stromaroma

Lives in Canada Vancouver, Canada
Joined on Jul 2, 2007

Comments

Total: 91, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (766 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: NIKON 1 V3 was Sony a9 killer of yesterday! It delivered the fps, the accuracy, the speed, and all photographers ever needed for sports action (20 fps tracking, 60 fps fixed focus, etc), and a Nikon 1 kit could be assembled for peanuts compared to an a9 set.
But again, the tremendous prejudice of the digital photography snobbery sniggers at anything with sensor smaller than FF, and less than a truckload of equipment to show off. Just read the sorrowful comments in other thread about "death of Nikon 1". What a horrible attitude towards a genuinely great system! But geeks celebrate a9 years later — despite fact that technology already was there that allowed work to be done, even to sports photographers. It shows the pathetic state of this market — it is not about the essence, but all about pretence, all about snobbery.

I bought into the Nikon 1 and had high hopes for it but they just botched it. Terrible ergonomics, incompatible batteries with every other Nikon camera I have, poor lens selection. As someone said above, they only took it to 30%. I really wanted it to succeed, it's a shame how they totally fumbled that system. It was a good concept that could have gone far as sensor capabilities improved to mitigate the small size.

For some reason camera companies, especially with the Nikon 1, seem to think they need to totally redesign ergonomics with each new sensor they bring out. This makes no sense, my hands don't care what sensor is in the camera. Ergonomics is something that should have been sorted out over a decade ago, and after that you just continue with what works and only make minor tweaks with new cameras as the features change slightly. I can't understand why camera companies screw this up so badly. They can hire me for $100K a year and I'll fix all their ergonomic problems.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 19:47 UTC
On article 500 Leagues: using the Nikon D500 underwater (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: These underwater articles are like visiting the luxury home section in the newspaper. Nice to see what a $2 million home looks like, but I won't be moving into the neighborhood anytime soon.

It is a wonderful set up but a lot of bucks--the housing and dome are no doubt $4,500 or so combined and then add another $1,200 or so for the lighting. Still it is a lot of fun to see the gear and view the spectacular images.

In Vancouver $2 million will get you a basic 2 bedroom house.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 16:58 UTC
On article Drone footage captures the raw power of Iceland (56 comments in total)

Ice and fire and water, oh my!

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2016 at 14:21 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

dpfan32: Too dark....
Could anybody explain relation between fast lenses and exorbitant high costs?? Why only slow lenses are affordable?? This is damn bad for the average Joe with tight budget....

To maintain the same f-stop it becomes exponentially larger as the focal length increases. We have a bunch of options now in the low $1000's range, that's not too bad, way better than it was 10 years ago. The Nikon 200-500 is a great lens and price.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 15:00 UTC
On article Field Test: Shooting action with the Nikon D5 (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

stromaroma: Great video. I presume VR was turned off? That screws up the framing.

It would be nice if VR automatically disabled for shutter speeds above that threshold. For lower light at slower shutter speeds it's very handy.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 14:46 UTC
On article Field Test: Shooting action with the Nikon D5 (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

stromaroma: Great video. I presume VR was turned off? That screws up the framing.

I find that the framing I get when looking through the viewfinder and the actual image I get are not the same thing when using the 200-500. VR has its own mind. Often the subject ends up not in a good location in the frame after VR has its way. I presume that for the fast shutter speeds here VR wasn't needed?

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 22:38 UTC
On article Field Test: Shooting action with the Nikon D5 (118 comments in total)

Great video. I presume VR was turned off? That screws up the framing.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 04:16 UTC as 14th comment | 6 replies
On article Field Test: Shooting action with the Nikon D5 (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: Great video but why do Americans insist on pronouncing Nikon Nai-kon when all other English-speaking peoples (and the Japanese) call it it Nick-on?

Because there is only one K. If you want to say it Nick-on then spell it Nikkon.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 14:20 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Amazing how many people really don't understand how Kickstarter works. You are an investor if you participate financially in such endeavors with all the attendant risks and rewards. Just like other investments you should do your research first before committing funds to such things.

I just bought into a kickstarter because it was a product that I wanted for my wilderness trip in 2 weeks. Otherwise I wouldn't have had it. Supposedly it is being shipped now, I sure hope so.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 20:18 UTC
In reply to:

stromaroma: Great article but that last statement "We'd certainly recommend the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II for landscape photography"????? I wouldn't use either of these for landscape photography... unless of course one was magically in my hands when I wanted to take a photo, which would never happen because I doubt I'd ever touch one. There are much more practical / affordable alternatives for landscapes that would perform equally well if not better.

What about ME????? I'm pretty good too!!!!!

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 23:17 UTC
In reply to:

stromaroma: Great article but that last statement "We'd certainly recommend the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II for landscape photography"????? I wouldn't use either of these for landscape photography... unless of course one was magically in my hands when I wanted to take a photo, which would never happen because I doubt I'd ever touch one. There are much more practical / affordable alternatives for landscapes that would perform equally well if not better.

Followed by the D5X with better DR for landscapes?

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 20:22 UTC

Great article but that last statement "We'd certainly recommend the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II for landscape photography"????? I wouldn't use either of these for landscape photography... unless of course one was magically in my hands when I wanted to take a photo, which would never happen because I doubt I'd ever touch one. There are much more practical / affordable alternatives for landscapes that would perform equally well if not better.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 04:46 UTC as 27th comment | 10 replies

VR and VR get confusing

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 18:20 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: I can't believe how many nutjob comments on here from the 'Truther' fools saying this is fake...'like the moon landing'. What has society come to that masses of people have such a distrust for their gov't that they want to re-write history. Some of these idiots even think the Earth is flat:
http://anonhq.com/the-flat-earth-conspiracy-is-nasa-fooling-the-world/

Please tell me most of you were just fooling around or trying to be ironic...and not just complete morons.

Nice Eric! Just as I predicted. Once again I'm vindicated. I'll take that as an admission of defeat. Apparently you don't understand how the scientific method works. Most people don't.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 17:45 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: I can't believe how many nutjob comments on here from the 'Truther' fools saying this is fake...'like the moon landing'. What has society come to that masses of people have such a distrust for their gov't that they want to re-write history. Some of these idiots even think the Earth is flat:
http://anonhq.com/the-flat-earth-conspiracy-is-nasa-fooling-the-world/

Please tell me most of you were just fooling around or trying to be ironic...and not just complete morons.

Specifically I am referring to Apollo 15.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: I can't believe how many nutjob comments on here from the 'Truther' fools saying this is fake...'like the moon landing'. What has society come to that masses of people have such a distrust for their gov't that they want to re-write history. Some of these idiots even think the Earth is flat:
http://anonhq.com/the-flat-earth-conspiracy-is-nasa-fooling-the-world/

Please tell me most of you were just fooling around or trying to be ironic...and not just complete morons.

Ok Eric, maybe you can enlighten me on the explanation because I've never seen it explained.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: I can't believe how many nutjob comments on here from the 'Truther' fools saying this is fake...'like the moon landing'. What has society come to that masses of people have such a distrust for their gov't that they want to re-write history. Some of these idiots even think the Earth is flat:
http://anonhq.com/the-flat-earth-conspiracy-is-nasa-fooling-the-world/

Please tell me most of you were just fooling around or trying to be ironic...and not just complete morons.

Eric, yes, statistics don't prove anything. What is proof that the moon landings were a hoax is the complete lack of dust on the lander or any hint of a blast crater, as revealed by nasa's own high res images. This, despite the official transcript stating that the dust clouds were so thick they couldn't see our the windows and had to use instruments to land. And the nozzle of the rocket came to rest an inch from the dust surface after supposedly hitting the ground and being crumpled as a result. Yet not a hint if a mark in the ground. No possible explanation for that.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 14:58 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: I can't believe how many nutjob comments on here from the 'Truther' fools saying this is fake...'like the moon landing'. What has society come to that masses of people have such a distrust for their gov't that they want to re-write history. Some of these idiots even think the Earth is flat:
http://anonhq.com/the-flat-earth-conspiracy-is-nasa-fooling-the-world/

Please tell me most of you were just fooling around or trying to be ironic...and not just complete morons.

Amazing that you classify the moon hoaxers with flat earthers. So you find it more believable that they went to the moon like 6 times without a single casualty when they only managed to put people into orbit like 20 years later using the massive Space Shuttles with several catastrophic missions? You don't find it the least bit odd that they never went back to the moon after 40 years?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 05:27 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: I can't believe how many nutjob comments on here from the 'Truther' fools saying this is fake...'like the moon landing'. What has society come to that masses of people have such a distrust for their gov't that they want to re-write history. Some of these idiots even think the Earth is flat:
http://anonhq.com/the-flat-earth-conspiracy-is-nasa-fooling-the-world/

Please tell me most of you were just fooling around or trying to be ironic...and not just complete morons.

"Are you for real?? 'Scientific literacy and objectivity' is what makes fools like you think the moon landing never happened and the earth is flat??? Ok...."

Correct. I look at the evidence without formulating an opinion based on what anyone has previously tried to convince me. I apply all the scientific principles I know and come to a determination. Based on that approach, the Moon landing was a hoax because it is not possible based on the known laws of physics for some of the evidence to be reconciled with the story that men went to the Moon.

Edit: except for your flat Earth comment which was you putting words in my mouth. Obviously the Earth is round.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 02:20 UTC
In reply to:

dave veneri: Consider that if only 1% of the U.S. residents were fruit cakes and off their rockers ( like the ones who doubt these photos or think the Govt. is constantly out to doop us) then that means a whopping 3 MILLION people are mentally out to lunch! keep that fact in mind as I'm most certain that many of those 3 million are members of this forum.

It's a poor argument technique that the moon landing believers always end up insulting the hoaxers' sanity. I chalk that up to the fact that they can't refute the points on a scientific basis and have to revert to ad hominen mudslinging. I could flip your statistic around and point out how 99% if the people out there are brainwashed followers who get spoonfed their beliefs, unable to think for themselves and use proper analysis. Do a little thought experiment in your head for me: what would be your state of mind if the evidence forced you to believe that the conspiracy theorists were actually right, and you were wrong?

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 01:08 UTC
Total: 91, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »