john Clinch

Lives in United Kingdom Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Works as a Teacher of physics
Joined on May 23, 2005

Comments

Total: 186, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Suddenly I want a Canon G6. I had that 7Mp sensor in smaller camera. it was great....

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 19:18 UTC as 31st comment
In reply to:

W5JCK: This doesn't look natural at all. The stars appear to have been photographed well after sunset, probably near or after astronomical twilight when the sky reaches the darkest level in relation to the Sun, that is, when the Sun dips 18° or more below the horizon. Other posters pointed out it appears the stars were layered in, and I agree. The image would look a lot better if the clouds completely covered the sky, or if the stars were more representative of how they would actually look near sunset. Most of the image is way too dark to be of much interest. It does have great potential, but only if the faked star layer is removed and the image is reprocessed.

I can see what you mean but I don't think that is what we are seeing. It coul d be light pollution. I've seen shots with kind of look before, without pasting in the stars

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 22:38 UTC
On article 2017 Buying Guide: Best cameras for travel (111 comments in total)

From this list iId take the canon G7x markII

That is a compromise but the portability of my RX100 has meant I got lots of shots that I wouldn't have with a bigger on. I've never taken a DSLR cycling or climbing for example. It's also more subtle in the pub etc.

The newer RX100 versions loose reach at the London which I'd missed. So the canon looks great.

But it's all very personal

We are lucky that the era of dud camera is behind us

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 22:53 UTC as 26th comment

Great to read the story. I use to love your reviews.

I think you are selling yourself short on the technical front. For example you aknowledged that high iso shots at night were way more demanding than the brightly lit scenes snapped at high iso and high shutter speed. Hence all the shots of that tower block

I won't get the quote exact but I really remember the phrase "That's enough of photos of sauce bottles"

All great stuff

Still got the tiny figurine for the macro shot?

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 22:09 UTC as 18th comment
On article Shooting with a used DSLR kit that cost me just $80 (284 comments in total)
In reply to:

mailman88: Money Magazine wrote an article called...Items you shouldn't buy used.
On the list...used cameras.

New cameras have no dead pixels as well.

I think they are jut mapped out

Saying more pixels hides dead pixels better is another of saying there are way more pixels than you need

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 19:50 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I am dumbfounded they didn't opt for a Leica M10, DPReview's "Camera of the Year" ;)

You'd really send a camera with no AF. I mean really!!!

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 15:50 UTC
In reply to:

turretless: Government == corruption and waste of money.
Why would a govt agency need 53 top-shelf DSLRs, totaling $344,500? Training? How many astronauts undergo training simultaneously?

How is it corruption? You may think it a waste of money but corruption would imply a bribe or similar.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 15:49 UTC
In reply to:

MannyZero: One small click for a man. One giant promotion for a camera.

Oops

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 15:47 UTC
In reply to:

net1994: For gear heads, this is cool. For US taxpayers, not so sure. Why is the govt spending $65k for new cameras? Whats wrong with the ones they have now? Seems like a bit of a waste here. Sorry to throw a wet blanket here. Carry on....

I'm sorry but that a silly thing to say. The cost of lift to orbit is much larger than the of the cameras. It make sense to send good cameras there is a hi demand for stills and videos from space

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 15:44 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Skylum: Please do NOT let Adobe acquire you, please!

Hmm, well spoted. That is a potential problem

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 19:16 UTC

I notice that some one is here to answer questions, excellent

I hope this project goes well. I'll buy a copy next time I buy a camera not supported by final release of stand alone Lightroom. I won't be using the subscription

The question on camera profiles has been answered. What options do we have on export, in terms of colour space. Can we choose a colour space? Can we convert to profile? I use this second option for a low cost UK print house that requires you to have converted to thir profie

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 19:14 UTC as 48th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Peiasdf: What’s the difference between Photoshop and Lightroom?

Lightroom has 2 main functions. It is a catalgue and it is RAW converter

So you can do quite a lot of photo manipulation. Say B&W conversion with the sky a different exposure to the land. It has a basic spot removal tool. The catalogue function is excellent

Photoshop is everything in Lightroom but with a less good catallogue. The RAW conversion is the same as Lightroom

But Photoshop goes on to be a really powerful image editor with layers and recordable actions etc.. It's massively powerful tool for the profesional image editor

I can use some of it, for photo editting. There are thing like at layers and the colour space options that allow photo editing way beyond Lightroom

But in the end ,partly for cost reasons, i only own Lighroom. If you are starting out, start with Lightroom. You'll still use it if you buy photoshop

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 19:09 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (786 comments in total)
In reply to:

rsf3127: Why buy this over the less expensive Sony a5100?

Canon do the cheapest ultra wide for an EVIL by far

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 10:01 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (786 comments in total)
In reply to:

rsf3127: Why buy this over the less expensive Sony a5100?

So you can use that 22mm f2 lens

So you can add a cheap ultra wide

To avoid the dreaded 16-50 pancake

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2017 at 20:11 UTC
In reply to:

Shlomo Goldwasser: "Still no 4K, though. Maybe next year."

If they release a FF mirrorless of $3500+ it might have 4k. $1300 is simply too plebian for Canon to offer this simple feature. There really is no excuse not to offer it.

I dislike Canon for these kinds of games, and denying me the travel camera that Nikon failed to offer (Nikon DL). The waiting ensues for Panasonic Lx100 successor.

I still don't know if any other camera using this sensor has 4k as an option. I asked you but you didn't reply. If there are other cameras then it might just be turned off here

But 4k is not just about software. It's about hardware that is fast enough. Could we upgrade my D90 to 4k a firmware upgrade? No of course not there is no way the sesnor reads fast enough

Nikon had to not use the full chip area to get 4k from the D500. Why? Because you need to read less pixels per second if you use part of the sensor

Reading a 24MP sesnor 30 times a second isn't easy and isn't just about software

PS I bet miniiaturisation makes it harder to deal with the heat from a 4k sensor...

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2017 at 20:08 UTC
In reply to:

scotthunter: So many comments on here saying this is a bad camera because of the "slow lens" and that it's too expensive. Maybe for some, but there is still a market for this type of camera. Canon has managed to fit an APS-C sensor and a retractable zoom lens into a palm-sized body, which is an impressive feat of engineering. Sure, Canon could have fitted a F/1.8 lens, but this is a compact camera and compromises have to be made somewhere. I think this will be great camera for landscape photographers who want to travel as light as possible but still demand DSLR-like image quality from a compact camera. They don't need a fast lens as they generally shoot using higher f-stops and with a tripod.

You also need to consider that the build quality of this camera is significantly better than your average entry level DSLR or mirrorless camera – it has an all-metal body and it's weather sealed.

But once you've got the 12-50 kit lens on Olympus it's huge!!!

I can't see that as a fair comparison

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2017 at 13:44 UTC
In reply to:

scotthunter: So many comments on here saying this is a bad camera because of the "slow lens" and that it's too expensive. Maybe for some, but there is still a market for this type of camera. Canon has managed to fit an APS-C sensor and a retractable zoom lens into a palm-sized body, which is an impressive feat of engineering. Sure, Canon could have fitted a F/1.8 lens, but this is a compact camera and compromises have to be made somewhere. I think this will be great camera for landscape photographers who want to travel as light as possible but still demand DSLR-like image quality from a compact camera. They don't need a fast lens as they generally shoot using higher f-stops and with a tripod.

You also need to consider that the build quality of this camera is significantly better than your average entry level DSLR or mirrorless camera – it has an all-metal body and it's weather sealed.

Mike surely the Olmpus isn't that compact once some sort of lens is attached. I Find a lens handy even for landcapes

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 08:32 UTC
In reply to:

Shlomo Goldwasser: "Still no 4K, though. Maybe next year."

If they release a FF mirrorless of $3500+ it might have 4k. $1300 is simply too plebian for Canon to offer this simple feature. There really is no excuse not to offer it.

I dislike Canon for these kinds of games, and denying me the travel camera that Nikon failed to offer (Nikon DL). The waiting ensues for Panasonic Lx100 successor.

Do Canon have 4k from this sensor on any model?

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 08:30 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E3 Review (752 comments in total)
In reply to:

pharles: I've been a big fan of the X system ever since it first appeared and I've been a long time X-E1 user. That said, the X-E3 looks like Fujifilm took their eye off the ball.

I eagerly awaited the X-E3 as I wanted a camera with a better sensor, better EVF and better AF than the X-E1, plus a tilt screen and weather sealing. When the the X-E3 was announced, I bought another brand of camera instead.

OK, I get that every camera is a compromise and that no camera can be all things to all people, but really? Turning the latest X-E camera into an iPhone?

I've been a smartphone user going way back when a BlackBerry was the only game in town. I was the project manger for one of our company's BlackBerry rollouts. I don't have a problem with technology, touch screens or smartphones, but if I want to do the swipey thingy and bludgeon semi-unresponsive icons to get things done, I'll use my iPhone to take pictures.

Pandering to the smartphone crowd won't build market share. They're already gone.

Still no idea why you didn't just but an XT-20 or XT-10

Sounds like you just wanted a price drop on an exsisting model

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 08:43 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E3 Review (752 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bueche: Something with x-trans is very wrong. Take a closer look at the leaves on the distant trees.....
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS6000x4000~sample_galleries/5798831135/3269268294.jpg

Bad resolution and 'worms' all over the place. It actually looks like the photo was taken with a 2 MP camera.

I'm lost

So we are not complaining aboutthe horribe purple fringing?

Or the over exposre on edge twigs and the car rear window?

But there is simething wrong wit the out of focus trees?

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 20:32 UTC
Total: 186, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »