodmeme: Looks like a Billingham bag - but ugly and inferior rather than classic and timeless.

Or we could just use plastic bags to stow away the cameras and lenses...

A camera bag potentially lasts a lifetime or more, so it is arguably smarter to buy something once that is built to last. If you can't / don't want to afford retail, then you can always do what I did and buy used.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 08:13 UTC
On article Dell's 8K monitor goes on sale in March for $5000 (217 comments in total)

What is the viewing distance suggested to be able to see the benefit over 4k? I have a 1600p 30" monitor, and 20/10 vision, and I'm not sure I'd benefit that much from a 4k 40" let alone an 8k 30".

Still, if it moves the industry on to the last resolution much the better.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 13:59 UTC as 33rd comment
On a photo in the Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III USM sample gallery (4 comments in total)


Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 07:06 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
On article Manfrotto launches stylish Windsor Collection bags (60 comments in total)

Looks like a Billingham bag - but ugly and inferior rather than classic and timeless.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 07:37 UTC as 3rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Charlie Jin: The camera faked the mother nature in the first place since it lacks the dymaic range. Later technlolgies try to compensate it. Especially when the image is completely blown out, there is no reason why we have to oppose. So, fake done by the camera is OK? And fixing the fake done by camera is not OK ?

While I agree with you in principle, both vision and sensors are subjective and compromised. That the rgb pixel references were 'there in some form or another' is arguably a false and weak starting point for attempting to attach objective rules to artwork and humanity's subjective, faulty memory systems. At its heart perhaps is the conflict between photography as memory replacement, memory confirmation, artistic or emotional enjoyment etc. I only shoot in raw and don't usually have a need for this technology, but used sensibly to replace blown out jpeg skies, it seems pretty clever to me, and I congratulate the creators of said technology.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 09:29 UTC
On article Epson's 4K home projectors to go on sale next month (63 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hasa: oh so sad! still no correction of the headline and content that is just strongly misleading marketing blurp and not the real deal: "whether they’re displaying native 4K content or digitally upscaling Full HD 1080p content" - no, they cannot display 4K content at the true, native 4K resolution. They pixel shift their full-hd lcd panels to something in between full HD and 4K. They do not carry 4K pixels on the 3 lcd panels. They do not compare to a true 4K tv that has 4 times the pixels of a full HD tv. It somehow reminds me of the 16 megapixel Foveon sensors that were marketed as "equivalent" Bayer 48 megapixel sensors.

Also 'what most people expect from a 4k projector' is on the one hand about specification sheets and actual, objectively defined pixels. On the other, it is simply the subjective perception of more detail based on their own subjective minds and compromised eye sight. Both perspectives are true from a certain point of view.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 09:18 UTC
Total: 208, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »