SW Anderson

Joined on Aug 14, 2011

Comments

Total: 92, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous2345Next ›Last »
On article 17 signs that you were alive before digital photography (149 comments in total)

That's a delightful blog post/article. Thanks for pointing it out.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2013 at 01:46 UTC as 41st comment
On article OMG Life Autographer Quick Review (122 comments in total)

Next up, a medicine cabinet which, at certain times of the day, will lob pills at you if you're standing in front of it with mouth open and then open its door. What? You don't get it? Why have to actually reach in, take out and open a bottle or two, then take your pills manually, when technology can do 98 percent of the work?

Eventually, the Chow Plower — speed and efficiency preparing and feeding you a meal, beyond anything you ever imagined. You won't even have to lift a fork!

Seriously, this OMG Life "innovation" comes across as an odd, redundant contrivance in this era when most of the population feels naked without a smartphone-with-camera, and all-weather mini cams are reasonably priced and plentiful.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2013 at 01:35 UTC as 46th comment
On article Pentax Q7 added to our studio comparison database (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

sfa1966: Ouch. I am a loyal Pentaxian, but I have to say that is very poor. The left side of the image looks like mush. The centre is unimpressive. Soft, soft, soft. And in the comments below, Richard Butler tells us that the much-heralded-by-the-fanboys 01 Prime was tested and it came out "considerably worse"!

C'mon Ricoh, kill this Quirky Quackers waste of your resources!

Tosic is talking objectivity. You're talking attitude. There is no rational reason why having "toy lenses" in a camera's line of accessories would affect the quality or capabilities of the camera or of other lenses and accessories for the camera. Your attempt to stigmatize the whole Q line because Pentax made the (unfortunate, in my opinion) decision to name two of the lenses for it "toy" says plenty about your attitude and little about the actual quality and worthiness of the cameras and lenses.

If you dislike the Q and its lenses, why not just ignore them? Your attitude and sarcasm are neither helpful nor appreciated.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2013 at 08:12 UTC
On article Pentax Q7 added to our studio comparison database (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: For better judgement — real life Q7 shots with 01, 02 and 06 lenses:

http://www.pentax.jp/english/products/q7/ex/index.html

Results from the 01 and 02 lenses on the Pentax page are consistent with my experience with these lenses where sharpness is concerned.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2013 at 07:00 UTC
On article Pentax Q7 added to our studio comparison database (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

SW Anderson: Those test results are too blatantly soft. They're wildly at odds with my experience using two original Q bodies and the 02 zoom as well as an 01 prime. I wonder if Dpreview got hold of a pre-production Q7 or 02 zoom with a defect, or maybe failed to turn IS off before making tripod-mounted shots. Maybe there's a bug in the processing engine.

I don't know what the problem is, but it's clear to me something's not right with the Q7 and/or lens tested, or with the way the test shots were made. I don't see Pentax knowingly bringing a $500 to $700 camera to market with such a pronounced and obvious lack of sharpness.

OK, I went back and compared the still lifes. The G15 is noticeably sharper at the edge than the Q when viewed at maximum online enlargement. At the center, I find the G15 very slightly sharper, but the difference is negligible. And that is at maximum online enlargement.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2013 at 06:02 UTC
On photo P7081061-pinhole in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Andy Westlake has used this lens of limited specifications to about as good an effect as is humanly possible in these images, in my opinion. The subjects are remarkably appropriate, the lighting well suited, the compositions terrific.

A long time ago, a writer on photography asked if it was possible to take a lousy photograph of Marilyn Monroe. The point being that Monroe's incredible eye appeal and near universal recognition would make any technical or composition deficit inconsequential. A really good subject recorded with talent and skill can similarly make such things as softness and vignetting at the edges, and chromatic aberration, either largely beside the point or, in some cases, artistic assets. I think that's what Westlake has done here.

Bottom line: these images made with this lens should be a bit humbling for purists who reject as worthless junk any lens that falls short of the highest performance standards.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2013 at 05:43 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Olympus Body Cap Lens 15mm F8 review samples sample gallery (1 comment in total)

Andy Westlake has used this lens of limited specifications to about as good an effect as is humanly possible in these images, in my opinion. The subjects are remarkably appropriate, the lighting well suited, the compositions terrific.

A long time ago, a writer on photography asked if it was possible to take a lousy photograph of Marilyn Monroe. The point being that Monroe's incredible eye appeal and near universal recognition would make any technical or composition deficit inconsequential. A really good subject recorded with talent and skill can similarly make such things as softness and vignetting at the edges, and chromatic aberration, either largely beside the point or, in some cases, artistic assets. I think that's what Westlake has done here.

Bottom line: these images made with this lens should be a bit humbling for purists who reject as worthless junk any lens that falls short of the highest performance standards.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2013 at 05:43 UTC as 1st comment
On article Pentax Q7 added to our studio comparison database (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

SW Anderson: Those test results are too blatantly soft. They're wildly at odds with my experience using two original Q bodies and the 02 zoom as well as an 01 prime. I wonder if Dpreview got hold of a pre-production Q7 or 02 zoom with a defect, or maybe failed to turn IS off before making tripod-mounted shots. Maybe there's a bug in the processing engine.

I don't know what the problem is, but it's clear to me something's not right with the Q7 and/or lens tested, or with the way the test shots were made. I don't see Pentax knowingly bringing a $500 to $700 camera to market with such a pronounced and obvious lack of sharpness.

What I see in the ISO 200 new image of mannequin scene is comparable sharpness in the Q and G15 images.

What I also see is both those cameras delivering excellent sharpness, while the Q7 in Dpreview's test delivered unacceeptably poor sharpness. By the way, I noticed no such lack of sharpness in the sample photo series published a few days ago here on Dpreview.

Like I said, something's not right with the test Q7, its lens, processing engine or the way the test was executed.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2013 at 07:16 UTC
On article Pentax Q7 added to our studio comparison database (115 comments in total)

Those test results are too blatantly soft. They're wildly at odds with my experience using two original Q bodies and the 02 zoom as well as an 01 prime. I wonder if Dpreview got hold of a pre-production Q7 or 02 zoom with a defect, or maybe failed to turn IS off before making tripod-mounted shots. Maybe there's a bug in the processing engine.

I don't know what the problem is, but it's clear to me something's not right with the Q7 and/or lens tested, or with the way the test shots were made. I don't see Pentax knowingly bringing a $500 to $700 camera to market with such a pronounced and obvious lack of sharpness.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2013 at 06:40 UTC as 39th comment | 4 replies
On article French student creates SLR using 3D printer (156 comments in total)

I suppose this technology holds out the possibility of a future where everyman can be his own technological innovator, product designer and fabricator. "If you can imagine it, you can make it!"

Wow.

Then, I'm reminded of the wide variation people exhibit in matters of talent, technical savvy and, most of all, taste. After all, someone at some time thought the '91 Chevy Caprice, Pontiac Aztek, Nissan Cube, Toyota Echo and VW Thing were really cool-looking vehicle designs. The mind boggles.

Maybe this capability will work out well overall. I'm making a good-faith effort not to scoff and reject the new and different out of hand. Looking at Marius' interesting but aesthetically challenged camera effort, this is going to take a lot of good-faith effort. ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2013 at 05:04 UTC as 42nd comment
On article Pentax announces Q7 with larger 12MP BSI CMOS sensor (229 comments in total)

Eccentric me has no need for his every camera to be capable of ne plus ultra IQ, the better to produce billboard-size prints or to pixel-peep all my image captures. I admit it's a weakness, but likability, design personality and fun potential can count for a lot.

I like what I see in the Q7 so far. I'm anxious to see how it stacks up in reviews.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2013 at 06:38 UTC as 56th comment
In reply to:

Antony John: "No place in the Sun for Chicago's Photographers" seems an apt headline for the newspaper.
Pretty sad really.

That would make an excellent headline for a story about what the newspaper is doing.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 04:14 UTC

Skilled, experienced, talented news photographers know and routinely do things cell-phone snappers and savvy amateurs with good gear can't be counted on for. Pro news photographers go places with news media credentials that freelancers can't access. Pro's forge ties with people in positions of authority — ties that come in handy when something big happens. Pro's stay all night at a major calamity, while cell-phone-toting civilians sleep. Pro's wade through floodwaters and brave blizzards while amateurs take snapshots from their deck, then retreat inside where it's warm and dry.

The Chicago Sun-Times will continue to get photos, some pretty good ones at times, I expect. But the newspaper has just forfeited an abiding and obviously undervalued strength. It's one more brick out of a wall that appears to be crumbling. The greatest shame is that neither newspaper decision makers nor much of the public appreciates that they're losing something of value.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 02:28 UTC as 58th comment
In reply to:

trekkeruss: I don't know what all the commotion is about. OK, I do. Geeks want a better camera than this one. But it's cameras like this one that, at least in theory, that make companies like Pentax money so they can build and sell the more enthusiast cameras.

So...does this camera actually have the ability to be manually zoomed, or is the rubber-looking grip around the lens barrel just for aesthetics? I'm betting the latter, but if it can be manually zoomed (or even focused), that would be pretty cool for an inexpensive superzoom, and certainly a differentiating selling point. I'd expect that from Pentax.

EDIT: examining the product photos closer, it appears the grip is just for show. All bling and no zing. Too bad.

"So...does this camera actually have the ability to be manually zoomed, or is the rubber-looking grip around the lens barrel just for aesthetics? I'm betting the latter, but if it can be manually zoomed (or even focused) . . ."

The specifications list above clearly statess, "Manual focus | Yes."

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2012 at 23:27 UTC
In reply to:

SW Anderson: So, priced at $500 like a DSLR or ILC but with a smaller sensor and no optical or electronic viewfinder. I'll pass.

I share your appreciation for dials and buttons, but can get along nicely without a touchscreen. The faster lens is good, too. Alas the lack of an OVF or EVF is a deal breaker. If one is offered later at a reasonable price, I'd be willing to take another look at this camera. But if the viewfinder costs as much as a good camera, forget it.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2012 at 04:36 UTC
In reply to:

Prairie Pal: The monitors are a little short on resolution, but otherwise....wow for Pentax. I'm not in the market for a camera with this sensor size, but there are many who are and this Pentax will be seriously considered by some of them. An electronic viewfinder in this price range? Tilting monitor in this price range? Wow and wow. 26X lens? Nice. 16mp....hmmm we'll see. AA batteries? Ding-Ding!! Bonus. Who wants to buy yet ANOTHER battery format that will never fit another camera. As nice as this camera is, it's not a lifetime camera, the battery will probably outlast it, and who wants to buy a second back up battery at 50 bucks that you will throw away with the camera in 3 years? This is a well thought out release by both designers and marketers. As for a DSLR look-alike...so what? The people who buy it will be aware they are not fooling anyone. They're buying it because it's all that it is PLUS it's cute and something to play with and it just might take pretty good pictures !!

I wish camera makers would ensconce every lithium ion battery within a module that could be swapped out for an AA batteries module should the proper lithiums no longer be available. Of course, lithium batteries for cameras using this design approach would have to be 3 volt or 6 volt and of appropriate amperage to make this workable.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2012 at 04:13 UTC

I'm very interested. If IQ measures up, I'm in. I just wish the sensor size was larger or pixel count was less. But I will withhold judgment until review results are in.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2012 at 04:06 UTC as 86th comment

So, priced at $500 like a DSLR or ILC but with a smaller sensor and no optical or electronic viewfinder. I'll pass.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 07:07 UTC as 86th comment | 2 replies
On article Mirrorless camera buying guide (172 comments in total)

I 'm sure manufacturers hope these mirrorless cameras will create a lucrative market for additional lenses. I read years ago that was the thinking of leading film SLR makers, which competed more on camera price but realized bigger per-item profits from lens sales. However, I think what spurred the growth of film SLR sales from the 1970's-1990's was the availability of more-affordable, good- to excellent-quality lenses from third-party makers.

So far, I don't see third-party lens makers hurrying out products for ILC's. They're probably in wait-and-see mode. If independent lens makers do bring out some "popular"-priced ultrawides, faster-than-kit medium zooms and faster fixed focal length portrait lenses, I think they will be rewarded with good initial sales. But down the line, when more people buy ILC's in part because more more-affordable lenses are available, the lens makers will enjoy even bigger sales.

Just a thought, anyway.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2011 at 06:06 UTC as 36th comment
On article Site updates & Tamron Challenge Winners (52 comments in total)

Hmm. I was a little quick on the draw. For some reason, the headlines didn't appear when I first landed on your main page. When I went back to it just now, there they were. Someone either responded to my previous comment with amazing speed, or I mistook a glitch in rendering the page for a design change.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2011 at 08:04 UTC as 4th comment
Total: 92, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous2345Next ›Last »