ecm

Lives in United States NH, United States
Joined on Aug 16, 2004
About me:

Using cameras:
- OMD E-M5, 12-50, Panny 45-200, FL36 flash.
- Pentax Q7 with 02 and 06, Pentax AF-200FG flash.
- Panasonic ZS50/TZ70

Equipment used in the past:
- Panasonic LF-1
- Panasonic G5, 14-45.
- Canon T3i, 18-55 II and 55-250, Yongnuo YN565EX.
- Panasonic ZS15
- Pentax Q. Better than the reviews indicate.
- Oly E-PL1 with trashy collapsible lens. Good riddance.
- Oly E-300, 14-45, 40-150.
- Olympus C-5060WZ with underwater housing.

Really old stuff to play with once in a while:
- Nikon FG-20 and EM 35mm.
- OM 50 F/1.4, 200 F/4, 300 F/4.5.
- Koni-Omega Rapid 6X7 with 90mm, Voightlander Bessa 6X9, Ansco 6X6.

Comments

Total: 103, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Panasonic releases trio of compact superzooms (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biro: ZS50: Less MP for better low-light performance and a much-improved EVF at a price below that of the ZS40. Now that's progress - at least in this class of camera. One has to be realistic about what ZS50 can do but it appears this is now a viable option for a take-anywhere, always-have-it-with-you camera.

@Biro: I agree with your sentiments. The ZS40 was exciting when it was announced, but that nasty VF and sub-par image quality made it's price a joke. Looks like they addressed those issues specifically.

There's a rumor at cameralab.com that the sensor is the same as the one in the FZ150 and ZS15 - if so, an outstanding sensor.

This may be the camera that will pry the beloved ZS15 from my "cold, dead hands".... Now where are those image samples?

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 21:01 UTC

I still wish there could be some older cameras added as comparison points - it would make the samples so much more relevant and useful if I had in hand any of the cameras in the list....

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2014 at 18:54 UTC as 26th comment | 13 replies
On article Motorola Moto X (2014) camera review (21 comments in total)
In reply to:

photospots: I see one major issue with the Motorola X 2014 (http://www.gadgetindex.info/MotorolaAS/Motorola-X-14.html) as a camera phone and that is the lack of MicroSD card. This a major issue if you just shoot a good deal of pictures and videos. Then you would have to sync them elsewhere pretty often as 16/32 GB storage is quickly used by a little bit of pictures, videos and what you have of apps on the phone.

I agree. They (that is, Android and Google) need to reconsider the removable storage thing; I lived with an 8gb nexus 4 for a year and the lack of storage drive me completely nuts. Not all of us can afford unlimited data, and data is a battery hog; some of us live and work where cellular data and WiFi is poor to non-existent. I've never found "the cloud" to be a good thing. Trading that "pure Google experience" in for a G3 was the best thing iever did - replaceable batteries and removable storage completely change the game.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2014 at 12:29 UTC
On article High-end pocketable compacts roundup (2013) (266 comments in total)
In reply to:

TJ Mills: I own the LF1 as my backup camera to Nikon DSLRs. I also have a Note 3 phone that takes a photo but isn't anywhere near the quality of the LF1.
What I like about the LF1:
- 7x zoom range to 200mm and it fits in a shirt pocket or hiking shorts pocket.
- decent lens quality. Wide angle and up to 100mm is great. Beyond that is still very good. Consider that most of the other cameras don't even have optical zoom above 120mm.
- exposure is accurate. Amazing how many small cameras often over expose.
- records on raw. It's all I shoot unless it's just party pics in which case jpg is fine.
- Takes great video. I used it to record my dad's 80th birthday and of all the people's videos with phones and other small cameras everyone wanted mine because the video was sharp and the sound was great.

What could be better:
- wider aperture at long end of lens.
- chromatic aberration with backlit subjects. Lots of purple fringing that can't be fixed entirely in Lightroom.
- battery life is only good for several hundred photos. I find of I don't use the camera for a couple weeks the battery must be recharged. I wonder if I got a weak battery or if this is normal.

Overall the LF1 has been a good camera. If I can only take one camera and want to travel light it is my choice. With the zoom I won't miss a photo of something far away like wildlife. It works very well from 28mm to 100m ansf includes adequate macro ability. I have yet to see a camera since the LF1 came out that gets good reviews on image quality, has the zoom, sensor size and is pocketable.

I just picked up a used LF-1 a couple days ago, an I was wondering about the battery too - I took maybe 50 test shots (15 day return window, so I gotta know whether it's working right) and the battery meter was already down to 2/3 bars. I'll have to pick up an extra battery on Amazon.
If there is something that's draining the battery when the camera is off, I would hope that Panasonic will find it and issue a firmware update. Good way to kill lithium batteries, drain them to zero and let them sit for a while....

@ TJ Mills
I see the CA at full zoom too, it's kinda weird though - at least in jpegs it is absent from the background lighter areas but is readily apparent in the darker foreground object that's inducing the CA - I think it must be corrected (partially) in the camera; it must be more difficult to correct the CA that bleeds into dark areas though. Have you tested raw to see if it's better/more fixable? I haven't tried it yet, I'm hoping that jpegs will be good enough.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2014 at 13:36 UTC
In reply to:

ginsbu: Amazon has a note on supported raw formats:
"Supported RAW photo formats include: Adobe (dng), Canon (cr2, crw), Epson (erf), Fuji (raf), Kodak (dcr), Minolta (mrw), Nikon (nef, nrw), Panasonic (rw2), Pentax (pef), Sigma (x3f), and Sony (srf). Other RAW formats may be supported, but we cannot guarantee them fully."

So basically everyone but Olympus. Argh!

I just tried it; it didn't work for my raw files - I downloaded several gigs of .rw2 (panasonic), and .cr2 (Canon) files and they showed up as regular files, counting against my 15 GB limit. Disappointing, and not very useful (at least to me).

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 22:34 UTC

I appreciate the sense of fun and adventure this camera provokes, but like the reviewer here I wonder at the pricing. It's there something about the instant film that requires a lot of fiddly mechanicals? Otherwise it's just a moderately fancy rubber lightproof box.... I feel that I might be missing something.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 15:43 UTC as 34th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ecm: Interesting news, but I'm very disappointed that my RAW files are going to be excluded - makes it useless to me as an off-site backup. Not sure what else I would use it for.

I have an LG NAS with two 1.5gb drives in RAID 1, cost about $200 to put together. I would still like an off site backup - that NAS won't help if there's a fire, flood or lightning strike. I have a stack of blu-rays tucked away at work, but it's a pain to keep a physical archive like that up to date.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2014 at 20:18 UTC

Interesting news, but I'm very disappointed that my RAW files are going to be excluded - makes it useless to me as an off-site backup. Not sure what else I would use it for.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2014 at 23:30 UTC as 30th comment | 5 replies
On article Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

zonoskar: 18000 fps at 64x64 pixels. Very usefull. NOT And only 200 fps at 1080p, you'd almost better get a Gopro Hero 4 (but that's only 120 fps at 1080p).

For a scientist, yes, useful. For a videographer, no, not what you want.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2014 at 11:42 UTC

My first thought when I saw this was "DPR is trolling! What fun!"

My next thought was, "well, if it makes someone happy, why not?".

Who am I to judge? I bought the black minivan because the powder blue one was girly and uncool.....

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2014 at 13:57 UTC as 68th comment

Now that it's been mentioned on the front page again (8/7/14), I was wondering if anyone knew what it sold for? Although I agree that it was a mistake to allow two "designers" to re-imagine the Leica, rather than a designer and an engineer (who actually understands what the thing needs to be able to do), this was for charity, not for Best Buy. There are plenty of people who would buy something like this just to give to the charity; the actual object is just a memento, unimportant in and of itself.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2014 at 13:50 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

Marcus Beard: Lovely to see.

Some good, and some great images. Personally I think the B&W blue shark is stunning, and the gnat deservedly chosen for a fresh take on such a subject, and the gannets shot is simply beautiful and well executed. I personally find the no. 1 and 2 shots quite well executed but not that interesting. No. 4 is an interesting subject but a bit lacking in interest and technical execution.

But that's the beauty of photography - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Agree, the B&W shark is a keeper, and the mosquito or gnat is as well. The others,.... Not so much.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 00:39 UTC

Why do I like the runners up rather than the first couple of "winners"?

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 00:22 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On article 2014-15 Waterproof Camera Roundup (255 comments in total)

There are other options. I use a $35 soft underwater case with my good quality compact zoom, and I have no issues. I'm particular about sealing the case and I always test in the hotel before going out. The two items together give me better quality photos for less than the cheapest of these models. For occasional snaps while snorkeling on your yearly holiday you don't need a dedicated undewater camera.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 17:18 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

pedroboe100: Doest it say somewhere which lenses are used? sorry for being lazy

@NAwlins Contrarian:
Hmm, not seeing that..... which one?

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 15:36 UTC
In reply to:

pedroboe100: Doest it say somewhere which lenses are used? sorry for being lazy

Assuming you're talking about the studio comparison photos, hover your cursor over the "i" symbol in the lower right corner and it'll tell you what they're using. The GH4 has the 45mm f/1.8 and the Sony's using the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 05:01 UTC
On article Nikon 1 V3 Review (651 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecm: So disappointing. As though bells and whistles will make up for spectacularly poor image quality. 76% is being charitable. And $900 for a fast 85mm equivalent? Please.

@Sixpm:
"I have made a 60" x 40" print from the V3 ...."
So you said in an earlier post.... and also about a Ricoh camera a few months ago. Printing a lot of those 40 x 60's are you? you'd think you would run out of wall space pretty quick. Followed up with a straw man argument and an ad hominem attack. Gotta love te interwebs.

@sandy b:
Why do you point out photos from a different camera? Is it the same sensor?

In all honesty, I don't care enough about it to pursue this further; you spend your money however you like. I find it interesting, though, that neither of you really directed your comments to me, but rather to the greater audience. Why is that?

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 23:04 UTC
On article Nikon 1 V3 Review (651 comments in total)

So disappointing. As though bells and whistles will make up for spectacularly poor image quality. 76% is being charitable. And $900 for a fast 85mm equivalent? Please.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 12:52 UTC as 99th comment | 8 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS40 Real-world Samples Gallery (90 comments in total)

It's a bit early to judge, there's nothing at the long end at all; it's pretty much a random collection of shots, from someone who likes the immediacy of wide angle.

If these are truly representative, though, I'd sum it up as "disappointing". Soft corners, lots of CA at full wide; seems to be struggling with noise reduction even at relatively low ISO. I think I see posterization of the red peppers. There's rather extreme pincushion distortion as well, adding to the corner problems. ISO 6400 is for web photos only. Ugly.

As one of the previous commentators said, compared to my ZS15 it's a bust, not a worthy replacement at all. Too bad, too; Panasonic had me at "viewfinder".....

Link | Posted on May 28, 2014 at 01:41 UTC as 20th comment
Total: 103, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »