Dennis

Lives in United States CT, United States
Works as a Software
Joined on Oct 25, 2002

Comments

Total: 255, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 First Impressions Review (128 comments in total)

Basically, a $300 cheaper RX100-IV without an EVF.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 12:35 UTC as 55th comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 First Impressions Review (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

Osa25: Since when did 1" CMOS become a "big sensor"? Is this written from advertising point of view or the readers?

Are you referring to the phrase "large sensor compact" ?

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 12:34 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F707 (136 comments in total)

I still have my F717. One of my more memorable cameras. I liked the design, the lens, the specs. It was very good in its day (for around $1000 it should have been). Glad Sony returned to high end fixed lens cameras with the RX series.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 12:42 UTC as 95th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: the Samsung NV10 (77 comments in total)

My first AF SLR - the Maxxum 7xi - hated the push button UI. I bought it based on specs and price. And it left me with A mount for many years after. Also, the NEX-5. I hung onto it, just stopped using it. Finally gave the lenses a new lease on life by buying an A6000 (a very good camera, and excellent for the money).
Other cameras I've bought have lived up to expectations.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 20:22 UTC as 32nd comment
On article Canon EOS M3 real-world sample gallery updated (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nobby2016: the eos-m is a nice camera on it´s own.
unfortunately it does not exist alone.

i have around 18000$ worth in canon lenses and i still decided to buy a sony A6000.

i wanted a mirrorless for when i travel light.
i don´t need 10 lenses for it.
i don´t want to carry them with me when i travel anyway.

all i wanted was a small camera with an EVF that has an up-to-date sensor, blazing speed, good AF.

in all of these specs the A6000 was the better camera.

i really want canon to give me mirrorless i can love.
but for that it has to be at least as good as the competition.
just cheaper does not cut it for me.

John - no argument there. My point was that best optics is irrelevant when Sony & Canon aren't really competing (in mirrorless) for the same buyers. (Sony is trying to compete with Canon DSLRs with its mirrorless, but that's another story).

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 17:58 UTC
On article Canon EOS M3 real-world sample gallery updated (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nobby2016: the eos-m is a nice camera on it´s own.
unfortunately it does not exist alone.

i have around 18000$ worth in canon lenses and i still decided to buy a sony A6000.

i wanted a mirrorless for when i travel light.
i don´t need 10 lenses for it.
i don´t want to carry them with me when i travel anyway.

all i wanted was a small camera with an EVF that has an up-to-date sensor, blazing speed, good AF.

in all of these specs the A6000 was the better camera.

i really want canon to give me mirrorless i can love.
but for that it has to be at least as good as the competition.
just cheaper does not cut it for me.

Re: "Wisdom in not investing in larger fast lenses" ... I'm not sure what's wise about that. It basically relegates them to the consumer portion of the market. Whether that's wise or not, I don't know ... you can sell a lot of cameras to that market, if priced well enough, though I'm not sure how price competitive EOS-M bodies are (or how prevalent they are in consumer sales channels). If you're trying to avoid competing with DSLRs, then it's certainly wise. If you think the future is in a mount that relies on adapting DSLR lenses and you can do that well, then it might be wise. But if they're trying to make money, they're trying to do it without competing for sales outside of the entry level market.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 12:43 UTC
On article Canon EOS M3 real-world sample gallery updated (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nobby2016: the eos-m is a nice camera on it´s own.
unfortunately it does not exist alone.

i have around 18000$ worth in canon lenses and i still decided to buy a sony A6000.

i wanted a mirrorless for when i travel light.
i don´t need 10 lenses for it.
i don´t want to carry them with me when i travel anyway.

all i wanted was a small camera with an EVF that has an up-to-date sensor, blazing speed, good AF.

in all of these specs the A6000 was the better camera.

i really want canon to give me mirrorless i can love.
but for that it has to be at least as good as the competition.
just cheaper does not cut it for me.

"Best optics" ... it's nice when lenses are sharp. But better still when they're desirable. (I'm not defending Sony in that regard - their APS-C lineup is a hodge podge that pales in comparison to Fuji or Olympus). But when your lineup consists of a few f/5.6 and f/6.3 zooms and the 22/2 that you hang your hat on, "best optics" is pretty meaningless.
I think people are frustrated by Sony's lack of certain lenses and subpar performance on certain lenses, because the system has enough going for it to make you want to like it. Canon, on the other hand, probably doesn't crop up on most people's radar - it has a ways to go before it's interesting enough to be frustrating :)

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2016 at 21:09 UTC
In reply to:

Under The Sun: Almost funded this. Good thing I held back the last minute. Kickstarter is such a gamble sometimes.

Nothing grand or important and certainly nothing to brag about (I've never mentioned to anyone before this thread that I've participated in two campaigns). But whatever you want to boil it down to, the campaign is still relying on the funding. As for immediate payment - that's only if the project gets fully funded. As for preorder, lower funding amounts often offer you nothing other than a "thanks". Basically a donation. And some higher reward amounts offer intangible benefits (like dinner with the author, etc) that don't have a cash value like a preordered product. In short, there's more to kickstarter than preordering products for a discount. (Some campaigns don't even involve result in the creation of products - theater productions, for instance).

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 20:02 UTC
In reply to:

Kaso: I see no reasons for "investing" in product-development projects via Kickstarter. I buy real products from reputable vendors that offer discounts and honour meaningful return/exchange policies. And when I pay for such products, I use credit cards that include extra protection/insurance services.

You're not investing, you're funding in exchange for some "reward" and you're taking a risk to help the project out. Investors typically want large returns on their money in exchange for taking risks. Here, you try to minimize your risk by being cautious and/or only pledging small amounts of money. The plus side is that you help bring something to market that might not otherwise have been funded. So I would only ever fund something I want enough to take the risk. I've only done this for two books so far. It somehow seems more reasonable to me that a person isn't going to find investors for a book, and that the funding needed is tied to the number of copies produced. With other products where the funding is needed to setup manufacturing operations, it seems like a viable product should be able to attract real investors.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 17:00 UTC
In reply to:

Under The Sun: Almost funded this. Good thing I held back the last minute. Kickstarter is such a gamble sometimes.

Sure you fund it. It may look like you're simply preordering at a discount, but, in most cases, the project is depending on those preorders to generate the funding to go into production. Opting not to take the risk means you're not helping out with the funding, and increases the likelihood that the project fails to reach its goal. So you can go the safe route and expect to pay full price down the road, but if everyone does that, then the product never gets developed in the first place.
But you definitely don't invest in anything.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 16:50 UTC

Good to know that there are scammers on kickstarter (I hadn't paid attention). I haven't funded any of this type of product development projects, only two book projects. I'll be a little more wary as I browse in the future.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 16:42 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

Rssrsvp: I still feel that in lieu of these 2 choices offered in the beta trial there should of been a medium gray color given as an option. That is the type of background shade that makes everything easy to read and is soothing to the eye.

cameralabs shows up as black on white in my browser ...

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 02:10 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1196 comments in total)
In reply to:

chkproductions: To me, it's a game changer in size vs. format. A camera the size of a Sony 7x packing 50 meg is remarkable. I used every version of film 'blads when I shot boating catalogues. And then the cost is a high-end bargain. Obviously real world tests will validate it. Wish the screen was articulating.

Yes, A7RII is FF not MF. I was responding to the comment that "A camera the size of a Sony 7x packing 50 meg is remarkable."

If it's remarkable, it's because of the sensor size, not the 50MP.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:16 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1196 comments in total)
In reply to:

chkproductions: To me, it's a game changer in size vs. format. A camera the size of a Sony 7x packing 50 meg is remarkable. I used every version of film 'blads when I shot boating catalogues. And then the cost is a high-end bargain. Obviously real world tests will validate it. Wish the screen was articulating.

The A7RII already packs 42MP; 50 isn't much more ...

Anyway, I'm definitely not the target market for it, so can't say much about it, but agree with others that it is nice to see the name attached to something new after the Lunar fiasco. And it's also interesting to see that someone thinks the medium format market is worth investment (with rumors of a Fuji competitor to follow).

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 14:22 UTC
In reply to:

String: Wow, 1hr in and no one has yet commented on how evil Adobe and their subscription services are; Things are looking up!

"And what on earth makes you think I (or anyone else) cares what you own?"

That was kind of the point. You don't care, don't know, but find my buying habits hilarious. If you're going to hang out on the news page waiting to ridicule people for what they choose to talk about, at least do it without making up nonsense.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 21:44 UTC
In reply to:

String: Wow, 1hr in and no one has yet commented on how evil Adobe and their subscription services are; Things are looking up!

String,

You must be fun at a party. You make stuff up then laugh yourself silly about it ! Please feel free to cite evidence that suggests that "those who complain about $10/month have no problem with buying the latest and greatest body ..." I agree, that would be a little ironic (maybe not hilarious), but there's no reason to believe it's true, except that you seem predisposed to think ill of people who object to subscription pricing.

In case you're polling, you missed me. I have the RX100-I, not the RX100-II, nor the RX100-III nor the RX100-IV. I have the Nikon D7000, not the D7100, D7200 or D500. I have the A6000, not the A6300. I have a 2005 Ford Focus, a 2007 Honda Ridgeline and a 2005 Ford Explorer.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 15:45 UTC
In reply to:

razadaz: As has been already commented you can only improve a product so much. I get the impression that Adobe is trying to justify its subscription model to existing users. I doubt that any of these additions would make existing owners rush out and take out a subscription.

Precisely my objection to the subscription model. If the product is mature, it's time to reduce investment and move onto something else. That's easier said than done if you don't have any good ideas for new products. So it turns into a big welfare program.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 14:51 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff Seltzer: Enjoyment and recall are two different things. Also, it's one thing to take a few snapshots, it's entirely another thing to practically view the entire experience through your mobile phone. And, from a research standpoint, it's a very difficult thing to measure anyway because of the difficulty in controlling for confounding variables and setting up a proper test vs. control design. Here's what I do know: when I go to a concert or event for my kid, I enjoy taking a few pictures to preserve the memory. However, I find it incredibly strange when others take our their iPhones, and view the entire event on that 3" screen instead of just watching it "live" in front of them. I also find it strange that people in museums take pictures of paintings. Why? Also, food...again, why? What exactly are you going to do with those pictures??

My primary use of my phone as a camera is to take fleeting pictures that I want to share, then forget, kind of like a visual text. I prefer to use "real" cameras for keepers. So maybe people who snap pictures of their meals or things they see at a museum are doing so for the purpose of sharing them instantly or soon - to say "hey, check out what I just ate/saw" ?

I've taken pictures at museums, to remind me of a trip ... I try to get pictures of the people I'm with, some wider shots to give me the sense of the place, maybe a few exhibits. The shots that do NOT include people tend to be pretty forgettable; easy candidates for deleting.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 12:06 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: Lenses should not be sold with focal lengths and f-stops.

They should be sold with field of views and aperture sizes.

This is a 53 degree 8.6mm AF prime m43 lens.

Everything else is meaningless without context of the sensor behind the lens. If the lens was flawless, 53 degrees and 8.6mm aperture would tell you everything about it's optical performance and those numbers are easy to compare against any other system.

"Everything else is meaningless without context of the sensor".

Focal length is meaningless without context of the sensor, but field of view isn't ?

What's the field of view of a 100mm lens ?

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 19:23 UTC
In reply to:

EthanP99: Theres no FE mount, only E mount. Just like theres no EF-s mount and no DX mount

You're technically correct, of course ... just a bit pedantic.

So when you're talking about e-mount lenses, if you want to differentiate the FE 50/1.8 from the "non-FE" or "APS-C" 50/1.8, do you refer to the "regular E-mount" 50/1.8 ? Or the "APS-C 50/1.8" ? Or do you assume that if you omit the FE, everyone knows that it's the non-FE version because otherwise you would have said FE ?

It's a dumb naming scheme - I get that Sony wants to emphasize compatibility (just like Nikon wants users to know that all F mount lenses are somewhat compatible). But at least you can explicitly refer to a DX lens or an FX lens. (Some people use DX for other brands to make it easier).

So .. no, it's not remotely hard to understand that E mount is one mount and that FE means FF compatible. Is it really hard to understand that when someone says FE mount, they mean E mount FE ? (As opposed to E mount APS-C only) ?

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 22:12 UTC
Total: 255, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »