Lives in United States United States
Joined on May 27, 2010


Total: 3106, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

So where's the smart lawn?

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 21:48 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply

Ate there once and it was so spicy I thought it would burn a hole in the table. As for the photo, should have sued for a trillion. Aim high; you never know.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 21:42 UTC as 107th comment
On article SLT strikes back: Sony a99 II real-world sample gallery (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: As far as full frame cameras are concerned - definitely camera of the decade!

It's the camera of the century and the next century too--unless it gets replaced by an upgraded model by Thanksgiving.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 18:27 UTC
On article DJI reportedly takes majority stake in Hasselblad (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

cdembrey: Worth reading https://blog.mingthein.com/2017/01/09/on-the-whole-hasselblad-dji-thing/#more-14020

Yes - this is a much more useful and thoughtful article, unless you've never seen a picture of a Halliburton case or believe that Kyocera could have taken over the medium format market.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 17:05 UTC
On article DJI reportedly takes majority stake in Hasselblad (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gesture: Weird. Too many orders! But who would really want to own Hasselblad?

Someone who wants the name.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 16:47 UTC

These look pretty good to me, but until the M5 comes down in price, it will attract people who are fussy and want lots of expensive lenses. I know this isn't Seattle and the sun is out, but the shadows seem really dark as in low dynamic range. Camera & lens for around $900-1000 seems about right.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 22:25 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ZAnton: Oooh, on paper looks good. But I expect massive barrel distortions that Panasonic lenses always have.

Almost certain. But all shorter focal length m43 zooms have massive barrel distortion. See photozone.de, a really useful testing site. Suprisingly, in-camera distortion correction seems to work very well.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 06:54 UTC
In reply to:

OlyPent: Unfortunately, the days of real finishes (nickel, satin chrome) are gone along with brass top and bottom plates (unless you are Leica). So, now it's metallic paint which (based on my two Olympus cameras) isn't highly durable, but at LEAST it's a change from the stodgy black cameras Americans seem unable to part with.

I have to chuckle when people say how gorgeous cameras like the Fuji or the Pen are (and I own both.) True, they look like attractive cameras from the old days but the finishes are not even close to either the silver or black on a classic Leica. Even Leica's "black chrome" looks good compared to what we get now.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 21:37 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Now, if Nikon will start making the Coolscan again, we're in business.

Yes, the Nikon software was worthless but Viewscan works fine and with almost any scanner.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 23:53 UTC

Now, if Nikon will start making the Coolscan again, we're in business.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 21:12 UTC as 121st comment | 4 replies

I think the f/4 is a good compromise to keep the size down. Even so, 62mm thread suggests it's pretty large for m43.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 04:00 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

io_bg: Now why do they call the same camera three different names in various markets? Makes zero sense to me.

Gray market.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 22:06 UTC
In reply to:

Davejl: Consumers and reviewers are letting Panasonic and Olympus off the hook too easily for not making fully compatible lens systems. Now that both Olympus and Panasonic Support "dual" body and lens stabilization, it would have been much better for both companies and consumers if their stabilized lenses spoke to the other companies bodies. Even better, but perhaps even more naive would have been if Panasonic licensed Oly stabilization and made it compatible with Oly systems. A missed opportunity on a system that once had been a truly cross-company platform, dashed by short-sighted competition.

The lenses work well either way, and each manufacturer wants to offer things the other doesn't.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 21:55 UTC

Lovely video.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2016 at 01:06 UTC as 32nd comment
In reply to:

ttran88: Modern day cameras are too sophisticated, probably cost more to repair than buy a new one.

The plastic has recycling codes on it, so even as they are making your lens, they're planning for its disposal.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2016 at 00:58 UTC

I have Cannon towels in my bathroom. They're not exciting but they are reliable.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 17:16 UTC as 122nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

AEP2: This is hilarious:

‘Digital photography allows consumers to take professional quality photos themselves,’ the study notes as one driving force.

Aside from the fact that professional quality is completely subjective, why do people insist on treating photography like neurosurgery? Even before auto-everything digital cameras, ordinary people took beautiful pictures of beautiful subjects.

There are things that cannot be done at all without years of training and specific, high level skills. There are things you cannot even consider doing without extensive study and training. Photography, even occasionally great photography, isn't one of those things.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

Dvlee: Would have been nice to see some of that market growth going to professional photographers.

Digital photography doesn't allow consumers to take professional quality photos. It allows them to take better quality photos. Professional skills is what allows them to make pro quality photos. And a skilled pro can take pro quality pix using a cheap camera.

With an expensive professional camera an unskilled photographer may be able to take some very nice snapshots, but not professional quality images.

Anyway, it would be nice if some of those hundreds of billions could flow towards professional photographers. Lord knows pro photographers pump enough money into photography equipment, it would be nice if they could make more of it back.

Digital photography absolutely allows ordinary consumers to take professional quality photos, just not consistently. And they don't need to be consistent either because they can take an unlimited number of photos at no cost and without running out of "film."

Professionals can be depended on to produce good results under difficult circumstances and some have unique expertise. But you can cook a professional quality meal without being a professional chef.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 18:42 UTC

This is the type of article Popular Photogaphy ran, over and over. They probably still do. Photography is one of those hobbies where the purchase of one thing almost always leeds to buying something else.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2016 at 17:17 UTC as 40th comment | 2 replies
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1595 comments in total)
In reply to:

JLim22: I don't understand why they decided to flip the screen below the camera...
And crippled auto iso?

It makes no difference to Canon whether you buy SLR or mirrorless (except perhaps that if you buy an M model you'll need to buy new lenses) but things like the way the selfie screen flips don't make much sense.

I expect price reductions on this camera. Not because there is anything wrong with the sensor or it's not a state of the art video camera; but its too expensive for a customer who just wants a small APS camera with interchangable lenses and a built-in viewfinder. That's a $600 camera.

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2016 at 21:08 UTC
Total: 3106, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »