SW Anderson

Joined on Aug 14, 2011

Comments

Total: 89, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ybizzle: Great news for the 5 Pentax Q owners.

Q owners who lust after such devilish lens speed but don't have an f/1.2 Nikon lens lying around face a steep financial path to available darkness nirvana. Expect an outlay of about $1,000. Talk about a niche product!

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 04:53 UTC
On article Yashica is teasing a comeback to the camera market (299 comments in total)
In reply to:

HB1969: definitely a film camera. at 0:06 you can see her winding the film to the next frame.

Yes, it's clearly a Yashica Electro 35.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 23:35 UTC
On article Yashica is teasing a comeback to the camera market (299 comments in total)
In reply to:

wolfie: Wonder what they can bring to the market that anyone else isn't doing?

I can think of three interesting things a resurrected Yashica camera co. could bring to market.

First, a digital rendition of the twin-lens reflex. Instead of a fresnel lens-frosted glass viewfinder look down into, a hooded LCD you look down into, one with its own synced zoom lens. An advanced model might have an LCD that could tilt upright, hooded, for eye-level shooting.

Another possibility: a retro rangefinder-style competitor for Fujicas, I would hope at more "popular-price." level. Maybe if that goes well, an advanced interchangeable-lens model, my preference being micro four thirds. If it looks retro, like a modified Electro 35 or, better, an earlier YK http://bit.ly/2x5pq7Q or YL http://bit.ly/2f2SJgP model so much the better.

Just as interesting, IMO, would be a digital update of the very interesting Komaflex S, a low-priced Japanese SLR that took the ill-fated 127 film. http://bit.ly/2yfAGMK

Ah, the memories — and possibilities.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 23:29 UTC

This is sad news. I picked up my first Modern Photography issue in 1958 and started buying them more or less regularly with my allowance. A year or two later I bought a stack of back issues from '54-'58 at a secondhand store. Eventually, I subscribed for two or three years running. I've subscribed repeatedly, although not constantly, to Modern and/or Popular Photography over the years since. Except, the past eight or nine years I've kept it going, hoping in part to keep Pop Photo going.

I will miss Pop Photo as I've missed Modern, especially Herb Keppler's SLR columns and features, since his passing. And then, there was Jason Schneider's fascinating Camera Collector columns. This announcement is like discovering an old friend is ill and isn't going to make it. Sad news, indeed.

My thanks to past and present staffers at Modern and Pop. I wish you well in whatever you turn your considerable talents and expertise to.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 06:20 UTC as 121st comment

Nikon can make fine non-DSLR cameras, but will only do that at prices at or above DSLR prices. Nikon sees DSLR's as its core business, its real moneymakers. Everything else takes a backseat.

The Nikon 1 saga is schizophrenic. Flood the market with low-end J models, with little or no improvement from one to the next, at first. Those are for snapshooters, so no EVF's. Slow-walk V-series models with EVF's and price them high. Limit 1-series lens offerings and price them high. OK to sell MILC's, but only at greater profit than DSLR's. Then, inexplicably, offer more-sophisticated J models at the price of mid-level DSLR's. Then, abandon the 1 series altogether and develop not one, but three sophisticated, expensive compact, fixed-lens models. Surely, 1 series enthusiasts will gladly dump their cameras and lenses to buy new DL's. This all suggests a strong internal conflict that makes long-range product planning incoherent and disjointed, more reactive than proactive.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 22:13 UTC as 159th comment | 1 reply

Dan Bracaglia makes an excellent point emphatically with AP photographer Burhan Ozbilici's powerful photo. Bravely, professionally, Ozbilici shows us the mad-dog face of murderous hatred.

That is not the face of a soldier. It is not the face of someone impassioned with an honorable cause. Rather, it is the face of a sneak assassin armed and intent on killing in the midst of unarmed potential victims. It is the face of evil madness — a mortal danger to all who are not madly aligned with that killer's personal choice of evil.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 05:41 UTC as 37th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

agentul: so, after the whole "give us your phone number for your security" intimidation, and having to manually delete hundreds of spam messages periodically from my inbox, and them killing Messenger, this is what finally pushed me to delete my account. now i need a new crap email address for creating accounts on sites that i don't really care about.

also: MS/Outlook.com is now keeping my inbox hostage until i give them my phone number "to send a verification code over SMS". this happens only when i access it using a web browser - POP3 and IMAP seem to work for now. still... again with the phone number? i'll probably have to do what GradeAunderA advised and use a prepaid card just for these stupid services that assume i'll hand over my personal data so easily. yes, for "security".

I got a warning from MS about a hack attempt on my account early this year and had to get verified to redo my password and security questions. This seemed to me a no-nonsense effort to make things more secure. I have had no reason to believe I get more spam e-mails or spam phone calls since then than before.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 04:50 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Is PS Elements 15 incredibly slow like PSE 14, but unlike PhotoShop CS6?

@Tom Barry, thanks for a valuable, helpful tip and for going on to tell how to do it.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Is PS Elements 15 incredibly slow like PSE 14, but unlike PhotoShop CS6?

Very well, you're curious about PSE 15's speed, but as you said above: ". . . PhotoShop CS6+Bridge 6CS runs quickly on my computer. So that's massively more powerful that runs much faster than the slow as molasses PSE 14."

Given that, there's something about your question and remarks that come across something like if the owner of an $84,000 Cadillac CTS-V (640 hp, 200 mph) were to take time out from a busy life to berate a $19,000 Chevy Cruze (153 hp, 110 mph) for being pokey and wondering if the 2017 Cruze is faster. It just begs the question, why would it matter to someone who owns and is presumably pleased with his Cadillac CTS-V?

FWIW, I have a somewhat faster than average desktop PC with 8 GB of RAM, Intel graphics chipset, running Win10, and PSE 14's speed has yet to be an issue in any way.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 06:04 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Is PS Elements 15 incredibly slow like PSE 14, but unlike PhotoShop CS6?

@HowaboutRAW wote, "You read like you don't know what PhotoShop CS6 is."

You write like you don't know what this post is not about (PhotoShop CS6) and, more to the point perhaps, like someone who just wants to start something. There's a name for that, one that's not assigned as a compliment.

Since you do like CS6 and don't like PSE, including a new version I'm sure you've neither tried nor seen a review of, why bother to comment beyond a simple, "Not for me; I find it too slow"? Then again, if you just want to start something, I suppose it's no bother to go on about it, criticizing others' thoughts and comments along the way. The better, perhaps, to start something.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2016 at 20:06 UTC
On article Samsung launches first removable UFS memory cards (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: Boycott any new card format. I see no compelling reason to change and then have confusion, high prices, and needing different cards for different f devices or brand.

@ChrisH37, to raise questions and criticize on the basis of practical concerns is not the same thing as being against progress. Neither new nor smaller necessarily qualify as better or as progress.

I could see ordering a breakfast sandwich meal at McD's and getting a golf ball-size party snack and potato morsel that would fit neatly in a teaspoon in return for my four or five bucks any time now. Things at that chain seem headed that way. That might be new, might be promo'd as healthy, but I assure you there would be no convincing me (or probably you, either) that it was progress.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 05:41 UTC
On article Samsung launches first removable UFS memory cards (177 comments in total)

I'm with photogeek. There comes a point at which miniaturization reaches diminishing returns. At that point, a camera, accessory or memory card becomes so tedious and fiddly to handle that whatever benefit its small size provides is outweighed by the nuisance factor.

Anything, even a good thing, can be overdone. I think that's what photogeek was getting at. To make out that saying enough is enough amounts to being against progress is a bogus argument. There's probably a just-right size for every individual. Overall, in the car world, a Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord is the right size for many more people than a Fiat 500. I can see many more people preferring an SD-size flash card to the micro variety, and even fewer wanting anything smaller.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 05:21 UTC as 14th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Marty4650: I think there is a practical limit to how versatile a smartphone should be. The top three functions are probably used 99% of the time. Everything else is just nice to have, and cool to show off to your friends.

I bet that JBL add on speaker costs a lot more than a much better quality JBL bluetooth speaker. And those are pretty easy to use. Almost seamless. And when was the last time you wanted to project a YouTube video on a white wall?

The advantage of the smartphone is convenience. How convenient is it to carry around a pocketful of attachments, that you may never actually need?

This reminds me of a kitchen mixer that has different attachments to turn it into a blender, food processor, chopper, meat grinder, pasta maker, and ice crusher. In every single case the dedicated device does a better job, but takes up more space in your kitchen cabinet.

Of course, I could be wrong. I have been wrong before. The marketplace will sort this one out.

What?!! No hair dryer attachment? No aromatherapy attachment? What were they thinking?

Seriouslly, Marty4650, I'm with you. A good, reliable phone with long battery life, a decent camera and reasonably fast, smooth-operating Android that's kept up to date, and I'm happy. Esoteric frill$ leave me cold. And Bluetooth or no Bluetooth, I would prefer the comparatively simple convenience of a standard headphone jack -- not something I consider a frill.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 19:03 UTC
On article Fujifilm X70 Review (377 comments in total)

Great-looking camera there. Price: $699. So, let's see . . .

"Critical detail at 100% suffers" -$50
"Waxy-looking skin in high ISO images" -$25
"AF tends to hunt" -$50
"Lens is not as high of quality as its rivals" -$100
"16MP X-Trans sensor is at the end of its life" -$25
"No viewfinder" -$150

What we have here is the equivalent of a Fiat 500L at a Subaru Impreza price. No thanks.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2016 at 04:22 UTC as 46th comment | 1 reply
On article What a view: Aukey Super Wide Angle lens quick review (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

SW Anderson: Lars Rehm, I hope you've learned a lesson. When your audience is packed with photography elitists and humorless hardware snobs, you better not review inexpensive things designed for fun. If an item's IQ can't meet the strict demands of photo editors at National Geographic or LIFE, you'll be inundated with snark and disdain.

Never mind that the cost of these lenses would alert anyone with a lick of sense that they're not "serious" photographic glass. Never mind that most who buy these lenses can get acquainted with what a fisheye or ultrawide can do, albeit without impressive sharpness. Never mind that if mounted carefully, used in bright light with suitable subjects, for display at smaller sizes online or as 4-by-6-inch prints, this lens and others like it can produce good-enough results for casual, fun-oriented snap- and selfie shooters. Apparently, those folks and the things they might enjoy aren't welcome within the IQ jihadists' jurisdiction.

M1963, thanks for pointing the way to an excellent read.

photoshack, Rehm noted and illustrated the lens' deficiencies and included its price — the highest I've seen for one of these. If you deem all that a sales pitch, steer clear of advertising or marketing jobs; you might starve.

You try to hoist me on my own petard, yet adjudge the lens "a $4 piece of crap." The irony is that one person's $4 crap is another's means of having fun, learning or indulging in artistic expression. No humorless snobbiness or elitism in your flat condemnation, though.

I suggest to you that a reasonable, non-elitist, non-snobbish response would go something like this: "Similar lenses can be had for much less. They're not for me, but to each his own."

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2016 at 05:56 UTC
On article What a view: Aukey Super Wide Angle lens quick review (61 comments in total)

Lars Rehm, I hope you've learned a lesson. When your audience is packed with photography elitists and humorless hardware snobs, you better not review inexpensive things designed for fun. If an item's IQ can't meet the strict demands of photo editors at National Geographic or LIFE, you'll be inundated with snark and disdain.

Never mind that the cost of these lenses would alert anyone with a lick of sense that they're not "serious" photographic glass. Never mind that most who buy these lenses can get acquainted with what a fisheye or ultrawide can do, albeit without impressive sharpness. Never mind that if mounted carefully, used in bright light with suitable subjects, for display at smaller sizes online or as 4-by-6-inch prints, this lens and others like it can produce good-enough results for casual, fun-oriented snap- and selfie shooters. Apparently, those folks and the things they might enjoy aren't welcome within the IQ jihadists' jurisdiction.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2016 at 07:10 UTC as 14th comment | 3 replies
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

SW Anderson: I'm trying to remember ever hearing anyone long for the good old days of Super 8 movies, and drawing a blank. Even if the quoted prices are intended to be suggested list prices at introduction, soon to be brought down closer to Earth, I foresee a future of clearance shelf stacks and eBay selloffs for these things.

In a way I don't like being so negative. It would be great to see more companies trying to score successes where the competition ain't, in part by creating or re-creating niches through drawing on good ideas from the past. Even so, running something like this past some random groups of consumers and movie-making enthusiasts should be standard procedure before mass production gets under way. For example, I could see in another area where there might be an affluent enough group of people who might be willing to pay a 2016 price for a completely authentic Model T Ford or Stutz Bearcat replicar. But for a 1971 Chevy Vega? Not a chance.

I was there also and couldn't agree more. Coincidental to this Kodak announcement and the above story, I picked up a Sony CX405 video camera. It's a well-received and popular model from 2013 if I recall correctly. Pro and consumer reviews have been positive. I got it at an almost embarrassingly low closeout price — good because I don't do that much with video.

This Sony model, at a fraction of the size, weight and inflation-adjusted cost of my long-ago Super 8 camera, produces results I find impressive. Whereas, my long-ago super 8 camera left me asking, "This is it? This is all there is?" And, of course, it wasn't just the camera. The narrow, springy film itself was kind of a nuisance.

Sometimes, one can say they don't make 'em like they used to — what a relief!

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 05:49 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (359 comments in total)

I'm trying to remember ever hearing anyone long for the good old days of Super 8 movies, and drawing a blank. Even if the quoted prices are intended to be suggested list prices at introduction, soon to be brought down closer to Earth, I foresee a future of clearance shelf stacks and eBay selloffs for these things.

In a way I don't like being so negative. It would be great to see more companies trying to score successes where the competition ain't, in part by creating or re-creating niches through drawing on good ideas from the past. Even so, running something like this past some random groups of consumers and movie-making enthusiasts should be standard procedure before mass production gets under way. For example, I could see in another area where there might be an affluent enough group of people who might be willing to pay a 2016 price for a completely authentic Model T Ford or Stutz Bearcat replicar. But for a 1971 Chevy Vega? Not a chance.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 02:01 UTC as 151st comment | 2 replies
Total: 89, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »