aliasfox

Joined on Dec 9, 2013

Comments

Total: 250, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

DtEW: That's too bad about the 12" Macbook. AFAIK, it was the only mass-market solid-state full-fledged computer on the market.

The rumor out there is that it's going to come back after an x86-ectomy (the first of many, if Apple would have its way), well-ARMed and throttle-free for the next generation.

Oh gotcha - I hadn't considered fans. Thanks!

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2019 at 11:52 UTC
In reply to:

faberryman: Does anyone actually buy the entry level model with a 128GB SSD?

With streaming music, my non-photo storage really only takes up 30-40 GB. I have 3TB in my tower for bigger libraries. In fact, I remember back in the day I had an external hard drive for most of my storage needs, as well. Ideal? No. But if I were to upgrade beyond 128GB I'd probably want a whole TB, and I'm not paying for that kind of SSD just yet.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2019 at 17:42 UTC
In reply to:

ewelch: Only the 21 inch iMac doesn't have Retina displays now. Watch for that to change soon. Probably this Fall.

The cheapest iMac exists for bulk purchases - school computer labs, libraries, etc.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2019 at 17:39 UTC
In reply to:

DtEW: That's too bad about the 12" Macbook. AFAIK, it was the only mass-market solid-state full-fledged computer on the market.

The rumor out there is that it's going to come back after an x86-ectomy (the first of many, if Apple would have its way), well-ARMed and throttle-free for the next generation.

What do you mean, "only solid state full fledged computer on the market?" Do you mean it was the lightest? All MacBook Airs since 2010 and all MacBook Pros since 2012 have been completely solid state. Not to mention almost all of the >$1k notebook market since at least 2015.

If you're saying it was the lightest, then sure. It would have been nice if they had fixed the keyboard and given it two TB3 (instead of one USB3) port. Perfect "executive" laptop that could do most of a MBP at a weight closer to an iPad + keyboard.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2019 at 17:36 UTC
On article Best lenses for Micro Four Thirds (346 comments in total)

I like the 17/1.8 - lightning fast autofocus and image quality that's comparable to the 12-40, while being 1/3 the weight + 1 1/3 stops faster, make it a win in my book. My fiancee has the 15/1.7, and while that lens is technically sharper, for general image quality, I wouldn't think there's much to pick between them. As for the 20/1.7... own one, maybe good for sculptures, but the AF makes it less good for any kind of street shooting. Results are great, but using it just feels aggravating.

By rep, the 45-200 is the loser in the recommendations. No sharper than any other zoom, nearly twice the weight of the 45-175, twice the price of the 40-150 or 45-150 options. I have the Oly 40-150R, and I wouldn't upgrade to the 45-200, even if free.

Other lens that deserves a shout - the 14-140 / 14-150 twins. Great for daylight shots, very versatile, small and very light (lighter than the 12-40!) - I envy my fiancee when she's using that and I have to swap between my 12-40 and 35-100.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2019 at 23:46 UTC as 66th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Angrymagpie: Would love to see Panasonic and Olympus releasing this type of small and weather sealed primes at reasonable price points like this again

Yes Oly, just update the 12/2 with weathersealing and I'll have a great, lightweight, weathersealed kit. As it is, I can pack the 12-40/2.8 and be weathersealed and heavy, or pack my 17/1.8 or 25/1.4 and risk a drizzle. Was definitely annoyed last fall when an unexpected shower came through and I wasn't even carrying the camera in a case.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2019 at 19:42 UTC
In reply to:

Sheacash: At 600, I'd be thinking strongly about it. At 500, I'd buy in a heartbeat, but the current price is a bit too high for me, especially considering I use Panasonic bodies, and would lose Dual IS 2 and DFD.

If Panasonic came out with it I'd probably buy at current price to replace my 14-140 if the performance was close enough.

I'm pretty sure Oly will put it on sale and take $200 off the price every other month (just like they do with their other lenses).

And if it shows up as kit on an E-M5iii, look for it on ebay for <$500.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2019 at 15:15 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I think this is the kind of lens that should have come out at the very start of MFT -- as a demonstration that the smaller sensor really does yield glass with a larger range that is neither huge nor too expensive. It seems a nice option for video to have too (if it doesn't breathe too badly). However, coming out now, it seems a bit of a desperate move against the multitude of FF competitors... and oddly cheapens the system by making it look more like a superzoom competitor.

I see complaints about IQ here, but the images look about as good as MFT gets except for maybe a tad lower contrast. Certainly, they don't look worse than typical APS-C superzoom delivers.

I'm pretty sure there are similar lenses for the APS-C DSLR crowd - something like 16-300, from the likes of both first party and 3rd party manufacturers. I see this lens as competing with those (and high time, too).

For most tourists who want to capture images, this + a 12-25mm prime for night time would cover just about everything except for true wide angle.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2019 at 15:12 UTC
In reply to:

onlyfreeman: The bigger brother of the EM1X?

I'm actually curious to see how this camera compares to both the S1 and the E-M1x pixel shift modes. The S1 starting out with an FF sensor, the E-M1x starting out with a 4/3 sensor, all outputting close to 100MP.

DoF aside, the results might be reasonably close for still-life, but in every other sense the cameras have completely different use cases - I wouldn't want to shoot fashion/ads on an E-M1x, I wouldn't try sports of any kind on a GFX, and I probably wouldn't try to shoot 100mp landscapes with the S1, at least not without a tripod.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2019 at 15:27 UTC
On article Nikon Z7 Review (4504 comments in total)
In reply to:

Korinth7: I have always found it odd so many focus their comments on the percentage, Gold, Silver, etc. awards. I suppose I could pick apart DPR for the flaws and imperfections in this system but I simply ignore it and focus on the content of the written review, and draw conclusions from that.

You mean you actually *read*? As in... more than 140 characters at a time? You, sir (or madam), are a strange breed, and I commend you on your diligence and fortitude.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2018 at 14:42 UTC
In reply to:

pro photo 2011: As usual, only Leica can give you less and charge you more, much more.

The quality is always top of the class.

If I were to buy one, I'd go for the M10-P instead.

Porsche, too. Maybe something about being German...

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2018 at 13:50 UTC

The closest sizes I could come up with for a 5.5um pixel pitch were a 16mp APS-C sensor (5.1um) and a 24mp FF sensor (6.0um). So... probably at least an APS-C sensor.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2018 at 03:28 UTC as 47th comment
On article DPReview TV: Canon EOS R review (737 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vahab: If the body is same size and weight as 6D , where does the mirror less advantage come from?

A mirrorless camera should be capable of faster frame rates and no mirror slap (both directly due to lack of mirror), the ability to show a stabilized viewfinder with any lens using IBIS, and a shorter flange distance, allowing for an improvement in portability with small lenses (and supposedly easier to design wide-angles).

Strangely enough, the Canon EOS R does away with high frame rates, IBIS, and is starting out with some large f/2 zooms.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2018 at 02:56 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Canon EOS R review (737 comments in total)
In reply to:

LessMirrored19: The video was so bad, I kept checking YouTube quality sittings to ensure its 1080p..
1.7 crop ?

There was the brief shot from the GH5 near the end of the video (I think it's when Jordan was back in Calgary) - the image on-screen suddenly looked noticeably sharper. I didn't think I would notice it until it popped on screen.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2018 at 02:34 UTC
On article Nikon Coolpix P1000 sample gallery (208 comments in total)
In reply to:

abe4652: I would like a comparison set of photos at maximum zoom taken with:

1) P1000 at maximum zoom, at ISO 100, which fills the frame, and

2) A maximum sensor quality camera, like the Sony A7r3, with a reasonable and good zoom like the 70-300 at 300mm.

And then magnify for a small area, and see how the images compare

I wouldn't mind seeing a controlled test as well - preferably somewhere cold, to minimize wavy air. I just want to be realistic about the outcomes.

I shoot at nearly 600mm equivalent whenever I try to capture surfers from shore - and even in great light where the AF has hit the surfer perfectly, I'm not expecting to crop in much smaller than 2x, or about 3-4MP. This is with a 16MP E-M1 + 50-200 SWD + 1.4x TC.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2018 at 23:06 UTC
On article Nikon Coolpix P1000 sample gallery (208 comments in total)
In reply to:

abe4652: I would like a comparison set of photos at maximum zoom taken with:

1) P1000 at maximum zoom, at ISO 100, which fills the frame, and

2) A maximum sensor quality camera, like the Sony A7r3, with a reasonable and good zoom like the 70-300 at 300mm.

And then magnify for a small area, and see how the images compare

An A7R3 with a 400mm lens, cropped in to 3200mm (just because the math is easy), gives about 0.6MP - or less than an XGA screen, and less than most phones you might be reading this on. Let's not even mention that an A7R3 with a 100-400 zoom is well beyond the price of a P1000.

A Sony RX10 with the 24-600mm lens is probably the closest competitor in that regard, only because by the time you crop in, you're still working with ~2MP, and the whole kit is less than twice the price of the P1000.

So yes, while the P1000 is an oddity, it's unlikely that anybody would be able to match its range for anything close to its price - if only by virtue of the fact that larger sensors simply don't have enough pixel density to crop.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2018 at 21:49 UTC
In reply to:

Ace of Sevens: Why do so many cameras like this use 18 MP sensors? Thanks to refraction, you can't get any more detail than with a 12 MP sensor and the 12 would be cheaper and could do video way better as you can do 4K with no crop or advanced scaling math a cheap processor can't handle.

Because on Amazon/Best Buy, 18 > 12. Simple as that.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2018 at 00:09 UTC
On article iPhone XS, XS Max and XR cameras: what you need to know (335 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: Fun fact: as a doctor working where I am, I make 150$, a month, which means an Iphone XS Max is about a year worth of income, of a doctor. The economic status is declining and these phone prices and rising, steeply. I wonder if the Iphone XI will be 2000$!

A high end OLED TV is $4,000
A Sony A7Rii is $3,000+
A high end bicycle is $10,000

These are a few of the things where the newest and shiniest are quite expensive. Luckily, there are options that are lower in cost, as well, such as a very nice Sharp Aquos TV for $300, a Canon Rebel is $500, and a serviceable commuter bike can be found for $200 - there's even an iPhone for $450. In fact, if you want to buy a house-brand TV, a compact superzoom, and a Xiaomi phone, you could do it even more cheaply. There's nothing wrong with having products at different price points, as long as there are people to buy them.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2018 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

SheepStar: Does everyone actually buy a phone outright? Every time my contract is up, there is usually a bunch of stuff you can do to haggle the down payment on phones to very little, and then get a good plan for the next 2 years. I've done this twice now, going from an iPhone 4, to a 6S, and now an 8 Plus.

Also, if you can't afford these phones, do you really want to go around announcing that? This isn't Yelp, no one cares you hate something, especially something you haven't actually tried.

Speaking to some Canadian friends of mine, it almost sounds like it would be cheaper for you guys to hop across the border and get a T-Mobile unlimited plan with free international usage for $60/month!

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2018 at 13:36 UTC
In reply to:

SheepStar: Does everyone actually buy a phone outright? Every time my contract is up, there is usually a bunch of stuff you can do to haggle the down payment on phones to very little, and then get a good plan for the next 2 years. I've done this twice now, going from an iPhone 4, to a 6S, and now an 8 Plus.

Also, if you can't afford these phones, do you really want to go around announcing that? This isn't Yelp, no one cares you hate something, especially something you haven't actually tried.

I'd rather buy a phone up front. Take the iPhone X for example - this is current pricing at T-Mobile (before the 2018 preorders open up). The phone is either $999 up front, or $279 down + $30/month for 24 months. That works out to... $999. Sure, it works out as an interest free loan, but buying the phone up front also means I'm not tied into any contract or even carrier. Living in NYC means T-Mobile actually works for me, but if life circumstances were to change, not being tied in means I don't have to jump through as many hoops to move to Verizon or AT&T.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2018 at 12:07 UTC
Total: 250, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »