Dazed and Confused

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

Comments

Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
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 (354 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 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 (104 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 (104 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 (104 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 (104 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 (747 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 (747 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 (747 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
Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »