jonby

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Oct 4, 2014

Comments

Total: 921, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

jonby: If this has been thought through properly (which I expect it has), and it will be good for the environment, then I'm fully in favour. Sorry Apple - some things are more important than your profits.

@deep7 "But it does badly affect their ability to push better technology." ... which they are worried will effect their profits. But whatever their motivation, the environment is more important.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2021 at 23:36 UTC

If this has been thought through properly (which I expect it has), and it will be good for the environment, then I'm fully in favour. Sorry Apple - some things are more important than your profits.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2021 at 18:58 UTC as 30th comment | 3 replies

I don't get excited by new tech for new tech's sake. As a method for positioning the AF point however, this does sound like an improvement on most other methods, which I often find too fiddly and slow to be useful. One thing that concerns me for my own use would be the visual disturbance of an AF target covering the image wherever I look - I wonder whether this would interfere with my ability to judge and 'see' the details of my composition. I have always found the AF points an annoying distraction even when they are static, so having one following my gaze around the scene may be even worse. I know there will be workarounds like looking away, holding down the AF button and then going back to look at the subject, but TBH I wonder whether this would be annoying in practice. Would have to try it.
Not knocking Canon though - this sounds like a great development.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2021 at 01:27 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies

Great - another set of skills we don't have to learn because our friendly iPhone will do it all for us. When can we expect Apple's butt-wiping app? Can't wait for that.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2021 at 23:28 UTC as 36th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: "100m"??? That sounds pretty big. What would happen if a 100m asteroid hit the Earth?

As we nit pick over camera features and lens performance, we would do well to bear in mind that events such this will happen on Earth again at some point - could be next month, could be 100 years, but happen it will. If it lands in the wrong place, cameras will be the least of our worries :(

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2021 at 17:57 UTC
On article Canon EOS R3 Initial Review (1470 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cian3307: Hey all you folk who are commenting about the shortcomings of the R3, instead of wasting time on here, why not write to Canon Inc about it? I'm sure that Canon will bin all of the market research they carried out while developing the R3 and take your opinions on board instead. Then they might withdraw the R3 from production and sit down with you all to develop a replacement body. After all, you all seem so very knowledgeable about it😉😉😉

@Cian3307: wish I had said this. You're right there's absolutely no reason why Canon's decades of research, development and pro feedback should be any more valid than the opinions of a bunch of armchair critics studying spec sheets. Let's get a petition together.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2021 at 17:42 UTC
On article What you need to know about the new Canon EOS R3 (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

milkod2001: Canon should have called R3 R1 and sell it as flagship camera at $6500. R3 at $6000 feels like huge rip off. Great camera but super pricey. Could only be justified if it was meant as flagship camera best of the best Canon has.

@milkod2001: I think you are fixating too much on the nomenclature. As Thoughts R Us says, chances are that not many people care. If it's a lot better than the previous flagship at around the same price, why would they?

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2021 at 16:28 UTC
On article What you need to know about the new Canon EOS R3 (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

milkod2001: Canon should have called R3 R1 and sell it as flagship camera at $6500. R3 at $6000 feels like huge rip off. Great camera but super pricey. Could only be justified if it was meant as flagship camera best of the best Canon has.

@milkod2001: Well, the previous flagship was around the same price and highly successful. The R3 matches it in almost all ways except for battery life, and improves on it hugely in many significant areas. How does that make it a rip-off?

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2021 at 14:08 UTC
On article What you need to know about the new Canon EOS R3 (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

GrantBFoto: So at this size and weight, what is the advantage over a DSLR?

Being smaller and lighter than an equivalent DSLR?

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2021 at 01:48 UTC
On article Canon EOS R3 Initial Review (1470 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonby: I'm not remotely in the target audience for this camera, but it looks to me like Canon have got just about everything right here (ok question mark over the overheating, but that's just about it).

@Dons1000: yes. Canon introduce a whole new feature set for stills not available on any other camera and people complain that it doesn't work for video. With this attitude around it's no surprise manufacturers are cautious about adding new tech.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2021 at 09:38 UTC
On article Canon EOS R3 Initial Review (1470 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonby: I'm not remotely in the target audience for this camera, but it looks to me like Canon have got just about everything right here (ok question mark over the overheating, but that's just about it).

@mikegt: I didn't say the camera was perfect - please don't misquote me. No intention to create comment bait. Just expressing my subjective opinion - that OK? Your list is largely nit-picking without seeing the bigger picture. Canon have made sensible choices about features to make something which works rather than just packing everything in for the spec sheet, and I have no doubt they will sell a ton of these.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2021 at 09:30 UTC
On article Canon EOS R3 Initial Review (1470 comments in total)

I'm not remotely in the target audience for this camera, but it looks to me like Canon have got just about everything right here (ok question mark over the overheating, but that's just about it).

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2021 at 01:37 UTC as 112th comment | 26 replies
On article DPReview TV: Canon EOS R3 first impressions review (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonby: Wonder if they could use the Eye detection tech for things other than AF - for example, in review mode for choosing a point for 100% zoom focus check, or maybe for manual focus punch-in magnification? Maybe they already did?

Because you may be interested in parts of the image other than the point chosen for AF? Or do you only care about one part of the image? if you focused manually then there is no AF point. If you used focus-recompose then the AF point is irrelevant. Many cases where you want to zoom to other parts of the image. Why not use the eye control to make this faster?

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2021 at 01:05 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Canon EOS R3 first impressions review (104 comments in total)

Wonder if they could use the Eye detection tech for things other than AF - for example, in review mode for choosing a point for 100% zoom focus check, or maybe for manual focus punch-in magnification? Maybe they already did?

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 18:28 UTC as 13th comment | 4 replies
On article DPReview TV: Canon EOS R3 first impressions review (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

dmanthree: I wonder how eye control will work for eyeglass wearers?

But there will also be reflections from the screen which could interfere with the sensors, so not sure we can assume it will work as well.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 18:21 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff_0000: What else not to love about this lens?
- lightweight and small
- f2
- 9 aperture blades
- reduced focus breathing (well neither Sony pancake lenses nor Canon lenses have this)
- affordable price

Although it doesn't have a metal mount at the back, I think the other attributes of this lens outweigh this shortcoming.

Agree - it's no big deal on a small lens.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 16:45 UTC
In reply to:

jonby: Yet another scheme for making money out of the unachievable hopes and aspirations of ordinary people. Sigh.

@MyReality: Not sure a utility company is a good example, but yes It's a common practice. Doesn't make it ok though, so I like to call it out when I see it.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2021 at 23:24 UTC
In reply to:

jonby: Yet another scheme for making money out of the unachievable hopes and aspirations of ordinary people. Sigh.

@RED i: no neither did I, but people will. That's the problem.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2021 at 23:23 UTC

Yet another scheme for making money out of the unachievable hopes and aspirations of ordinary people. Sigh.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2021 at 22:10 UTC as 21st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

noshea: For the teleconversion lens, I'm unsure what Ricoh means by this:

"The newly developed Teleconversion Lens GT-2** (optional) is also exclusively available for GR IIIx. Using this lens with GR IIIx in the crop mode provides an equivalent focal length of 75 mm."

When they specify "in the crop mode" do they mean that resolution will still be reduced? I'd hope not, or would spoil it, for me.

Yes that's what I guessed - sounds like it converts to a 60mm equivalent FL, but doesn't cover the full sensor, so must be used in 1.25x crop mode for 75mm or super crop for 107mm. Agree it's disappointing if it can't be used for 60mm full sensor images.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2021 at 09:48 UTC
Total: 921, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »