Alun Thomas

Joined on Aug 11, 2018

Comments

Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article DPReview TV: The good and bad of Panasonic cameras (148 comments in total)

After the shutter died on my A7II I got a Panasonic DC-S1. It's a bit on the heavy side for stills photography with manual focus lenses. Otoh it is super well made, with some super cool features, but there are a couple of gripes. When I plug in the USB cable I want to be able to select it to do the same thing every time (mass storage USB connect) instead of asking me every time. When I turn the camera on with a legacy manual focus lens, I don't want to always be asked what the focal length is. If I change it, I'll tell the camera myself. I haven't tried lately, but on my previous attempt, the android device connect app refused to connect. If Panasonic just tidied up some small issues the camera would be more of a joy to use, as it is I have no plans to get anything else anytime soon.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2022 at 21:04 UTC as 44th comment
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: You cannot call them 'the world’s smallest anamorphic lenses'. In the fifties Bauer in Germany had an anarmorphic converter to their double-8mm movie amateur camera lenses which in return could be used with their projectors, too. Those converters actually were smaller than the new ones by Laowa - and converter lenses are lenses, aren't they?

You should buy some and use them on your APSC camera.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2022 at 00:11 UTC

I have quite a few repurposed lenses from fixed lens cameras. I found the lenses from rangefinder cameras didn't work that well, the corners are pretty fuzzy. Apparently sensors and film are different when it comes to the angle they can accept light from. Lenses from fixed lens SLRs were somewhat better, but not so much better that it was worth doing as opposed to just adapting an interchangeable lens from an old system, rangefinder or SLR. These days I'll only adapt the lens if the camera is not recoverable to working order.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2022 at 08:09 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Pseu_Pseu_Pseudonym: How do you sleep at night ripping off another companies IP so your knock off looks almost identical?

I'm a bit conflicted on the issue. On the one hand I wish they used different styling. It's butt ugly, and the only people that think it looks good appreciate the conspicuous display of wealth more than any actual aesthetic beauty. Almost any 1950s manual focus lens has better styling than this one. On the other hand, I do however have a deep appreciation for the horror felt by Leica snobs when they realise a person could, from a distance, pass as a member of their exclusive club, without having spent the requisite amount of income. And thank the makers of this lens with all sincerity for that. After all, nobody buys a $1000 Gucci handbag to carry items they need during the day. They buy it so everyone knows they're a prick.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2022 at 08:04 UTC
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: Obviously Kodak are not going to have that kind of comment on their own Instagram account. The photographer in question can still post anything they want to their own account. What's the story here? Kodak's editors made a mistake in featuring someone else's content and then removed it? Not very news-worthy.

"journalistic freedom and freedom of expression are being suffocated and criminalised" Did someone say Julian Assange?

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2021 at 09:24 UTC

Let this trend continue! There's no reason a lens can't be optically good AND beautiful. If I'm honest with myself, one of the main reasons I buy old lenses (and lately, cameras) is because of the build quality and styling, not to mention ergonomics/haptics. Optical excellence is sometimes a bonus.
I'll just sit and wait for someone to make a lens as gorgeous as the Staeble Telexon 135 3.8, with modern optics. At that point I may as well just give them my bank password...

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2021 at 05:49 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Semper DSLR: Even an old film Leica w/lens seems an egregiously inappropriate inclusion in a list of potential purchases for "absolute beginners".

It's like parking an Esser among the Chevys and Hyundais on a BHPH lot.

Everyone knows there are only two possible categories of camera: Leica, and "other" (also known as miscellaneous, or simply 'riff-raff').

With lesser cameras, posing is only possible on the opposite side of the camera from the operator. Leica camera users however, suffer no such limitation.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2021 at 21:07 UTC
In reply to:

Platinumkid: Gotta be careful not to make phones that are MUCH better than St. iPhone. That's how Huawei got in trouble...

Lol. Huawei hardware and (camera) software definitely aren't overshadowed by anything Apple has released. I never had to use their customer support, but given that Huawei don't program their phones to accelerate battery issues with age, I'm just going to go ahead and say they suck way less than Apple....

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2021 at 07:14 UTC
In reply to:

Siobhan_K: Since one can buy a decent used car for the price difference between the A1 and other cameras mentioned, here, comparative aspects of this analysis feel odd. Maybe it's just me?

But it occurs to me that DPReview could've deployed this sort of coverage at any time in the past, with any products separated by a 1.75x - 2x - 2.25x price differential. Why didn't it? I mean, why weren't the Canon R5's advancements discussed relative to, say, what one gets with a Sony A7c? Or why wasn't the Nikon D500 discussed and understood in terms of how it compares to, say, a Canon Rebel?

I theorize DPReview didn't do that because readers might not have found that coverage particularly useful: perhaps few people in the market for $1800 bodies are cross-shopping $3800 bodies.

So. Are lots of people in the market for $3K - $3.5K bodies cross-shopping $6500 bodies? Are they surprised the 2X body is better?

Genuinely, I'm curious. Are they? This coverage suggests they are. THAT surprises me.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I spent $NZ 2600 on my car, roughly the same on my Sony A7II. Best car I've ever owned. Ditto the camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2021 at 00:36 UTC
In reply to:

ventur: Huawei cameras are already very good! too bad the US faked a security problem so they could destroy the company...

p.s. 'US shale flooding the market' was particularly funny, cheers.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2021 at 00:39 UTC
In reply to:

ventur: Huawei cameras are already very good! too bad the US faked a security problem so they could destroy the company...

End of the day it doesn't matter. The average person in the street can see that Western governments, and in particular the US, couldn't suck any harder, and were unable (actually unwilling is more accurate, but unable is also true) to look after their citizens. They're too busy robbing their citizens to enrich themselves by way of neverending wars and military spending. Something their 'opponents', China and Russia, have well under control, whatever other imperfections they may have.
China isn't going to bend their knee to the west ever again. As a New Zealander I couldn't be more happy at the thought. Deal with it cockroach.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2021 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

ventur: Huawei cameras are already very good! too bad the US faked a security problem so they could destroy the company...

Please. It's common knowledge Uyghur jihadists largely recruited by western intelligence agencies used fake passports issued in Thailand to travel to Turkey from where they passed through the border to fight in Syria, where they quickly gained a reputation for violence even amongst the jihadists there. When Thailand found out in 2015 and closed the gate, they were then subjected to a terrorist attack similar to those that occured in China.
Now we get Nimrods like yourself with their knickers in a collective twist because those poor wee jihadists can't go back to Xinjiang and cause more trouble, which was always the end game for western intelligence agencies.
From the likes of yourself we get every pathetic Mike Pompeo talking point, all of which are either easily debunked using commonly available info, or else where already dispatched years ago by many other commentators. Then you have the chutzpah to tell me I'm the one getting paid to come here and spread disinformation.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2021 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

ventur: Huawei cameras are already very good! too bad the US faked a security problem so they could destroy the company...

Lol the jokes just keep coming. No comments on how those Uyghurs just happened to wash up in Turkey? We're getting a bit close to home there aren't we? Most countries don't want jihadists to return home. Why don't they just rejoin Isis and get flown around courtesy of CENTCOM or the IDF? A guy like you should be able to pull some strings...

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2021 at 23:26 UTC
In reply to:

ventur: Huawei cameras are already very good! too bad the US faked a security problem so they could destroy the company...

Bottom line, all your drivel, remarkably from both sides of your mouth at once, can't overturn observable reality. The Chinese government did a very good job combating the pandemic, Western governments in contrast were largely criminally negligent, although the word negligent is inaccurate as it almost makes it sound accidental.
Chinese people are in general happy with how it's going. I'm happy for them. None of your War and Peace length drivelsagas change that. I'm also not watching your stupid documentary.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2021 at 23:35 UTC
In reply to:

ventur: Huawei cameras are already very good! too bad the US faked a security problem so they could destroy the company...

So am I Chinese or not? Maybe I'm both at the same time. A bit like your minority Uyghurs being systematically eliminated, but somehow increasing in population at a rate far outstripping majority ethnicities in the same country. Weird how representatives from many muslim countries (muslims are the vast majority of the time very concerned with the welfare of their co-religionists) visited the area, and subsequently spoke the truth, versus your straight out lie. For the record, that includes Saudi Arabia, no staunch defender of human rights, but, at the same, not in need of Chinese money, before you start drivelling about some such. Someone is licking someones something here, that someone is clearly yourself.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2021 at 23:28 UTC
In reply to:

ventur: Huawei cameras are already very good! too bad the US faked a security problem so they could destroy the company...

I've bought Huawei phones in the past, and will in future. Somehow, inferior western capitalism seems unable to replicate the optical technological prowess of capitalism with chinese characteristic'''s'''. I'm not sure if it''''s'''' the famine'''s''', the education facilitie'''s''' or the "chinglish" spelling mistake'''s''' in the code that lead to such marvel'''s'''. Maybe the technology is powered merely by the spluttering impotent rage of losers like yourself, the only known source of inexhaustible energy so far found. Anyway, interesting times in which not to be dead, or live in a third world banana republic circling the plughole....

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2021 at 19:38 UTC
In reply to:

ventur: Huawei cameras are already very good! too bad the US faked a security problem so they could destroy the company...

"it should've be the latter"? Whoops, now you're a wumao too. Well you are correct in one thing, your barrel of pathetic substitute'''''''s''''''''' for actual arguments does in fact seem to be endless. Not to mention your laughable assertions that China''''s'''' death toll is super secretly massively higher than reported, while simultaneaously waffling about people having to stay home just in case they get sick, when your self asserted (presumably favoured) alternative to that is that they be allowed to go back out to work themselves to death (capitalism in it''''s'''' purest form, so we're told, if only the US had it they'd be much better off)
As for your 400 page essay on every bad thing ever done in China''''''s''''' history, tldr, also boring, also largely false, also not germane to a Huawei cellphone.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2021 at 19:37 UTC
In reply to:

ventur: Huawei cameras are already very good! too bad the US faked a security problem so they could destroy the company...

Lol my chinglish? From one small typo, "ot" instead of "to"? You're starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel in terms of argument now. Not that you weren't before mind. But hey, that is surely a worthy rebuttal to a 459 fold disparity in death rates. Not to mention the freely available, third party, studies showing high (roughly 90%) levels of satisfaction from citizens with the direction of their government. Also, make sure to avoid mentioning however many hundreds of millions of people bought out from poverty in 70 years. A comparable country, India, which gained it independence 2 years earlier, has not managed that feat yet. Anyway, bottom line, give it up, you've got nothing, if you were capable of being embarassed you would have left the conversation already, but it's never too late. Fool.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2021 at 16:55 UTC
In reply to:

ventur: Huawei cameras are already very good! too bad the US faked a security problem so they could destroy the company...

Yeah observable. To observe things you need ot be alive. If chinas' government was as poor as some other countries, around 2,100,000 extra people wouldn't be observing much at all. None of the other rubbish you keep spouting is relevant in comparison. And arguing china is the world worst country only because I don't know every bad thing that happens there is pathetic. In terms of corruption and dishonesty by officials and others, all of that and more happens in the west. As well as a death rate 459 times higher. It's observable, and people are observing it. Again, deal with it.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2021 at 20:38 UTC
In reply to:

ventur: Huawei cameras are already very good! too bad the US faked a security problem so they could destroy the company...

At the end of the day we have observable metrics that can tell us which is the best place to live, and by extension, has the best governance and the government which observably wants good outcomes for its citizens. For instance, if asked to choose between a country with roughly a billion citizens and 4-5000 covid deaths, or one with a considerably smaller population, and 500,000 deaths, I wouldn't have to think much.
The country with the 500,000 deaths, as alluded to by other commenters, found itself in a strong position post WWII, and, as you would, leveraged that. They're now being overtaken by other countries with better work ethics and better governance, most of the noise re:China is purely a reflection of western angst over that fact, not to mention a dogged rear-guard effort by capitalism fetishists worried you can't see the emporers beautiful outfit . Deal with it.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2021 at 19:47 UTC
Total: 36, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »