Goodmeme

Joined on Dec 15, 2009

Comments

Total: 172, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Canon's camera business has tried to change market and product at the same time with its launch into Hollywood, video and the C system.

I can't help thinking that whoever is driving that fairly extreme strategy has in part caused what we might perceive as Canon's disinterest or lack of resources towards its cash cow photography market.

With mirrorless, phones and other technologies changing expectations, perhaps Canon could have done with at least one foot on the ground in order better to roll with the movement. Perhaps it's hard to change direction when you're mid-leap... I'll be interested to see how the division does generally.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 09:01 UTC as 67th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

zeyno44: 2 x AAA Batteries? How many shots can you actually get? It would've been perfect if it had built-in rechargeable battery - in my opinion.

It would be nice to charge it with a micro usb slot. I don't like buying things without AA / AAA, but it would be very convenient if they could squeeze in the components required, esp as Metz already have USB.

Micro USB is fast becoming the go to charger in my house at least - phones, tablets etc. There's one in every room. AA/AAA chargers however are bulky and don't stay in the sockets.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2015 at 09:55 UTC

Where's the 4k support?! If Canon is expecting this to be a dedicated images and home video box for the AV setup, then it should at least be as good as a HTPC. It obviously will be simpler which is good, but I feel 4k should be mandatory for a new device that won't be binned in 2-5 years.

Does anybody know if the NFC support on the new camera models is open to non-proprietary developers? I'm thinking NFC would be nice if it worked with Lightroom imports, especially to dual locations, as per standard Lightroom options.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2015 at 14:29 UTC as 33rd comment

I can't be the only one who thinks this looks great in walnut.

Am I more likely to buy an x100 or just use my big old 5D? Yes. But would I like to be the guy who doesn't know how to use them, and just uses really expensive point and shoots, with wood trim?

Probably :)

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2014 at 20:54 UTC as 160th comment

Clever...associate your brand with dull surprises. Which marketing genius cooked this one up?

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 10:49 UTC as 135th comment
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Poor monsters and evil children, liking to kill and frighten the sorry creatures.

I give this a 2 on a scale of 1-10. That it gets a 2 and not a 1 is because it was a rather unexpected series of photos.

BTW

The kids are not realistic.

The nightmare monsters are not nightmarish, rather funny.

So you want scarier monsters, and children who look more 'realistic' fighting them in their bedrooms? Sheesh, just watch Harry Potter or LOTR or something.

Or perhaps look up 'catharsis' and begin to understand the fun and psychology behind this cute series.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2014 at 08:49 UTC
In reply to:

beavertown: That kills the Canon with great humiliation.

Without Sony's sensor, Nikon will die straight away.

In the absence of peanut butter, Nikon can buy some jam. I really don't understand why you wish to engage in fantasy situations wherein companies cannot outsource to more efficient providers.

The essence of modern economic trade theory is specialisation, that is, we benefit when we don't all try to be farmers, printers, carpenters and textiles companies on our own. Sure, it would be more fun, and perhaps make you feel more independent, but it almost certainly would prevent your (or different society's) attainment of expertise and efficiencies.

Yes, Sony can charge more for its sensors if they're very good relative to the competition, but Nikon does still retain know-how in sensors not to mention ergonomics and extant customer and equipment bases. In the case of game theory type 'defection' on Sony's part e.g. hiking prices or withdrawing services, both Nikon and Sony would likely suffer long term, but neither their brands nor particular specialities are likely to suddenly 'die'.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2014 at 08:00 UTC
On article Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Lab Test Review (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: There should come a point at which there is no vignetting. A lens designed to cover the sensor properly would have no vignetting even wide open. As they charge now so much money, perhaps we could get them to design for full-frame. I do not care if it is bigger and heavier, but I do care if it always vignettes. DX review shows it still vignettes a third of a stop at f11. I have zooms that are better than this.

If you use primes quality is now the sole criterion> I want primes that ALWAYS cover the sensor> I want zooms that do as well- remember the 70-200f2.8G VRI?

Fair enough. But software fixes most vignetting, and I personally care more about size, weight and other image quality characteristics like colour and contrast.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 20:16 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review (707 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: What a disappointment. Make a very nice camera with a very good lens and put an aged sensor in it with yesterdays performance. I was planning to buy it. But ... now I buy something else. Thank you DPR for this review!

The problem is only - what?

I have looked at A6000, GM1, GX7, RX100 and P5.

I'd go Fuji x100 or x100s personally. I don't have one yet - still use an old heavy 5d and 35mm prime or my phone. But apart from battery life (which is always an issue with small cams , especially that can't use AA eneloops or equivalent as tech improves), I can't think of any downsides for casual photography.

Big pros include viewfinder and lens, as well as nice touchy-feely manual controls. Plus one should never underestimate the difference a beautiful retro camera will make to portrait subject's comfort and thus smiles. :)

Link | Posted on May 9, 2014 at 10:01 UTC
On article Two photographers re-imagine city potholes (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

dr8: I didn't get past the word "re-imagine". I also don't read articles or see movies that are labeled "must - ___ ".

Good for you. Now think something helpful.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2014 at 21:34 UTC
In reply to:

michael19843: Why did they not make this camera with a zoom lens? Pure mental concept to have two adapters. Just stick a zoom lens on it Fuji.

Zooms are not as good optically, do people not seek to learn before pontificating?

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2014 at 08:54 UTC
In reply to:

bstolk: Given enough megapixels, wouldn't cropping an image in software have the same effect as using a longer lens?
Yes, you lose some resolution, but that is not a big deal if you shoot your images for the web and such?

that's correct. Although your exposure may be slightly less accurate, it's the same thing.
Bear in mind with the adapter though that you can post-crop the resulting 50mm in the same way, with same number of pixels.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 09:09 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: Kodak did pioneering things during the film era and continued in the digital age with some degree of the same spirit of innovation but never quite made it to establish itself. I'm not sure at all that JK is up to the task, i.e., using such an iconic brand name for mediocre profiteering. Let's hope for the best outcome, but I seriously doubt that JK can do to Kodak what Cosina has done to Voigtlander.

Who knows?

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2014 at 09:26 UTC
On article Google working on RAW imaging for Android (84 comments in total)

I hope they provide option for Adobe raw which is already open-source AFAIK. Why reinvent the wheel, when a universal wheel has already been designed?

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2013 at 12:06 UTC as 17th comment | 3 replies
On article Classic photographs recreated in Lego (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

dw2001: cute..but I've seen this kind of "creativity" like 1 million times before with lego, it's getting kind of booring..

Okay, but 'creativity' according to various academic studies in classrooms and workplaces is generally destroyed by this kind of thinking, in yourself and other people. If we want something different we can create it ourselves. I don't think its creative to criticise just because you don't like something; just don't praise so much.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2013 at 09:37 UTC
On article Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' (551 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tom Goodman: I am as in favor of advancements in technology as the next person but this is just getting out of hand. I don't yearn for the days of old. I don't go to exhibitions because the images were made on a cellphone. And I certainly don't give a hoot whether the photographer used pure rainwater for the final bath or devised a new sharpening tool that takes voice commands. I just want images to change my perceptions and understandings. Let me put this another way: when is the last time you saw an announcement for an exhibition of paintings at MOMA or the Met that said the show will feature work done only with horse hair brushes?

For portraiture, I find that the subjects get nervous with a big ugly camera and whop-off lens. Most people like the look of these old cameras, and I find that they relax more.

It's also possible that they were designed when ergonomics was more of a selling point than ultimate technology speed or gadgetry.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2013 at 20:08 UTC
In reply to:

Alberto Tanikawa: I have 20-13 vision, and I can read the e-mails on my phone from 30" away, 20" comfortably. I don't use my phone at 8" - I think that's ridiculous, or whoever does needs to have their eyes examined (nearsighted). Instead of ever increasing pixel density, how about higher contrast, much higher color gamut, more accurate color calibration from factory, better visibility in direct sunlight, higher efficiency, etc. These are much more worthwhile features to add than pixel density beyond 300dpi.

I partly agree but I don't have a problem with bigger and better. I have one level better than 20-20 vision and watch movies on my Galaxy note 1 phone from about 8 or 9". Could do with more resolution sometimes, but usually its irrelevant due to file sizes - either streamed or local, the shadow areas are usually a bit blocky. It's still good though.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2013 at 15:13 UTC
In reply to:

D1N0: When you see a pixel you will die! Better safe than sorry. Of course when a screen is made for pc then 1080p is enough for a 27" screen. That is because pc-screens are safe and people do not need high resolution.

Actually Asus has a 4k monitor coming out but its a bit pricy for me.
In my opinion, Ballmer at Microsoft should have been pushing better displays for Windows, working with key partners, like NEC and Samsung etc to get 4k and more years ago.
I'm not saying tablets and mobile wouldn't be where they are today, but PCs would certainly seem more relevant.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2013 at 15:07 UTC
Total: 172, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »