Dazed and Confused

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on May 23, 2002

Comments

Total: 69, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Dazed and Confused: I have to admit to not really understanding why you'd want to do this:

>when I got the composition I wanted, and there was no more subject movement, I'd often want the camera to stop tracking in the X-Y plane, but continue tracking in depth (refocusing if the subject or photographer approaches or recedes).

What is the disadvantage of just leaving it in AF-C - it'll still track for depth, as you want? Why would you not want it to track in the X-Y plane if the subject moved, as surely you'd need that in order to regain your desired composition?

Ah, I see. I'm just Dazed now.

Thanks.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 12:45 UTC

I have to admit to not really understanding why you'd want to do this:

>when I got the composition I wanted, and there was no more subject movement, I'd often want the camera to stop tracking in the X-Y plane, but continue tracking in depth (refocusing if the subject or photographer approaches or recedes).

What is the disadvantage of just leaving it in AF-C - it'll still track for depth, as you want? Why would you not want it to track in the X-Y plane if the subject moved, as surely you'd need that in order to regain your desired composition?

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2016 at 12:22 UTC as 47th comment | 3 replies

I'd be very interested to hear what the 8 people who apparently already own it, or used to, think of it....

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 13:33 UTC as 133rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

darinb: >>Zeiss says it has made focusing rings with particularly long action to make precise focusing easier,<<

The rotation angles appear to be the same as the ZF.2 line.

--Darin

@filipe:

Not according to Zeiss' official video:

https://youtu.be/LlVcXAYIM28?t=1m44s

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2015 at 22:44 UTC
In reply to:

darinb: >>Zeiss says it has made focusing rings with particularly long action to make precise focusing easier,<<

The rotation angles appear to be the same as the ZF.2 line.

--Darin

I think that apart from the 1.4/50 and 1.4/85 they ARE the ZF.2 line.

Just in a curvier body.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2015 at 20:33 UTC

Can you reverse the hoods for storage, like on the current 2/50 and 2/100 they're updating?

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2015 at 20:31 UTC as 74th comment
On article Polaroid Snap instant digital camera prints 2x3" photos (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

zzzxtreme: I reckon i can copy jpegs from other cameras into the Snap, and have it print?

Cause Snap is way cheaper than Instax, SP1 and LG printer

Have you tried the Polaroid Zip?

From the looks of it, it's just the Snap without the camera part, and is the same price.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2015 at 20:16 UTC
On article Polaroid Snap instant digital camera prints 2x3" photos (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: For a 100 that looks like an interesting toy, but I just gotta ask, why not just use/make a regular instant film camera for a use like this? Not sure if it was envisioned for people who want multiple tiny copies of one pic.

>I think most people who are after the 'wait and see the surprise' would be better served with just regular instant film.

Except that Fuji Instax film is miles more expensive - about 3 times the price in the UK - and you still don't get a digital copy.

I'm really not sure why you view the instant film cameras that this is replicating as OK, but not this. If you personally don't want to pay for printing every picture you take, there are quite a few normal digital cameras to choose from.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2015 at 19:59 UTC
On article Polaroid Snap instant digital camera prints 2x3" photos (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: For a 100 that looks like an interesting toy, but I just gotta ask, why not just use/make a regular instant film camera for a use like this? Not sure if it was envisioned for people who want multiple tiny copies of one pic.

I think an LCD would remove a lot of the fun and charm of this camera, though - the whole 'wait and see how it turns out' experience that you get from original Polaroids.

With an LCD people would just chimp and never print anything unless it's perfect - or never even print them at all - like they do now. The element of surprise would be lost. Polaroids are so fun because you can't choose what comes out - once it's taken you get what you get.

If you want to only print certain photos or print multiple copies, you might as well just buy the stand alone printer and attach to any cameras you choose.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2015 at 12:23 UTC
On article Polaroid Snap instant digital camera prints 2x3" photos (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: For a 100 that looks like an interesting toy, but I just gotta ask, why not just use/make a regular instant film camera for a use like this? Not sure if it was envisioned for people who want multiple tiny copies of one pic.

>why not just use/make a regular instant film camera for a use like this?

Because this one can save a digital copy of each photo.

I shoot Polaroid instant, and when you take a good one and lots of people ask for a copy, your only option is to scan - slow and inconvenient.

Plus a digital copy won't degrade over time like an instant photo.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2015 at 20:57 UTC
In reply to:

trulandphoto: "a lot of pros may be wondering: 'if I ditch my DSLR for some of the advanced AF features the a7R II offers, will I be sacrificing low-light AF performance?'"

I sincerely doubt that. Only in DPReview world would such a question be asked.

How much is Amazon paying Sony?

I've bought an A7RII, and love it, but even I have to admit that I'm starting to feel a bit disconcerted by this new attitude on DPReview.

Before it's always been a quite stand-offish site, and has left the conclusions about whether it is the right camera for you to the reader.

Now, comments saying that this is 'THE camera' are getting officially 'Recommended by DPReview'. I feel for the first time that this site is actually pushing a specific camera over others.

There's a danger that some staff are starting to seem almost too defensive. I absolutely get that you want to defend your conclusions, which in my experience seem valid, but I think that this is a battle you can not win, and in fighting it you endanger the main draw of this site - information seemingly uninfluenced by personal feelings.

I'm not sure that getting this involved in personal comments is a good thing. I feel that much of the technical impartiality that has drawn me to DPReview in the past is being lost.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 09:44 UTC
In reply to:

Simion1: I'm not sure why UK is dark green, as it too has stupid restrictions.

For example Lulworth Cove and Durdle door have photography restrictions and that's just ummm... land in it's most natural form. Also, I think places like Trafalgar Square, Parliament Square and the Royal Parks have bylaws restricting photography too?

Lulworth Cove and Durdle Door are part of the private Lulworth estate, though, so that's totally different.

You are effectively in someone's garden. It's nice of them to let you in in the first place, let alone let you take pictures!

And if you took a photo of it from a public spot, then you're fine anyway.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 21:03 UTC
On article Analysis: Sony a7R II and RX100 IV autofocus systems (752 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dazed and Confused: Looks great.

Can you choose which person's eye to focus on if there are more than one in frame, or even which eye for really shallow depth of field lenses?

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/78488269-woman-archer-aiming-bow-and-arrow-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=f8KUrixgdIc%2Fs5Dw3Lg5W5DP0tTHPfhegGMDNlp%2F5zt9mI5miL3OAxfYiBN4VDN6

(Not a great exmaple, but the first idea that popped into my head. It's a bit hard to tell exact focus point at this size, and d.o.f. isn't crazy shallow, but I think it illustrates how it could be useful.)

Or maybe a person aiming a gun at the camera. Their eye in line with the sight might be further back, but you'd choose to focus on it to draw attention to the fact it is the one being used to aim.

You might not personally like the output, and there's always manual focus point selection, but I see nothing wrong with giving the photographer control over how they use their tool, for those looking to achieve a specific result.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 15:31 UTC
On article Analysis: Sony a7R II and RX100 IV autofocus systems (752 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dazed and Confused: Looks great.

Can you choose which person's eye to focus on if there are more than one in frame, or even which eye for really shallow depth of field lenses?

@Zeisschen:

>You will always want the close eye in focus for a portrait

Mostly, yes, but not always. Photography is an art - there are no hard and fast rules.

@Rishi Sanyal:

>Seems so obvious to me.

Agreed. Just using the same controls as used for cycling focus points in 'normal' modes to cycle between every detected eye in frame seems like the most obvious implementation.

Even if the auto implementation is used in the vast majority of cases, it would still be nice to be given the option to choose.

This is very much why I'm likely to sit out any major purchases for another year or two (let's not forget how good the stuff already out there actually is), to give this sudden jump in technology time to mature and settle.

Exciting times!

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 12:22 UTC
On article Analysis: Sony a7R II and RX100 IV autofocus systems (752 comments in total)

Looks great.

Can you choose which person's eye to focus on if there are more than one in frame, or even which eye for really shallow depth of field lenses?

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 15:33 UTC as 126th comment | 9 replies
On article Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR (334 comments in total)
In reply to:

GearJunkie: No weather sealing??? ...and for that price??? Really, Nikon, what the heck are you thinking??? They truly are dazed and confused when it comes to DX. No weather sealing on this class of lens seems like yet another Nikon blunder.

I resent that remark!

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 08:40 UTC
On article Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge (733 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tommot1965: the major advantage to me for Mirrorless cameras is the WYSIWYG through the viewfinder ....this is a huge step up from a optical VF..my Oly EM1 allows me to exposure compensate on the fly and see in real time the effects..that alone is a very useful feature ...

@brycesteiner

>The people who complain about EVF and the superiority of OVF have never used an EVF.

That's an utterly ridiculous assumption to make.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 08:50 UTC
In reply to:

Scales USA: expect lots of lawsuits. They will likely go bankrupt as a result.

@Digital Shutterbug

Good to see you aren't over reacting at all....

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 09:50 UTC
On article Nikon announces Coolpix AW130 and S33 rugged compacts (32 comments in total)

Shame - I was considering the S33 for my kids as a replacement for their S31. It's a neat little camera, and it's great fun at the beach or just to give to them at parties knowing it won't get broken, but suffers from having such a small sensor and slow lens. It only has an auto mode, and it's not aggressive enough with bumping up the ISO (presumably because results would be horrible), so too many photos are blurry.

However Nikon seem to have kept the same lens, same size sensor, and added no VR. The only thing it seems to be is thinner - pretty much the only thing kids don't need, where chunkier is easier to hold.

Seems like a pretty low effort 'refresh'.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 09:58 UTC as 16th comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Review (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThePhilips: "Panasonic's JPEG high ISO noise reduction continues to disappoint us."

Hehe. A trait typical to female writing: "I like it" but "it disappoints us". For positive or neutral opinion - "I", but for the (esp strong) negative one - "we". :)

Considering that it is your only slip on the whole "Shooting Experience" page, I think it highlights the biggest disappointment with the little camera you had.

The fact that your comment got so many likes before being called out has reminded me why I visit DPReview so infrequently nowadays.

I'm going to hang out with my 4 year old now for a much needed dose of maturity.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 13:47 UTC
Total: 69, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »