stevielee

Lives in United States SF, CA, United States
Works as a Computer Tech/ Photographer
Joined on Sep 28, 2005

Comments

Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

NickyB66: Apple caught with there paints down.

Awww! Dems Perrty lil' Apple checks they got there!

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2017 at 09:12 UTC
In reply to:

MrScrooge: Aye but will replacing the battery trigger the OS to undo the performance restriction?
We've all known that iOS updates were slowing down old iPhones for years - Apple's planned obsolescence policy is no big secret (it's like they took inspiration from Windows ironically) but now they're trying to put a spin on this to sell battery stock!
Abominable.

there's yer defending the big A's facts - and then there's the Apple's still very much in the process of throttling yer phone facts.......either way the rest of their loyal customers lose.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2017 at 09:05 UTC
In reply to:

dougj7: this company is one bad apple.

and then...just like that, Apple became the bitten fruit

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2017 at 08:55 UTC
In reply to:

Blaklynx01: I'm buying an Orange phone next time.....

But you could accurately compare Apples to Lemons.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2017 at 08:36 UTC
On article Annie Leibovitz teaches photography in new MasterClass (175 comments in total)

Mama needs Money!

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 19:49 UTC as 44th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

RomanP: People complaining that the iMac is not upgradeable are missing the point. People buy iMacs because they're a plug-and-play package that works well for a long time.

Most computer owners NEVER upgrade their machine, apart from an extra RAM stick or an external hard drive. Have you ever met anyone who upgraded their CPU? It's similar to SUV owners who get the 4x4 option, just in case they go off-roading.

"People complaining that the iMac is not upgradeable are missing the point. People buy iMacs because they're a plug-and-play package that works well for a long time".

Maybe some do, but this new iMac Pro is the most powerful Mac OS based computer now available. That fact alone will force many long suffering Mac Pro users to purchasing an iMac Pro, hoping it will tide the over.

All Apple has done here is release a hermetically sealed iMac with revamped thermals to hopefully accommodate the semi-throttled CPU's & GPU's.

And with the memory also being non-user upgradable, Apple is assured of reaping all of the extra income (and it's considerable: $2,400 for loading up on 128gb of ECC memory).

Additionally, Applecare is basically mandatory for the iMac Pro ($299) due to it's being an AIO. In reality, if any one part of this expensive "workstation" fails internally, only Apple can repair it. And if it's out of warranty, then all one has is a very pricey tabletop homage to Cupertino.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 20:18 UTC
In reply to:

jason3976: Perhaps you couldn’t quite decide to keep it because you realized just how middling the image quality was, even “for it’s time". And expensive.

Thanks very much for the positive feedback.

The Canon G5 was a very special camera that came round at a time when my own re-interest in photography was taking off. I bought the camera on Amsterdam, while spending a summer there (one of the hottest on record) in 2003.

I photographed everything from portraits to still life's with the G5 - and for the time and available digital cameras, it very well suited my photographic need.

I'll leave you with a photo out-take - and fitting conclusion for those wonderful Dutch green apples on display in the original shot:

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4613612368/photos/3690371/apple-tart-11

Happy Shooting whatever cameras you may have.
Just love the one you're with..

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 06:56 UTC
In reply to:

jason3976: Perhaps you couldn’t quite decide to keep it because you realized just how middling the image quality was, even “for it’s time". And expensive.

Well, as far as image qualty is concerned, I just came in 6th place in a recent DPR contest where the subject was Apples: https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/DownloadOriginal.aspx?id=1044600.

It was shot hand held in natural light @ f4 and 640/sec. I believe the ISO was set at 100. And though it's only a JPEG, (and a quite dumbed down version submitted here from the original file), I'd say that it did (and still does) pretty well for a 14yo 5mp P&S. I've had this particular image as one of my go-to desktop/screen saver at 1920x1080 and it has gotten quite alot of compliments ( and some disbelief) that it could have been taken by an such early digital camera with a relatively tiny sensor.

I loved this camera for what it was and what it could do all the way back in 2003.

A great early digital camera throwback choice!

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 22:55 UTC
On article OWC's Thunderbolt 3 Dock adds 13 ports to your MacBook (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevielee: This seems like a great multi-port thunderbolt dock - giving back to new MacBook Pro buyers, much of what they already had built in regarding available ports - along with a couple of extra ones - especially backward compatible USB Type A ports as well.

Trouble is, if you're planning using your "Touch Bar" Macbook Pro as a truly versatile mobile workstation, you'll also have to carry around this OWC Dock and it's AC power cord, along with all of the other necessary cords and assorted dongles/adapters (including the .5 meter proprietary USB Cable) you might require for whatever "Pro" job the computer is being utilized for.

And as jonny1976 correctly observed, adding another $300.00 on top of the 3.5K+++ cost
for a 2016 MacBook Pro that comes with at least a discreet video card, it's a rather painful upfront financial investment for many independent small businesses and freelance professionals.

It's like going to a very expensive Restaurant where everything on the menu is ala-cart!

JakeB

It's "à la carte.

"Sheesh!

Sorry for mon français inappropriées.

Regardless, I think most will get the jist - my woeful french grammar notwithstanding.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 19:30 UTC
On article OWC's Thunderbolt 3 Dock adds 13 ports to your MacBook (150 comments in total)

This seems like a great multi-port thunderbolt dock - giving back to new MacBook Pro buyers, much of what they already had built in regarding available ports - along with a couple of extra ones - especially backward compatible USB Type A ports as well.

Trouble is, if you're planning using your "Touch Bar" Macbook Pro as a truly versatile mobile workstation, you'll also have to carry around this OWC Dock and it's AC power cord, along with all of the other necessary cords and assorted dongles/adapters (including the .5 meter proprietary USB Cable) you might require for whatever "Pro" job the computer is being utilized for.

And as jonny1976 correctly observed, adding another $300.00 on top of the 3.5K+++ cost
for a 2016 MacBook Pro that comes with at least a discreet video card, it's a rather painful upfront financial investment for many independent small businesses and freelance professionals.

It's like going to a very expensive Restaurant where everything on the menu is ala-cart!

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 18:46 UTC as 57th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

hetedik: One more dishonest looking licence agreement. Shame...

"6 Copyright licence

Canon will only use your Materials for the purpose of providing you with the irista Services. To do this, you grant Canon and those we may work with a free, non-exclusive, worldwide, sub-licensable right to do everything necessary to provide the irista Services, including (without limitation) to use, publish, reproduce, host and store your Materials (the "Licence"). The Licence continues for as long as you use the irista Services."

The important part, i.e. summary:
you grant Canon a free, non-exclusive, worldwide, sub-licensable right to do everything including (without limitation) to use, publish, reproduce your materials.

Great he?
These multinaltionale lawyer-run smarties are sooo hateable.

To RedFox88:

All true what you say...however, beyond just the "standard element services" involved in maintaining a cloud based photo sharing site, it also does appear to grant Canon Inc. itself the "sub-license rights" to fully reuse all of your uploaded "Material" content in almost any way it so chooses as well- (without limitations). These "Sub-legal rights" by a commercial company, or entity, is definitely something to keep in mind if you also happen to be storing and/or posting commercial, high quality images to any online site that has these kinds of "sub-legal rights" over all of the content uploaded to them.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 18:40 UTC
In reply to:

hetedik: One more dishonest looking licence agreement. Shame...

"6 Copyright licence

Canon will only use your Materials for the purpose of providing you with the irista Services. To do this, you grant Canon and those we may work with a free, non-exclusive, worldwide, sub-licensable right to do everything necessary to provide the irista Services, including (without limitation) to use, publish, reproduce, host and store your Materials (the "Licence"). The Licence continues for as long as you use the irista Services."

The important part, i.e. summary:
you grant Canon a free, non-exclusive, worldwide, sub-licensable right to do everything including (without limitation) to use, publish, reproduce your materials.

Great he?
These multinaltionale lawyer-run smarties are sooo hateable.

Thanks for this "fine print" info - which is most disturbing in that Canon can attain full legal reproductive rights to any "materials" i.e. images that are uploaded to their new Irista photo Cloud service. I believe this technically legal corporate appropriation of "materials" is also true for almost all of the other free (and perhaps paid) online cloud storage and social media sites as well: including that ubiquitous data mining monster.: FACEBOOK.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 18:25 UTC
On article Nikon launches S2 1-System mirrorless camera (73 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zeisschen: ha!! gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

ha! homophobiaaaaaaaa!

Link | Posted on May 14, 2014 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

pca7070: X3 sensor is the way to go.

It could be if only it was available as on option inside a similar D800 like state-of-the-art camera body - instead of being entombed inside a primarily lens companies vague idea of one.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2013 at 17:17 UTC
On article Leica announces X Vario zoom compact with APS-C sensor (757 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jeff Greenberg: No IS
No f2.8
No thanks.

And......
No Hood included
No Strap included
These basic camera "accessories" are excluded at the "suggested" retail price of $3350 US.
I'm surprised that they aren't charging an extra $150 or so for the red dotted box it comes in.

Gotta give it to Leica Solms for boldly attaining even higher levels of market arrogance - topping even the pricing hutzpa of their re-branded Panny's and their double marked-up Epson EVF's.

This company must really be confidant that they know their future marks.....err customers of this DOA camera so well.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 18:09 UTC
On article Leica announces X Vario zoom compact with APS-C sensor (757 comments in total)
In reply to:

Valentinian: If a flash and the EVF 2 can be mounted at the same time, it will be a good choice for wedding photographers.

You already posted this earlier and was informed that they can't both be "mounted at the same time". Why ask this impossible configuration question again?
And even if they could somehow be jury-rigged to work together, why would this then be a "good choice" for any wedding photographer(pro or amateur) - especially when shooting at the long end of the attached fixed zoom is a painfully slow f6.4@ a 70mm 35mm approximate?
This new Leica is anything but "a good choice for wedding photographers".

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 17:40 UTC
On article Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

sirkhann: Sigma DP Merrill, hello?

@HubertChen
"The Sigma DP Merrill has probably better low ISO performance, but not high ISO performance."

Well, other than maybe having a whisker more discernible resolution at base ISO's, the Fuji's X-trans (IMO) is superior to the SD1M, or DPM's Foveon sensor in it's overall color fidelity and dynamic range - two very important image quality parameters that at least for me, trump Sigma's single parameter of perhaps having the best overall absolute resolution any day. Plus, for all of it's non-DSLR like performance shortcomings (real, or imagined), the Fuji X-Pro 1/X-E1 can run circles (performance and feature-wise) around any and all of Sigma's branded prototype beta style camera bodies.

And Fuji at least has the technological wherewithal to somewhat competently and competitively produce both their camera bodies, as well as their lenses, while Sigma has only ever really excelled in any technologically comparable terms with the latter.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2013 at 20:42 UTC
On article Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

Plastek: No OVF, no deal for me.
Wish Fuji would release X-100 with interchangeable lenses...

@Plastek
". I don't give a s*** about specifications, what matters is how camera works like in field and X-PRO1 behaves worse than an entry-level DSLR."

And isn't that the crux of why so many primarily DSLR'er seemed so flummoxed by a decidedly non-DSLR like camera such as Fuji's X-Pro 1 - simply because it doesn't "behave" like one - as if it was ever supposed to.

I came to the X-Pro 1 from a FF Canon 5D II - never once expecting my new Fuji to "behave" (perform) as my 5D II did - knowing full well that they would be very different shooting experiences altogether.

This increasingly irrational demand that all photographic imaging tools must somehow "behave" pretty much as a spray&pray DSLR (entry & above), is getting tiresome and misses the point of what some of these newer (DSLR) alternatives offer: being smaller, lighter, perhaps requiring a more deliberate "in the field" shooting style, but is still capable of producing as good (if not better than) DSLR level image quality.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2013 at 20:03 UTC
On article Best Camera of 2012: And the Winner is... (1413 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gunston Gun: i vote for Fujifilm X-pro1/X-E1

@IrishhAndy:

"They are very slow and noisy. I find the jpegs to be poor."

Sometimes performing quite slow they very well might suffer from. But to call either of the Fuji APS-C cameras "noisy" - as compared to the popularity contest winner: the Olympus OM-D, just shows that you have little factual substance of what you are talking about. Both of the APS-C Fuji's have at least one-half-to-one-stop superior high ISO performance than the Oly does.

And as far as overall image quality is concerned (DR,Color, and yes..noise), the X-Pro 1/X-E1 pretty handily beat the OM-D - albeit with a far larger sensor to work with.

So if you do really "find" the Fuji's OOC JPEG's to be that "poor", pray tell what current cameras OOC JPEG's do you think are better in color, DR, detail..etc? Surely not the Pop Champ Oly?

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2013 at 18:46 UTC
On article Shooting with the Leica M9-P (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

Josh152: The only reasons to get an M9 is if you are in love with the rangefinder focusing or want a smallish camera and HAVE to have a 35mm equivalent sized sensor (even if it is a mediocre one). If you don't meet one or both those two requirements then there are much better choices at much lower prices.

Nothing to "educate" myself about at all concerning an aging Kodak CCd vs one of Sony's state-of-the-art Exmor CMOS sensors - which just recently scored the highest overall sensor score ever measured on DXOMark. And FujiFilm's new version of the Bayer patterned CMOS sensor also handily trumps the increasingly anachronistic M9's inferior CCD in DR, Color Depth, and most dramatically in any ISO's higher than 400.

I suggest you "educate" yourself a little more about the differences between being dedicated to a particular brand for basically the brands sake and status -- and being dedicated to attaining the best overall imaging IQ that's possible from any camera in 2012. And here's a wee hint to start your woefully deficient "education" out with: it's certainly not coming from of a 3 year old 7-8K +++ hand-tooled jewelry accessory from Europe ...

Link | Posted on May 7, 2012 at 03:21 UTC
Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »