Dazed and Confused

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

Comments

Total: 83, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Weerterbos: Ah, an interesting piece about strobing a sports arena!
Oh no, just name dropping and a 2 photo guess-about.

I also think it would be courteous to at least mention the Reddit discussion they likely got this from, too: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/6esozl/how_do_nba_photographers_get_images_like_this/

It's totally fine to get inspiration from other sites, but I do think it should made clear, otherwise it starts looking like you're doing a Buzzfeed.

Apologies if this is just a total coincidence.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2017 at 07:21 UTC
In reply to:

RedFox88: Hmm... this camera or a house...hmmm....

Where are you buying houses for $50,000?!

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 12:03 UTC
In reply to:

String: It's only for a hipster, it's too expensive, blah blah blah... why not look at it as more of a fun little project you can build with young kids and get them started with photography. Is that really such a bad thing?

>Who cares how easy it is?

I imagine lots of people do. Surely the point of an educational exercise is to pitch it at the correct level? An appropriate level of complexity is where the time and enjoyment comes in.

I don't see how not blindly agreeing that every photo product is perfectly suited for every use just because it is a photo product is bitter - I'm just pointing out the likely much better options for achieving your goal.

I suppose if I pointed out that a Sony A9 might not be the best first camera for a toddler, and gave you a helpful link to more suitable cameras, that would also be me being 'bitter about photo products'?

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 12:26 UTC
In reply to:

String: It's only for a hipster, it's too expensive, blah blah blah... why not look at it as more of a fun little project you can build with young kids and get them started with photography. Is that really such a bad thing?

Building it is literally just putting the pre-assembled board in the case and tightening 4 screws. It's about as educational as Nokia's interchangeable covers from 20 years ago.

If the build itself is the main purpose, there are already plenty of far better options: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-diy-cameras-can-build-today/

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 21:52 UTC

>Interestingly, none have upgraded to the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II or 5D Mark IV.

That's the thing I find most interesting about this article. If they felt no need to upgrade their cameras anyway, even with the comparative ease of staying within systems, I wonder if the Sony offers them enough to switch entire systems.

In my experience, I find that pros are often less concerned with having the very latest or 'best' gear than many amateurs. If it's good enough, it's good enough - why pay more?

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 12:04 UTC as 218th comment | 1 reply

This all comes down to the fact that it isn’t really medium format – it’s a crop to keep cost and size down. While it’s still obviously got benefits over full-frame, they’re not as pronounced as the traditional medium format sizes would give.

It’ll be interesting to see whether this size survives if and when larger medium format becomes more readily available. It could be a sweet spot, like 1.6x, or disappear like most of the 1.3x crops did when full frame became more affordable.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 10:59 UTC as 443rd comment | 3 replies
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

dtray187: I had this lens on my d810 for a few shoots.... it was incredibly sharp , but the bokeh was not looking good to me, too harsh, that's a huge deal. And the way it rendered skin wasn't to my liking. It Was just too clinical, I replaced with the 105mm 1.4e and wow that thing is amazing!
Honestly the 85mm 1.4g I liked better than the art, 1.4g wasn't as sharp but rendered incredible, memorable portraits. This sharpness war needs to be balanced with results on portraits.

@Biological_Viewfinder

I think you're massively oversimplifying. If the sharpness is more than adequate, then other factors play a bigger role.

Taking it to an extreme, I think most people would prefer a lens that gave 99% of maximum sharpness and 100% perfect bokeh over one with 100% sharpness and 0% bokeh.

People choosing a lens for bokeh doesn't mean that they place no importance on sharpness at all. It just might be that a small disadvantage in sharpness is more than acceptable, and outweighed by benefits elsewhere.

The idea that people are choosing lenses based on bokeh are unconcerned by sharpness sounds like a bit of straw man to me.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 21:25 UTC

I loved this camera's design - I think it was genuinely great. It definitely had advantages over a flip out screen, as you can have the controls at a more comfortable and secure angle too. It was so versatile, and great for macros low to the ground. I would love to see a modern version.

It's a real shame that camera design has become so much more conservative recently. All these retro looking cameras are copies of cameras that were shaped by the limitations of film and mirror boxes and rangefinder mechanisms, not because they were the very best shape they could be.

Designers have been freed from those restrictions, yet the public now associate that classic shape with a 'proper' camera.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 11:55 UTC as 98th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

noflashplease: The W100 is just a rewarmed S33, and quite frankly, I can't understand why Nikon needs an annual update of a camera oriented towards small children? Maybe there's a big annual update market among elementary school children in Japan?

The other camera looks like something from the middle of the last decade. A CCD sensor? Really?

Both produces look irrelevant in 2017. It's time for Nikon to retire the "Coolpix" brand. The point and shoot market is now extinct.

Interestingly, among my friends this Christmas the W100 was the most popular camera. It's a great little camera for children, especially on holiday.

Nikon wouldn't still be turning out a new one each year if they weren't selling enough to justify it.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 18:33 UTC
On article Google Pixel tops DxOMark's Mobile rankings (116 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: I'm having trust issues with DxO mobile scores lately.

@MyReality

But all these tests are arbitrary.

1+1=2 is a provable fact. As long as you measure correctly, every result will come back the same.

When it comes to giving an overall score to a camera, the criteria you choose to measure and how you score them is totally arbitrary.

I could start a camera weighting website that scores out of 100. I choose to measure focus speed, noise and colour accuracy. I give up to 98 points for focus, 1 for noise, and 1 for colour. All my tests are fair and accurate, but the results I get would be very different from someone who scores on different arbitrarily chosen criteria.

This is where a lot of people go wrong, and they look at DXO as a totally unbiased system, without realising their is always going to be unintentional bias due to the parameters they have set. It is not helped by DXO being pretty vague about exactly how they set those parameters.

Maths simply isn't open to interpretation. Ranking cameras, however accurate the individual tests are, is.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 07:32 UTC
On article Aura is a next generation digital picture frame (74 comments in total)
In reply to:

AndersSJ: Bring the Memento Smartframe (https://mementosmartframe.com) to Europe, and I'm in.

Now that is a nice looking frame. That's exactly what I was talking about in my previous comment.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2016 at 08:13 UTC
On article Aura is a next generation digital picture frame (74 comments in total)

The trouble with these is that the frames themselves are almost always incredibly ugly. This one may have solved the image quality issue, but I find the frame itself still looks really tacky.

In the video it's in some lovely modern interiors, and it looks totally out of place. I hoped the black and charcoal one would look better, but that might be even worse.

Manufacturers should look at all the 'normal' frame designs that are popular, and copy those. Like the classic thin black frame with a white mount. People want an attractive frame regardless of whether it is displaying a photo or a screen.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2016 at 08:12 UTC as 25th comment
On article ESPN publishes iPhone 7 Plus photos from US Open (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: My Nexus 6P can take better pictures

Why is everyone calling a 56mm normal lens 'tele' all of a sudden?

As a big fan of the 50mm focal length, I find this very confusing.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 06:50 UTC
In reply to:

webrunner5: Go to Amazon and look at the reviews. Not a pretty sight for a LOT of people for the Coolpix S33.

Nikon ought to know how to make a waterproof camera. They did it for a lot of years, many years ago.

Do you mean the 4.1 stars out of 5 from nearly 500 reviews on Amazon.com? Or the 4.5 out of 5 from Amazon.co.uk?

As you say, Nikon knew how to make a well received underwater camera. And from the look of those overwhelmingly positive reviews they still do.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 22:47 UTC
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 134th 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
Total: 83, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »