harry

Lives in United States Fairfax, United States
Works as a Engineer/Analyst
Joined on Jun 17, 1999
About me:

Semi-proficient amateur

Comments

Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

dudewithcamera: This entire mode of thinking changed my camera buying thought process. I got rained out one day on a vacation in a cool town I'll likely never see again. After that, WR became a must have for me. Sometimes a previously nominal consideration to you can jump to the foreground.

I would consider taking one of those "rugged" water-proof, shock resistant cameras as a "spare" on any travel. It is typically pretty compact, tough under almost any environment, and potentially the ONLY camera ready at moment's notice.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 11:37 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (276 comments in total)
In reply to:

harry: Nikon would have made to the top of the list had it rolled out the DL models, rather than killing them.

One thing that constantly surprised me from Nikon's "premium" compacts was the quality of the lens. I value the "totality" of a digicam, mainly the combo of sensor/lens quality, than other things because of my shooting pattern.

My experience with J5 (with a BSI-CMOS lens) coupled with ANY 1 series lens, showed that had the DL line been in production, I could expect the same IQ.

Personally, I still believe the decision to not go ahead producing the DL cameras was NOT really about technical challenges, rather, it's likely a business decision to not jeopardizing the existing 1 series, or the D3xxx/D5xxxx series.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2017 at 11:25 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Enthusiast Long Zoom Cameras (276 comments in total)

Nikon would have made to the top of the list had it rolled out the DL models, rather than killing them.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 11:19 UTC as 31st comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

maljo@inreach.com: Interesting technology, but not something I would be interested in, either creating or viewing. This tech could take bad home movies to a while new level.

Actually, this would be perfect for a backyard pool and/or BBQ party, to include ALL people in the scene.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 13:22 UTC
In reply to:

harry: The images look fantastic. I have been drooling for the CX 70-300mm for my Nikon 1 V2 for a while. For the time being, I get by with the FT-1 and 55-300mm AF-S (which is OK but not really sharp when it counts). This new lens may be my "poor man's" alternative to the pricy CX 70-300mm. I understand the size advantage of the CX version, but I got steady hands and the smaller V2 is already an advantage.

Wow, thanks, rube39! eBay sells brand new import of the VR version for only $209.95. A go for me who has already had V2 and FT-1.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2017 at 16:46 UTC
In reply to:

harry: The images look fantastic. I have been drooling for the CX 70-300mm for my Nikon 1 V2 for a while. For the time being, I get by with the FT-1 and 55-300mm AF-S (which is OK but not really sharp when it counts). This new lens may be my "poor man's" alternative to the pricy CX 70-300mm. I understand the size advantage of the CX version, but I got steady hands and the smaller V2 is already an advantage.

p.s. the older full-frame 70-300mm AF-S is almost twice as heavy as the newest 70-300mm AF-P for the DX.

Also, I just noticed that the AF-P version is actually lighter and almost the same size as the CX version. NOW, I am so temped to get the AF-P!!

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2017 at 15:04 UTC
In reply to:

harry: The images look fantastic. I have been drooling for the CX 70-300mm for my Nikon 1 V2 for a while. For the time being, I get by with the FT-1 and 55-300mm AF-S (which is OK but not really sharp when it counts). This new lens may be my "poor man's" alternative to the pricy CX 70-300mm. I understand the size advantage of the CX version, but I got steady hands and the smaller V2 is already an advantage.

I think the older 70-300mm AF-S for the full-frame (which is cheaper, by the way) should also work. The disadvantage of using a DSLR lens with FT-1 is one can only use the center focus, but lose the AF tracking with the dedicated CX 70-300mm. The AF tracking could be useful for birds in the flight. So, there're always trade-offs.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2017 at 14:57 UTC

The images look fantastic. I have been drooling for the CX 70-300mm for my Nikon 1 V2 for a while. For the time being, I get by with the FT-1 and 55-300mm AF-S (which is OK but not really sharp when it counts). This new lens may be my "poor man's" alternative to the pricy CX 70-300mm. I understand the size advantage of the CX version, but I got steady hands and the smaller V2 is already an advantage.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2017 at 12:35 UTC as 37th comment | 6 replies
On article Canon PowerShot G9 X II sample gallery (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

harry: For about the same price, I'd prefer the Nikon J4 + 10-100mm:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Newest-Authentic-White-Nikon-J4-18-4-MP-Digital-Camera-with-NIKKOR-10-100mm-Lens-/161621009787?hash=item25a15ce57b:g:h74AAOSwPhdVHz60

I actually have this package for about 2 years now and it's the best decision I've every made. Of course, it doesn't have the latest and greatest, but the 10-100mm wins out in reach.

This is the best I can do comparing Panasonic 14-140mm to Nikon 1 10-100mm non-PD version. Dimension-wise, the 10-100mm non-PD version clearly is a lot smaller and lighter. It's the law of physics. Larger sensor requires larger lens for the same optical range.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_1_10-100&products=nikon_1_10-100_vr_pd&products=panasonic_14-140_4-5p8

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 20:12 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G9 X II sample gallery (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

harry: For about the same price, I'd prefer the Nikon J4 + 10-100mm:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Newest-Authentic-White-Nikon-J4-18-4-MP-Digital-Camera-with-NIKKOR-10-100mm-Lens-/161621009787?hash=item25a15ce57b:g:h74AAOSwPhdVHz60

I actually have this package for about 2 years now and it's the best decision I've every made. Of course, it doesn't have the latest and greatest, but the 10-100mm wins out in reach.

Thanks. I have the non-PD version of 10-100mm, which is a lot smaller. Unfortunately, CameraSize doesn't have the non-PD version listed as an option.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 20:02 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G9 X II sample gallery (108 comments in total)

For about the same price, I'd prefer the Nikon J4 + 10-100mm:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Newest-Authentic-White-Nikon-J4-18-4-MP-Digital-Camera-with-NIKKOR-10-100mm-Lens-/161621009787?hash=item25a15ce57b:g:h74AAOSwPhdVHz60

I actually have this package for about 2 years now and it's the best decision I've every made. Of course, it doesn't have the latest and greatest, but the 10-100mm wins out in reach.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 16:45 UTC as 21st comment | 8 replies

I have a question which might be slightly off-topic. I re-read DPReview's iPhone 7 Plus review, and noticed its panorama size with close to 4,000 pixels on the short side. By inference that iPhone shots its panoramas with full size resolution I saw a potential quick and dirty use of iPhone 7 Plus (maybe other smartphones with similar capability) as a super-wide surrogate.

Granted, the IQ would not compare to a true digicam with a true superwide angle lens,
So this is how I envision what would work. Since the iPhone 7 Plus can pan both vertically and horizontally, by using the vertical pan, it essentially makes a 28mm view into a 18mm-ish view (right?). Most people would just think about the end image a large panorama photo, but what if one crops the pano into a 3:2 image, with the scene of interest left in the cropped image? Wouldn't this create an image similar to that would have taken with, say, a Nikon 1 6.7-13mm (equiv. 18mm at wide)?

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 18:07 UTC as 7th comment

With these pictures, Nikon can now be excused for delaying the rollout of the DLs. Despite challenges from other brands/models, the DLs still look solid with many unique and desirable features unavailable from others' latest and greatest.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2017 at 12:25 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

harry: Is it just me? The circle does not look a true circle to me?

I don't think its' the shadow. It has to do with the angle(s) from which the images were taken and the post-stitching process. I overlaid a perfect circle on top of this aero photo and can see easily the building is not a perfect circle.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 16:05 UTC

Is it just me? The circle does not look a true circle to me?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 12:22 UTC as 16th comment | 4 replies
On article Google Pixel XL real-world sample gallery (104 comments in total)

Can anybody answer how Pixel pulled such a nice trick from an "allegedly" small sensor?

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2016 at 11:30 UTC as 42nd comment | 2 replies
On article iPhone 7 real-world sample gallery (48 comments in total)
In reply to:

AKH: Images look fine for a phone, but are not any better than from other phones we have seen the last 1-2 years.

Supposedly iPhone 7 Plus would have better images, We'll see.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 11:24 UTC

With DPR's glorious review of iPhone 7 & Plus cameras, wouldn't it be appropriate now to create a forum for iPhone (or other smartphones for that matter)?

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 12:05 UTC as 84th comment
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1179 comments in total)
In reply to:

harry: Which begs the question: will (or should) future DSLRs all go the mirrorless route?

By and large, the DSLRs are trapped by their large collection of lens systems.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 11:08 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1179 comments in total)

Which begs the question: will (or should) future DSLRs all go the mirrorless route?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 14:46 UTC as 221st comment | 3 replies
Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »