cameron2

Lives in United States Boston, United States
Joined on Dec 26, 2009

Comments

Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Nikon D500 versus D750: Which one is right for you? (343 comments in total)

If you don't know that you need the D500, then you probably don't need the D500. If you do know that you need the D500, then you probably already have it -- or are trying to figure out how to get it!

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 16:04 UTC as 74th comment | 1 reply
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Samples look really good. Probably better than any 4/3 or APS-C ILC with kit lens can do.

KWC3587 - calm down, it's not a competition! I shoot a fixed lens compact myself sometimes, and for it's size, it's pretty unbeatable. Isn't it nice to have different choices available?

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 22:30 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Samples look really good. Probably better than any 4/3 or APS-C ILC with kit lens can do.

Good thing you can change the kit lens on those "interchangeable lens cameras" ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 01:00 UTC
In reply to:

DuxX: Excellent captures of a terrible accident. This is what nuclear technology will bring to us in future. Now it is happened in Japan. Tomorrow can be everywhere else. Human kind must stop with exploitation of nuclear energy. Immediately. :/

Bob, I totally agree with your comments on solar. Where I live, there is great adoption, but the power companies are fighting it for many of the same reasons.

However, the info you have on traditional nuclear power cost seems very wrong compared to the numbers that I am looking at. The local plant here has been in production for many years, and when looking at the total construction cost, it has produced electricity at somewhere around $0.0009/KWH for its life to date. Tacking on an arbitrary extra $5 BILLION of cost still shows the cost below $.02/KWH for its life to date.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2016 at 17:40 UTC
In reply to:

DuxX: Excellent captures of a terrible accident. This is what nuclear technology will bring to us in future. Now it is happened in Japan. Tomorrow can be everywhere else. Human kind must stop with exploitation of nuclear energy. Immediately. :/

Bob, I used to live in Washington (the state), and our community was quite active with the concerns about Hanford, which is an ecological disaster in slow motion. I do not discount any of the fears and concerns related to nuclear waste, mismanagement, etc.

I would invite you to do some research on the concept of the Integral Fast Reactor. You might be surprised and shocked (but probably not) to hear that our congress cut funding for the program years ago, despite the fact that it was proving to be quite a success, able to turn nuclear waste into near-harmless by-product. Planting one or more IFRs within the existing nuclear power facilities that exist could provide a very safe means to dispose of our existing nuclear waste in a relatively safe manner (far safer than running the existing light water reactors!)

We are running reactors with 65+ year old designs. Use common sense, but don't close your eyes to the dramatic improvements that are possible.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2016 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

DuxX: Excellent captures of a terrible accident. This is what nuclear technology will bring to us in future. Now it is happened in Japan. Tomorrow can be everywhere else. Human kind must stop with exploitation of nuclear energy. Immediately. :/

While nuclear power has problems (and potential problems), it is incredibly inexpensive. It is far less expensive than coal, natural gas, solar, wind, etc. Power companies pretend that the cost is $.02/kwh (because they are regulated, their profits are based largely on their costs), but there was research on the topic a few years back that estimated that the real number is likely 1/4 of that. I pay about $.26/kwh, and a good portion of it comes from a nuclear plant that produces it for far less than 1/10th of what I pay.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2016 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

DuxX: Excellent captures of a terrible accident. This is what nuclear technology will bring to us in future. Now it is happened in Japan. Tomorrow can be everywhere else. Human kind must stop with exploitation of nuclear energy. Immediately. :/

The light water reactor designs used in most of the world are derivatives of a design intended for use only on nuclear submarines. The design was never intended to optimize energy extraction for a large land-based plant. The waste materials are highly radioactive. Even worse, only about 1/2 of 1% of the nuclear energy from the fuel is even extracted.

The IFRs (including the molten salt variety, which will likely be the go-forward consensus approach among various countries) turns nuclear fuel and nuclear waste into "almost" safe waste (safe enough to hold in your hand for a short period of time). I can't remember the %s, but the efficiency is supposed to be around 300x what light water reactors do. I think the range for the IFRs run from about 500MW to about 1.5GW.

Every existing light water reactor should have an IFR added to it to "burn up" all the waste left over from the light water reactor.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2016 at 02:18 UTC
In reply to:

DuxX: Excellent captures of a terrible accident. This is what nuclear technology will bring to us in future. Now it is happened in Japan. Tomorrow can be everywhere else. Human kind must stop with exploitation of nuclear energy. Immediately. :/

Those are the stats for the Fuki disaster. While it is an ecological disaster, the actual release of radiation is relatively well quantified, and plugging that into the well known formulae that we have developed over the years for radiation exposure, the expected number of deaths from radiation from Fuki is slightly more than 0, and far less than 1.

You can argue with the science, which many people choose to do, but there are better things to argue against, like whether CFCs destroy the ozone layer, whether tetraethyl lead is a poison for humans, whether man plays a role in climate change, etc.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 14:30 UTC
On article 8K Helium Super 35mm sensor on the way from RED (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Hopefully this will come with a discounted subscription to one of Amazon's server farms... as that's the kind of computing power 8K processing will require.

Playback uses a fraction of a single core. That's not what chews up the cores. And the stuff that does chew up the cores happens to scale well for video. See the reviews, for example:
* http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/6
* https://www.videomaker.com/article/f6/17135-editing-in-4k-minimum-system-requirements

The review I wish I could find talked about how you could do real time editing of 4k with e.g. the 2013 Mac Pro, and showed which resources it was using to do it ...

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 02:48 UTC
On article 8K Helium Super 35mm sensor on the way from RED (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: Hopefully this will come with a discounted subscription to one of Amazon's server farms... as that's the kind of computing power 8K processing will require.

4k was fairly well handled by the Mac Pro of 2013.

8k will only need 4x the processing throughput.

2016 GPUs (e.g. NVidia 1080) have about 2.5x the flops as the high end D700s on the Mac Pro, and 2016 high end Intel CPUs have on the order of twice the throughput (e.g. 24 core Xeons).

So with dual CPUs and dual GPUs (the latest), it should be possible to edit 8k today with about the same performance as 4k in 2013.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 19:18 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1230 comments in total)
In reply to:

gbdz: Since you can buy yourself into a real ecosystem of lenses and whatever you might ever imagine you'd ever need in photography with the FF and APS DSLRs of Canon and Nikon and Sony, what exactly is the "raison d'etre" of this Fuji line of products?
As I've never touched one of these cameras, I do not understand.
Can you let me in on the secret, please?

The high-end Canon lenses are good, but most of them aren't very good, and few are great. Try the Fuji 56mm some time ... you'll have a hard time using your Canon thereafter.

It's not easy explaining to someone who hasn't driven a Porsche why it's better than a Toyota. In reality, they are both amazing machines, they can both get you where you want to be, and many times the Porsche is the flat-out wrong choice. But don't expect a Porsche owner to answer you seriously when you ask why it's better than your Toyota. And vice versa, for that matter.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 16:45 UTC
On article Faster flagship: Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-T2 (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike99999: Looks like a nice camera if you need APS-C and are 100% sure you will never switch to full frame.

Nevertheless, there is NO reason whatsoever why this camera should cost so much more than the Nikon D7200 or A6300.

It is the same tactic as Olympus: lock users into your crop lens system, and then jack up the prices of bodies to stratospheric levels.

@theprehistorian - not sure what you're talking about "sub frame"; this is a full frame camera using the APS-C sized sensor. (the term "full frame" does not mean sensor size, it means what portion of the frame is used for image capture.)

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 16:35 UTC

Looks like a nice upgrade to the XT1. Hopefully the result is as good as the press release makes it sound!

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 16:27 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

dulynoted: "There's no photographer in the world with a job quite like Pete Souza's. As Official White House photographer,"

Uhm other than every other official photographer for every other world leader? So at least 150 people I'm guessing...Its nice when Americans assume our country is the only one in the world.

@dulynoted:
Yes, I have been fortunate to visit and work in various places in China. Like I said, I love China and the people, but I am also not blind to its problems, and precisely because some of those problems are so similar to other places that I've lived, it saddens me to think that they could have learned from others' mistakes and avoided them. I did not mention Beijing, but yes, it is a city with some of the craziest of challenges, and mass transit, while present, does not begin to put a dent in the traffic, and the ring roads continue to be built one after another, and the cars sit on them for hours without moving (it feels like you're not moving, anyhow!) The geography of the city works against it for pollution, trapping it, like LA of old. Funny you should mention New York; I think I enjoy New York for many of the same reasons that I enjoy Beijing!

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2016 at 12:39 UTC
In reply to:

dulynoted: "There's no photographer in the world with a job quite like Pete Souza's. As Official White House photographer,"

Uhm other than every other official photographer for every other world leader? So at least 150 people I'm guessing...Its nice when Americans assume our country is the only one in the world.

jmfoots: I'll have to sleep on that one. I'm not sure if I am bright enough to appreciate the subtlety.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2016 at 05:03 UTC
In reply to:

Kaso: Pete Souza composes well, picks the right moments and maintains perfect white-balance. I adore his photographs. And, yeah, there's nothing "wrong" with my 7D and 5D Mark III and a handful of lenses.

5Diii? I still like shooting the old 5Dii and there's nothing wrong with it!

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2016 at 17:23 UTC
In reply to:

Manny316: I have several friends that went to school with Pete(K-State) and I enjoy his pictures. I'm surprised Pete doesn't have any Sony gear in his bag even for leisure time since I remember him trying out the Sony a7rii when it first came out and took several photos of Obama with the a7rii. I guess it wasn't good enough for him.lol

see https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/21511378622/

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2016 at 17:20 UTC
In reply to:

dulynoted: "There's no photographer in the world with a job quite like Pete Souza's. As Official White House photographer,"

Uhm other than every other official photographer for every other world leader? So at least 150 people I'm guessing...Its nice when Americans assume our country is the only one in the world.

Dear dulynoted, once you've lived a few places, you will begin to lose your arrogance. You're really not that clever of a monkey after all, and neither are the rest of us. Instead of tearing others down, it should be our lives' work to improve this world, whichever corner of it that we happen to find ourselves in.
And FWIW, I love China, but the cities are not at all remarkable. They're all only a few years old, and already falling apart, like Atlanta in the US but worse. However, the Chinese people whom I have met and spent time with there are wonderful, and they are what make China great, not buildings.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2016 at 17:19 UTC
On article The price is right: Canon EOS Rebel T6 / 1300D Review (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

shooter mclens: What's going on with this review? i dont think ive ever seen DPR devote so much space telling people why they should not buy a camera, and try to convince people to shift to mirrorless instead, several times. The tone is super snarky, so it's hard to tell whether to take the reviewer seriously or not.

I agree that it is strange that DPReview would suggest that people look at a small mirrorless with far more capabilities for the same or lower price, when consumers could purchase the larger and less capable DSLR instead. I'm also curious why they don't review or suggest film cameras, which still work and perform perfectly well.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 16:12 UTC
On article The price is right: Canon EOS Rebel T6 / 1300D Review (415 comments in total)
In reply to:

Max Iso: My first inclination is to scoff at the 9 pt AF system, but considering you get a $200 lens with it, essentially paying $300 for this camera isn't as bad. I'd still rather buy an older model (7D, D7000, D300) for barely more, but owell.

It's a $495 camera with a $5 lens. The camera is fine, and quite a good value (Canon has always been good at that!), but anyone who would actually pay for that lens is crazy.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 16:09 UTC
Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »