austin design

Joined on Aug 8, 2012


Total: 78, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2083 comments in total)
In reply to:

Abaregi: Semms to be a great camera for the sensor size.
The pricing is a bit steep though, just a bit more and you get FF.

Stu 5, the EM5 has the edge how?

Also, grips go a long way in determining camera application (e.g., hiking around and/or using large lenses imparts a need for a substantial grip). In this sense, the A7 is, in fact, properly compared to the EM1, not the EM5 -- unless you're imaging the latter's accessory grip, which then changes both weight and cost comparisons.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2013 at 02:58 UTC
In reply to:

SeeRoy: It's pretty blatant. Hardly surprising that they've been sued.

Only everyone here seems to disagree with your analysis...

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 10:53 UTC
In reply to:

epo001: Of course it is a copy and of course the legions of witless fandroids make witless comparisons with Apple, after if Samsung didn't copy Apple all their phones would look like Nokia handsets.

So people who prefer better-spec'ed, more capable but less expensive phones are "witless"? -- seems you have things backwards.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 10:49 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: I guess space travel now belongs to Museums.

The "PIONEERING SPIRIT" or whatever you might call it, is just LOST.

Space Shuttle... Now the Nation... in SHUTDOWN mode...


Get back in your tea cave, rb59020.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2013 at 20:01 UTC
On article First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 (353 comments in total)
In reply to:

Musicjohn: The G serie powershots have always been way too overpriced rubbish, are still way overpriced rubbish and always will be way overpriced rubbish. There are many other (even cheaper) cams of this format which make just as good a picture, if not better.

I am a professional photographer with 1D-mkIV and 5D-mkII and I have always had the need for a 'pocket sized' little cam which I can have with me all of the time. I have had several G-series from Canon, but always sold them again within a few weeks because I was disappointed with the image quality. About 4 years ago I even preferred a Casio Exilim to the G11.

The reason why people would buy a pocket sized cam is the need to get any picture as fast as possible onto a blog or a newspaper or news website. Considering the resolution size in which the final picture will appear (usually no larger than 600 pixels max.) one could argue that ANY compact camera would fulfill that job, even the lowest price compact cam available today.

What utter nonsense. Canon's G-series is unquestionably superior in both flexibility and, more important, image quality to just about anything similarly priced or cheaper. Maybe that's why it sells so well.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2013 at 20:04 UTC
On article Gorgeous color photos of America in the 1930's and 40's (109 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raincheck: One of the most striking things about all these shots over at flicker is how hard it is to find pictures of hordes of fat pigs wallowing around at the circuses and fairs, dressed in tee shirts and stretch pants. With the notable exception of The Fat Lady, of course. I'm jealous of a time where you could get candid shots of Americans enjoying leisure time without filling the frame with round blobs all dressed the same. Ahhhh... the colorful gayly printed skirts and dresses blowing in the breeze...

Beam me back Scotty.

AlpCns2, what an ignorant, Tea Party-esque statement, blaming the government's health initiatives for American obesity -- instead of the private sector (Coke, Burger King, etc.) that literally fuels it. At the same time, you guys criticize the efforts of Bloomberg to combat the insidious effects of sugar in Big Gulps and the like. If you're going to spew reactionary nonsense,you could at least be consistent about it.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2013 at 12:32 UTC
In reply to:

Dazzer8888: Great photographer, cheesy subject matter, horrible camera.....

By "cheesy", Dazzer8888 was referring to the subject matter, not the phone, and my comments followed accordingly.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2013 at 07:12 UTC
In reply to:

Greg Henry: People whine too much.

Reduce the photos to around 6 megapixels. Adjust the levels a bit. Poof - they're better than any other phone camera on the market today.

Their biggest problem? They're taken with a camera that's attached to a Window's phone, and one that's exclusive only to AT&T at that.

Hooray for Windows phones, and any other ones that compete against the dull monopolies of Apple and Android.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2013 at 08:06 UTC
In reply to:

Dazzer8888: Great photographer, cheesy subject matter, horrible camera.....

Conventional to the point it may seem overdone? Sure, but that doesn't = "cheesy". Cheesy means bad, whereas this stuff is so good that it's obvious/boring to you. Hey, this scenery is amazing, and it's not its fault it's highly photographed. I can't tell if it's your analysis that's off or just your vocabulary. Either way, the comments in this section seem like an exercise of one-upsmanship in perfunctory negativity.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2013 at 08:04 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Very skilful done colorings, but ... she needs to pay more attention to reflections. The red of the fire in the burning monk image should light up the ground and make it redder. The water under the mushroom cloud should be grayer etc. At least if she wants to make it look realistic. But ... I really like most of the portraits. They get more 3D.

But 1) the ground isn't lighter in the immolation, and 2) the mushroom cloud shouldn't make the water any grayer than do the regular cumulus clouds in the same photo (plus the mushroom cloud is principally over an island far in the distance and not entirely subject to water reflection). Realism in this case must be determined not by what you might EXPECT in the (redone) photos, but by what's actually IN the (source) photos.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 00:21 UTC
In reply to:

TN Args: Despite the confidence of some comments on this article, it is impossible to spot the biased/faked reviews unless they are badly faked. You think they haven't thought of readers who ignore 1-star ratings? Think again.

I ignore them completely. Especially with regard to reliability or breakdowns: even if the reports are true, they give a completely unrepresentative and distorted view of the odds of you having a problem if you buy one.

It has even gotten to the point where the main website reviewers will mark a product down for not having some feature that a different model has -- they assume everybody wants it. Why won't they review the product (camera) for how well it does what it does, not how well it does what it doesn't??

I mainly read reviews not for the number rating, but sometimes users come up with some really interesting ownership or usage aspect that I had not thought of, or read elsewhere.

Sorry, chaos, but I ROUTINELY encounter the very sort of reviews described by TN Args.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2013 at 07:41 UTC
On article Nikon Coolpix AW110 (101 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rod McD: Quote from the conclusion :- "Details are smudged at base ISO (though likely not an issue for target audience)"

Why is there this ongoing assumption that people who like the outdoors aren't interested in better IQ? In my experience, people who want tough, WR cameras to take to wild places greatly value where they go and the images they bring back. Perhaps the target audience who buy these cameras do so because there's simply nothing better available. It doesn't mean it isn't wanted and wouldn't sell. And no, one shouldn't have to carry a D4 in housing. We need something in-between - a modern day Nikonos with a fixed wide to standard zoom.

Surely someone could make a better small WR camera with a 1"- APSC sensor, a WA zoom, and real O-ring seals? Yes it would weigh more and cost more, but many would be prepared to pay more for a comprehensively better outdoor camera.

I agree with the OP. This needn't be an either/or(I learned this from Goldilocks). I'm quite sure a good many people would prefer something like the AW110 but with a 20% bigger sensor and a 20% bigger lens -- and pay 40% more for it without complaint. It's not as though there are any technical barriers to such a camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2013 at 12:12 UTC
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: Seems they got it bass ackwards. "Pentax" has brand equity in cameras, "Ricoh" in office equipment.

Ah, but most of the brass in charge are Ricoh men, not Pentax (remember that big Ricoh bought fledgling Pentax). Let's hope their pride doesn't goeth before the fall.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2013 at 07:43 UTC
In reply to:

Jack Simpson: Different name .... Same Great Products :) EDIT: I really can't believe some of the comments below ????

Are you telling us you can't believe some of the comments below, or asking us if you can't believe some of the comments below? (Question marks can be a dangerous thing!)

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2013 at 07:41 UTC
In reply to:

Zebooka: "Sky is falling, we are all doomed!" :)
In fact, I do not care anymore about Pentax. It is like first love — sweet memories, great photos left, but it was in the past. Mature love is not of bells and labels, but of process — taking photos. That's where all brands unite.

What the h*ll does any of this mean?!

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2013 at 07:38 UTC
On article More pictures leak of purported Olympus PEN 'E-P5' (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

rocklobster: Pity that there is a pop-up flash where an EVF should go. But I suppose that if you really want an EVF then you should buy an E-M5 and anyway I prefer the ergonomics of the E-M5 with the two control dials that readily fall to the thumb and forefinger of my (albeit) small hand.

Also, I would hope that the in-built flash performs better than the clip-on 'kit' flash.


Your small hand probably explains why you're not bothered by the OM-D's lack of a substantial grip (and, yes, I'm aware of the grip attachment -- but I'm also aware of the EVF attachment).

Link | Posted on May 3, 2013 at 05:54 UTC
On article Roundup: Enthusiast Zoom Compact Cameras (416 comments in total)
In reply to:

baconsandwich: I'm an LX-3 user and while I have been really satisfied with it overall I would like a little more reach, and a little more than the LX-7 offers. I'm a Canon DSLR shooter and may have to purchase my first G-series soon!

Saijem is right though. If this is your first foray into the "premium" p&s market you really can't go wrong with an LX-3 for as cheaply as they are selling these days...

@ Timmbits: the G15 is "very bulky"? -- really?! It's truly pocketable, and seems downright diminutive next to its direct competitor, the very nice P7700. Have you actually handled a G15? I have, and found it astonishingly light. If you describe that camera as very bulky, what words are left to describe larger cameras -- like everything in Sony's NEX series, or Fuji's X series, let alone DSLRs (and last I checked, DSLRs seem to remain pretty popular)? Seems your reference point is a smartphone.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2013 at 09:04 UTC
Total: 78, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »