Marty4650

Marty4650

Lives in United States NC, United States
Works as a Retired Industrial Engineer
Joined on May 20, 2005

Comments

Total: 2109, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200/TZ200 Review (593 comments in total)
In reply to:

AksCT: "Significant sample variation on lenses of three different cameras"
That is exactly that same problem I had with two ZS100 I bought.

Elliot H is absolutely right.

This is NOT a cheap camera. You shouldn't have to buy multiple copies to find a "good copy." Something is wrong with Panasonic's quality control if so many bad copies can get to customers.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2018 at 01:15 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200/TZ200 Review (593 comments in total)
In reply to:

ogl: The photos from 1" sensor is not better than rom 1/1.7". IMO. Strange....

Only if you never go any higher than ISO 100 and never shoot in poor light. In that case, my 1/1.7" sensored camera is "just as good."

But these newer 1" sensored cameras can perform pretty well up to around ISO 800 and can do pretty well in dim light. The bigger sensor really does make a difference, but only if you shoot in less than ideal conditions.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 15:04 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200/TZ200 Review (593 comments in total)

Nice review. Well written, with a very useful new format.

I'm really not happy with the slow lens, but I suppose it cannot be avoided at this high zoom range. This actually makes the ZS100 look like a better buy, and an LX10 or LX100 look like a much better choice for anyone who plans to use their camera indoors or at night.

But you really need to give Panasonic a lot of credit here. They created the Travel Zoom niche with their TZ1 back in 2006, and they still keep offering us improved versions of the concept.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 15:00 UTC as 87th comment

Good analysis, and right on target.

Dpreview reports camera news, and right now Sony is making most of the news. And Sony keeps pushing the envelope, while everyone else is just creating a new Digital Rebel or yet another EPL camera.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2018 at 15:50 UTC as 126th comment | 1 reply
On article DPReview TV: Sony RX10 IV Review (280 comments in total)

I wasn't that impressed with the video quality of this review.... and it was shot with an RX10V. Maybe it is just me, but the video quality looked really mediocre.

For the price of this camera, you could get a Panasonic GH5 or G9. You won't get the same zoom range, but the IQ will be a lot better.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2018 at 16:23 UTC as 53rd comment | 6 replies

An interesting device. Essentially.... an Olympus Air that has a Canon EOS mount. In both cases, the smartphone is used to control the camera and store the images taken.

It is more likely a Canon EOS mount was chosen so Yongnuo could market this to Canon lens owners, rather than because they Yongbuo makes a few Canon mount lenses themselves. This means the device could appeal to 50% of all ILC users rather than just the 6% who own M4/3 lenses.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 18:51 UTC as 102nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really wonder if most smartphone shooters want more controls. My guess is they want less. Less to think about, less decisions to make, less to fuss about.

Of course the few who do will have to pay dearly for that privilege. Something like five times more than the price of a decent compact camera that has a much wider array of features and controls on it. And around three times as much as a budget smartphone would cost.

I am still not convinced that the smartphone will ever be a high end imaging device. Or at least not one at a reasonable price. Yes, you can get good snapshots from one, but do you really want to pay $1,000 for slightly better snapshots than you can get from a budget phone.... or any cheap compact camera?

Judging by the long lines at the Apple Store whenever a new phone is introduced, I'd say that smartphone users are MORE LIKELY to upgrade at every iteration than camera users are.

Sure, there are some hardcore gearheads who preorder, but nothing like the people who bring lawn chairs and sleeping bags to camp out four days before a new iPhone is put on sale.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 15:42 UTC
In reply to:

Newton Leonardo: Another day, another notch.

I spoke too soon!

After doing a google search I discovered that someone has created an app that adds a notch to any phone!
https://youtu.be/wWBI1j9l7BY

Link | Posted on May 9, 2018 at 12:50 UTC
In reply to:

Newton Leonardo: Another day, another notch.

You can easily add a notch to any smartphone by carefully cutting a small piece of black masking tape and placing it in the upper center edge of the screen.

I'm shocked that no one has thought of this before, and offered "notch stickers" for sale on ebay.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2018 at 12:40 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really wonder if most smartphone shooters want more controls. My guess is they want less. Less to think about, less decisions to make, less to fuss about.

Of course the few who do will have to pay dearly for that privilege. Something like five times more than the price of a decent compact camera that has a much wider array of features and controls on it. And around three times as much as a budget smartphone would cost.

I am still not convinced that the smartphone will ever be a high end imaging device. Or at least not one at a reasonable price. Yes, you can get good snapshots from one, but do you really want to pay $1,000 for slightly better snapshots than you can get from a budget phone.... or any cheap compact camera?

Steven Ar.... The smartphone is a multi purpose device, so you can always say something is free, because you bought it for something else it can do.

All I know is my own phone costs me $80 a month. That's almost a thousand dollars a year. But I never intended it to be a camera. It just comes in handy when I want to record something and I don't care much about the image quality it gets.

But anyone who purchases a "flagship phone" because of it's better camera performance really is paying a big premium over the same brand's budget phone that can do all those other things you described, but just doesn't have the latest software tricks or dual cameras.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2018 at 23:06 UTC
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: Compacts are almost dead. Only super superzooms will live. So peffect these phone cameras.

Cheap compact cameras with 3X zoom lenses are already dead.

They have been dead for quite some time now. As you say... the Superzooms will survive, but so will the large sensored compact and the rugged compacts. There will always be a niche market for those three types.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2018 at 19:11 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really wonder if most smartphone shooters want more controls. My guess is they want less. Less to think about, less decisions to make, less to fuss about.

Of course the few who do will have to pay dearly for that privilege. Something like five times more than the price of a decent compact camera that has a much wider array of features and controls on it. And around three times as much as a budget smartphone would cost.

I am still not convinced that the smartphone will ever be a high end imaging device. Or at least not one at a reasonable price. Yes, you can get good snapshots from one, but do you really want to pay $1,000 for slightly better snapshots than you can get from a budget phone.... or any cheap compact camera?

Renevant.... I think smartphones have taken the customers who used to buy compact cameras and keep them on full auto mode. For them, the smartphone was a better and more convenient solution.

I also think it is pretty obvious that the smartphone isn't hurting ILC sales very much. Sales of ILCs are only down slightly, and that can be attributed to product maturity and market saturation. That customer will always want better ergonomics, more controls and better image quality, so even the best flagship smartphone won't be sufficient for them.

I would wager that most customers who buy a "photo specific high end smartphone" didn't buy it to replace a DSLR or MILC camera, but to supplement it.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2018 at 14:51 UTC

I really wonder if most smartphone shooters want more controls. My guess is they want less. Less to think about, less decisions to make, less to fuss about.

Of course the few who do will have to pay dearly for that privilege. Something like five times more than the price of a decent compact camera that has a much wider array of features and controls on it. And around three times as much as a budget smartphone would cost.

I am still not convinced that the smartphone will ever be a high end imaging device. Or at least not one at a reasonable price. Yes, you can get good snapshots from one, but do you really want to pay $1,000 for slightly better snapshots than you can get from a budget phone.... or any cheap compact camera?

Link | Posted on May 8, 2018 at 14:12 UTC as 10th comment | 14 replies
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: There have been 2 impediments to these smartphone lens systems being really practical:

1) Being able to use with your existing cases. Most people use a case on their iPhone and do not want to have to remove it to use a lens system. Also the same goes for a screen protector. I have seen someone's screen protector prevent a lens from fitting onto an iPhone.

2) Being able to use with additional models of iPhones as new designs are released. With these lens systems they are designed for one type of iPhone body, and so they will have a very limited shelf life if you update your iPhone.

So in summary, to make these lens systems really take off, one would have to somehow make them more universal: can be used with virtually any case, on any model. I don't know if that is even possible, but if not then these will continue to be a very niche market.

You might enjoy this video (if you haven't seen it before)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXuVAi2bHdA

Link | Posted on May 3, 2018 at 14:40 UTC
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: There have been 2 impediments to these smartphone lens systems being really practical:

1) Being able to use with your existing cases. Most people use a case on their iPhone and do not want to have to remove it to use a lens system. Also the same goes for a screen protector. I have seen someone's screen protector prevent a lens from fitting onto an iPhone.

2) Being able to use with additional models of iPhones as new designs are released. With these lens systems they are designed for one type of iPhone body, and so they will have a very limited shelf life if you update your iPhone.

So in summary, to make these lens systems really take off, one would have to somehow make them more universal: can be used with virtually any case, on any model. I don't know if that is even possible, but if not then these will continue to be a very niche market.

You absolutely shouldn't. Go ahead and buy that Holy Trinity. And get a fast 50mm lens too. I'd opt for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens.

You will be glad you did.

Sure it will be less convenient than using a cell phone plus a bag of toy plastic clip on lenses, but your photos will be at least a million times better.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 23:34 UTC
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: There have been 2 impediments to these smartphone lens systems being really practical:

1) Being able to use with your existing cases. Most people use a case on their iPhone and do not want to have to remove it to use a lens system. Also the same goes for a screen protector. I have seen someone's screen protector prevent a lens from fitting onto an iPhone.

2) Being able to use with additional models of iPhones as new designs are released. With these lens systems they are designed for one type of iPhone body, and so they will have a very limited shelf life if you update your iPhone.

So in summary, to make these lens systems really take off, one would have to somehow make them more universal: can be used with virtually any case, on any model. I don't know if that is even possible, but if not then these will continue to be a very niche market.

And here is a third impediment:

The main advantage of using a smartphone for photography is convenience. Another is the perception that it is free, since you needed a phone anyway.

Whenever you start needing extra cost attachments to make your phone "more camera like" you diminish both. The resulting configuration ends up less convenient, harder to carry and more expensive. And all those separate parts aren't "always with you" unless you want to start carrying a cell phone bag.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 14:31 UTC

At least Pentax had the decency to call their lenses "toy lenses" for their Pentax Q system.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 14:27 UTC as 16th comment
On article Taking your drone to a wedding? Read this first (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: I cannot imagine anything more distracting than a flying robot buzzing about in the sky above an outdoor wedding.

For the rest of time your wedding will be remembered as "the one with the annoying drone." If this is what you want, then go for it. If not, then you might want to pass on this trendy gimmick.

I think you are using the word "ubiquitous" very liberally.

It literally means "found everywhere." If drone use at weddings was as common as you suggest, this wouldn't be a news story.

I have been to dozens of weddings and have never seen a drone in use. Can you honestly say they are that common in use today at weddings? Everywhere?

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 11:32 UTC
On article Taking your drone to a wedding? Read this first (95 comments in total)

Usually, the bride wants to be the star of the show. She probably doesn't want to be upstaged by a flying camera.

I can imagine all the guests whispering and pointing to the drone during the service. (".....Look Bob, it's coming back again.")

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 15:42 UTC as 41st comment | 5 replies
On article Taking your drone to a wedding? Read this first (95 comments in total)

I cannot imagine anything more distracting than a flying robot buzzing about in the sky above an outdoor wedding.

For the rest of time your wedding will be remembered as "the one with the annoying drone." If this is what you want, then go for it. If not, then you might want to pass on this trendy gimmick.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 12:39 UTC as 48th comment | 11 replies
Total: 2109, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »