Peter Jonas

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Mechanical Engineer
Joined on Nov 16, 2010


Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5
In reply to:

Old Cameras: There's some synergy for you.

If it's true or not we don't know. But I can also see synergy there. Nikon could do with a bit of mirrorless technology, while Fuji could do with some flash system and camera handling know-how.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 02:38 UTC
In reply to:

PorscheDoc: This rumor is total garbage. It appears to be based an unknown japanese blogger with the online name ayaya030915. The translation of the article is completely wrong (see ).

Dpreview should check their facts before reposting fake news.

They did not report it as news, they reported is as the appearance of a rumor quoting the source. I for one cannot see too much wrong with that.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 02:29 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Just how bad is this Journalism. Did anyone reading this story get even the slightest clue about actually what the infringements are supposed to be. Specifically, what IP rights are being disputed?

On the surface Nikon's claims sound strong. As reported, ASML are acknowledging attempts to negotiate a license fee with Nikon, that seems to indicate that ASML acknowledge the need for license rights exist. But with so few relevant facts, trying to interpret the situation seems a crap shoot at best.

Time to search for better informed sites I guess.

Your expectations are misguided.

The referred article is not meant to be an in depth discussion about the merits of the case. It is simply a news article taken from Reuters, informing people about the commencement of the law suit.

As such, in my view, it correctly restricts itself to briefly reporting the facts relating to initialing the legal action.

You are quite correct, if you are interested in the finer details of the law suit, then you'll need to search for it elsewhere. Such an in depth article may well be beyond the interest of most members of the target audience for this site.

I am not sure what you mean by "I've invested over 10 years in this site", but if your interest is in depth discussions of legal battles over alleged infringements of various patents within the imaging industry, then perhaps your investment was not wisely made.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2017 at 01:55 UTC
On article Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

mrc4nl: "According to Canon, the 11-24mm's front element is the largest ever manufactured for an SLR lens, at 87mm in diameter"

Nah, the front element of the nikon 6mm f2.8 is bigger(by a wide margin) 200mm!

I was wondering about that staement too.
Front elements in the 200mm/f2.0, 300mm/f2.8, 400mm/f3.5 and 600mm/f5.6 are about 100mm in diameter, while in the 300mm/f2.0, 400mm/f2.8, 600mm/f4.0 and 800mm/f5.6 are even bigger at about 150mm. All of them way bigger than that in the 11-24mm/f4.0. All of those lenses have been made by Nikon and many of them by Canon.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2015 at 02:04 UTC
On article Good to go: Living and shooting with the Fujifilm X-E2 (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

Miwok: Why should go with this camera when a NEX-6 give me almost the same for half the price?

It's your choice of course.

However, it appears you are a little pessimistic about the performance of the X-E2 and at the same time way too optimistic about the price of the NEX-6.

Good luck with your purchase.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2014 at 07:42 UTC
Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5