Eugene CH

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Feb 4, 2006

Comments

Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Canon EF-S 35mm F2.8 IS STM Macro sample gallery (98 comments in total)

Incredible! It is not possible to put the Link for your gallery somewhere in above text? Lost 10 minutes and not yet discovered were the Link is hidden. Why make complicated if simple is easier for all of us?

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 21:37 UTC as 26th comment | 5 replies

Poor Nikon DL.....

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2017 at 11:38 UTC as 7th comment
On article Samsung patent shows dual-camera tracking feature (28 comments in total)

Myself, I did not consider a smartphone being a photo device but rather a telephone with additional irrelevant stuff even if such stuff could help in specific situation.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2017 at 21:18 UTC as 10th comment
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1644 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eugene CH: Time-Lapse: I already wrote to the Dpreview and kindly asked for always including in "Specification" if the camera tested has or not a Time-Lapse! Unfortunately they did not implement this improvement. Why not???? There are already some tested cameras which have Time-Lapse, however not mentioned in Specification! Would you, Dear Colleagues, agree to have this information in each future Test-Specification?

Yes. This is also a possibility. In such case, we don't need the "Specification" page. We have only to look on the marker's website. Isn't?

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 19:51 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1644 comments in total)

Time-Lapse: I already wrote to the Dpreview and kindly asked for always including in "Specification" if the camera tested has or not a Time-Lapse! Unfortunately they did not implement this improvement. Why not???? There are already some tested cameras which have Time-Lapse, however not mentioned in Specification! Would you, Dear Colleagues, agree to have this information in each future Test-Specification?

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 17:08 UTC as 173rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

10zero10: This is why I sold all my Canon gear, and all my Nikon gear and bought Fuji. For now, and that's a big caveat, they are the only camera company who seems to get great lenses, great ergonomics, great image quality, a compact system (because it's the 21st century and my digital camera should not be bigger than my 35mm film K1000 SLR from 1978!) and MOST IMPORTANTLY--unlike other mirror-less systems--they update their old products relentlessly. This is why they have my hard earned money. Thanks

Absolutely!!! Myself, have changed my early intention and, new, will buy a Fuji! Bravo!

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 19:56 UTC
On article Next level: iPhone 7 Plus camera review (193 comments in total)

I am sorry, but: the smartphones are phones first. In second approach, they have an additional function: camera. Therefore, in my opinion, such devices have nothing to do in a specific photographic site. They could be analyzed in a specific site if that exists.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 15:44 UTC as 60th comment | 9 replies
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2213 comments in total)

What a Pity! Neither Fuji X-T2 and X-T1 nor most of Fujinon lenses have image stabilization!

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 23:39 UTC as 41st comment | 5 replies

My opinions: First the name "‘Explorer Kit’" is gimmicky. Second, if indeed "Explorer", than a corresponding bag should have been more appropriate as a cotton strap! I think, Leica wants to sell the last D-Lux 109 which could not been sold and this "Explorer" invent is an attempt to fish some buyers.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 23:11 UTC as 31st comment
On article Camera Scores & Ratings Explained (17 comments in total)
In reply to:

moviegeek: This question may have been asked and answered before, but how do you acquire cameras for review? Do you go to a store to purchase them? Do you purchase the camera directly from the manufacturer, or does the manufacturer send you a free camera for review purposes?

DPreview, Please be kind and answer this question! Thank you.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2016 at 15:44 UTC

Money, Money, Money.....

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2016 at 12:57 UTC as 86th comment

In your short description you mentioned „Additionally, the EOS M5 camera shoots impressive time-lapse videos. „If so, why this specification is not included in the „Canon EOS M5 specifications“ in Other features" as for all other cameras?

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 15:55 UTC as 5th comment
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1644 comments in total)
In reply to:

Arsalaan: Where is m4?!!
Where is 4k video?!
Why canon resist to 4k in entry model?

And...where is TimeLapse?

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 08:29 UTC
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (357 comments in total)

Today I was in a shop to check a TZ100. First impression:
a) The zoom is NOT smoothly continuous but step by step.
b) The focus, by touching the screen, is very slow.
These aspects, if correct, were not mentioned in the tests.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 11:49 UTC as 21st comment | 3 replies
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (357 comments in total)

In above test, sheet 5, "Raw Performance", there is a photo. Dpreview says "You can download the original Raw file here.". OK. I did it but the file is impossible to open. I tried DxO OpticsPro 11 which gives the following information "Pic cannot be developed since DxO not support the camera used for"! Ricoh GR RAW files (extension .dng) can be opened without problem. I suggest Dpreview to inform in such case which camera has (have) been used.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 18:41 UTC as 22nd comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1004 comments in total)

I did nowhere found the coverage of dioptrically correction. Did somebody have it? Thank you.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2016 at 19:58 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

sh10453: I hope we can soon see some write-up on the newly developed 5D technology, where you can store 360 TB (not a typo) on a disk the size of a quarter.
Not just capacity, but it is supposed to hold data for eternity (supposedly even for billions of years), and can easily handle temperatures like 1000 C (1832 F)!

I know it is a few years down the road before it will be out, and a few more to become affordable to "some" consumers.

Hold data for eternity.......and how will be read those data? Even now, we are not more able to read data from old floppy disks. Hardware, file formats, etc.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 11:39 UTC
In reply to:

Badger1952: Common sense, not the law, should prevail - as is pointed out below, the monkey clearly cannot own or have copyright to the images, copyright bellows to Mr Slate. We all know that the law is an ass!!!!

OK. The law is the law. But the law cover not necessarily all possible situations as the "monkey" issue. In such a case:
a) A gentlemen agreement should be taken between Mr. Slate and Wikimedia
b) The copyright law should be modified to cover such case (and all other mentioned in this thread)

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 16:42 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: 202.02(b) Human author.
The term "authorship" implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.

How hard it is to trace the origin of the monkey's pictures to a human being after all that work the photographer has done to make it happen (planning and making a trip, living with the tribe, gaining their trust, letting them play with equipment, bringing the pictures back, processing them)? Who if not Mr. Slater is the author of those highly original pictures?How can someone claim that they were produced SOLELY BY NATUTE, BY PLANTS, or BY ANIMALS?

I suppose that the word „solely“ is the key to this affaire. In my opinion, the article 202.02(b) Human author cannot be applied because the monkey has not and could not taken the photos „solely“ (“Only”, “Exclusively”).

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 14:12 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: 202.02(b) Human author.
The term "authorship" implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.

How hard it is to trace the origin of the monkey's pictures to a human being after all that work the photographer has done to make it happen (planning and making a trip, living with the tribe, gaining their trust, letting them play with equipment, bringing the pictures back, processing them)? Who if not Mr. Slater is the author of those highly original pictures?How can someone claim that they were produced SOLELY BY NATUTE, BY PLANTS, or BY ANIMALS?

I suppose that the word „solely“ is the key to this affaire. In my opinion, the article 202.02(b) Human author cannot be applied because the monkey has not and could not taken the photos „solely“ (“Only”, “Exclusively”).

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 14:06 UTC
Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »