lomoapontaechuta

Joined on Jun 12, 2016

Comments

Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On challenge Slow it down (17 comments in total)

I'm a bit confused.
the sample shot is taken with a long exposure, above/ more than 1 sec. but the rules say less than one second. That means high speed shot, right?
Slow what down? the shutter or the subject?
thank you.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2019 at 16:28 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

NCB: Real photography. Not this Photoshop rubbish.

i choose Photoshop rubbish all day long, over those dangerous chemicals

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2019 at 05:54 UTC
In reply to:

Jacob the Photographer: It makes one appreciate the early photographers even more !!

And make us appreciate new cameras even more. They are not as dangerous, and they are way more relaxing in the taking picture process, previewing them and editing them.
At least I'm not worry of putting my house on fire while I'm editing.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2019 at 05:47 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Awesome news! Very affordable. Only $4,000 for the body, w/ a 7-years-old sensor (you pay for the nostalgia), and at a blazing 3 frames per second.
How could you complain!
To my recollection, Leica was bankrupted shorty after the digital camera revolution. Panasonic to the rescue.
Opinions vary wildly. Many will defend Leica as if they're the majority shareholders. There are some facts that the majority will agree with.
- Personally, I see nothing in Leica cameras that attracts me to them. Plain rectangular boxes.
- Horrible grip, if there's one.
- Wrong viewfinder location.
- VERY outdated technology (maybe they finally realized that by laying off 100 of their workforce, last week news, and trying to hire 40 capable electrical engineers; good luck with that. I would not want to work for a company that I think will go bankrupt again).
- VERY sluggish operation.
- Unrealistic pricing that keeps their sales volume extremely low.
If they don't start selling to the masses, they'll die.

it's the other way around.
if they start to sell to the masses it's the end of the "like us", being expensive as hell it's part of the mystic.
you can buy a car with camera assist gadgets and will be cheaper than a leica.
More affordable... ahahahahah, it's more like... as affordable as a car. :)

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2019 at 06:29 UTC

the lose of 500px (whatever it is) will be the gain of another platform.
Amazing shots.
reality or manipulation of reality is irrelevant.
reality is very subjective and it differs from person to person.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2019 at 12:19 UTC as 41st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

(unknown member): Muito bem, Portugal e muito bonita. Pessoas muito agradáveis ​​e excelente café. Uma visita é recomendada (desculpe, meu Portugues é muito mau).

Não é nada, o seu Português (corrente) escrito até é muito fluído e bom.

Nessas duas frases, só tenho uma correcção a fazer.
...Portugal é muito bonito... em vez de ...Portugal é muito bonita...
O resto está óptimo.
Até pensei que fosse um compatriot meu.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2019 at 22:44 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): I’ve hated drones ever since an idiot flew one into the Horseshoe bend right in front of a whole group of us assembled to photograph the sunrise. I’d support any bill that tightens restrictions on them.

yes, thin skin combat planes like IL-2 or B-17,of course I'm not saying to go to that extreme. But after 9/11 the cockpit doors were replace by armoured doors.
the old doors were made by a material much similar to cardboard arranged in honeycombs to give strength to the structure,it worked as long you didn't forced your way in.
In my opinion will be safer if they use stronger materials than the current ones.
Even with laws in place, even if you hold responsible a drone pilot that won't bring back a plane that went down because of a drone.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2018 at 16:33 UTC
On article Nikon Coolpix P1000 Review (647 comments in total)
In reply to:

flip 21: 1/2.3" sensor?!?!? Are we going backwards in terms of technology evolution?!?!?

No, after all evolution it's evolution and you always paid, pay and will pay premium for that.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2018 at 14:44 UTC
On article Nikon Coolpix P1000 Review (647 comments in total)
In reply to:

BryceM: Not my cup of tea, but I was talking to a Nikon DSLR user the other day who "hates changing lenses". He went on to describe his dream camera, and it sounded an awful lot like this one...

I guarantee, when it comes to heat, haze and all the things attached there's no difference which type of sensor and lenses you use at distance.
Better go short and stay there, using full zoom in close by subjects. or something else as long it's near.
In good weather conditions (cold and clear) the 16 mp can produce beautiful pictures, as every other lens or sensor.
I think the key it's the thinner the atmosphere is the better the pictures are, less interferences are picked up.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2018 at 18:01 UTC
On article Nikon Coolpix P1000 Review (647 comments in total)
In reply to:

Finsbay: The comparison with a 800 F5.6 with converter is not a fair one, as this gimmick camera has I assume has a 537mm lens.
Could get a Nikon D5600 18-140mm and Tamron 150-600mm for just a little more for vastly better quality photos.

d5600+ 18-140 +150-600?
For a walk around/hike setup? Nah... it's just not very practical. And you would need more lens.
and 18-140 lens has a 40/45 cm minimal focus length, the 150-600 has a 270 cm minimal focus lens.
If I had a 150-600 lens I would leave the 18-140 at home, and bring a macro lens or a prime for LL. And even then would be too heavy to carry around.
And this kind of gear can reach very high numbers in $ and be lousy gear for exploring.
That's why there are superzooms

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2018 at 17:48 UTC
On article Nikon Coolpix P1000 Review (647 comments in total)
In reply to:

flip 21: 1/2.3" sensor?!?!? Are we going backwards in terms of technology evolution?!?!?

the evolution tends to get things smaller not bigger.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2018 at 17:19 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): I’ve hated drones ever since an idiot flew one into the Horseshoe bend right in front of a whole group of us assembled to photograph the sunrise. I’d support any bill that tightens restrictions on them.

that won't prevent accidents, nowadays planes are build with economics in mind, to be the most economic possible (fuel consumption, light weight materials, etc).
Instead build planes with thicker skin. And this discussion will be Academic.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2018 at 13:41 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): I’ve hated drones ever since an idiot flew one into the Horseshoe bend right in front of a whole group of us assembled to photograph the sunrise. I’d support any bill that tightens restrictions on them.

for what? to miss the drone and hit the plane? No thanks.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2018 at 13:37 UTC
In reply to:

lomoapontaechuta: Uhmm, a guy pays hundreds of euros or dollars on a ticket, to travel in a machine of hundreds millions of whatever currency that can be defeated by a tiny plastic device.
They say that traveling by plane it's much more secure than traveling by other means, yes it's true, only because they are much less planes in the air than cars on the roads.
Planes of the past (flying fortress, e.g.) could withstand a good amount of beating from AA fire or fire from fighters, today's pressurized aluminium flying tubes are a far cry of those days.
What about building sturdier planes, instead of this stupid laws.

Better (sturdier) planes with better engines. That can get rid of a drone or two by themselves or flimsier drones.
Drones shouldn't present a threat nor a credible threat to an airline plane or let's say a Cesna.
This law it's stupid, personally I don't want anyone with a gun close to the plane I'm in, it makes me nervous.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2018 at 14:06 UTC
In reply to:

lomoapontaechuta: Uhmm, a guy pays hundreds of euros or dollars on a ticket, to travel in a machine of hundreds millions of whatever currency that can be defeated by a tiny plastic device.
They say that traveling by plane it's much more secure than traveling by other means, yes it's true, only because they are much less planes in the air than cars on the roads.
Planes of the past (flying fortress, e.g.) could withstand a good amount of beating from AA fire or fire from fighters, today's pressurized aluminium flying tubes are a far cry of those days.
What about building sturdier planes, instead of this stupid laws.

smaller aircrafts don't go to a major airport unless there are special situations.
if a airbus or alike aren't in danger, there's no point of having the drones classified has a high risk, right? Or drones are more than insects caught in the windshield?
Even birds can defeat planes.
either way I'm a bit sceptical of the security of this trigger happy law. Even at this side of the pond.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2018 at 00:11 UTC

Uhmm, a guy pays hundreds of euros or dollars on a ticket, to travel in a machine of hundreds millions of whatever currency that can be defeated by a tiny plastic device.
They say that traveling by plane it's much more secure than traveling by other means, yes it's true, only because they are much less planes in the air than cars on the roads.
Planes of the past (flying fortress, e.g.) could withstand a good amount of beating from AA fire or fire from fighters, today's pressurized aluminium flying tubes are a far cry of those days.
What about building sturdier planes, instead of this stupid laws.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2018 at 05:48 UTC as 32nd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

perry rhodan: Really hope that Nikon isnt the next Minolta! Doesnt look good.

The last thing Brazil is, a Socialist state.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2018 at 17:40 UTC

am I understand this right?
A film camera with digital output with no need for developing?
A camera with the best of both worlds?
Where do I sign up?

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2018 at 22:49 UTC as 91st comment
In reply to:

NCB: Nooooooo!!! Modern digital cameras are, generally speaking, so good that in terms of simply taking pics they are much better than film.

That said, there is something special about film and film cameras, so long as you can get hold of the right film and the right film developing. Keep it like that. Attempting to produce digital output from a film camera body is nonsense.

No, they aren't.
they lack something

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2018 at 22:43 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: This photographs the image scattered off the frosted glass/plastic focusing screen, which is at best good for about 2MP worth of resolution — why even bother with a 16MP sensor? You would get better images using one cell phone to photograph the screen of another cell phone.

A phone, again?
why? Do you need to call or text someone?

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2018 at 22:41 UTC
Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »