Lives in United States NV, United States
Works as a Web Usability Specialist / Librarian
Joined on Aug 26, 2010


Total: 153, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

piezoe: None of the photos are sharp. Something is seriously wrong! These are a far cry from the shots used to promote this camera on the panasonic Lumix site. I had planned to purchase this camera as soon as it is out, but I'd return it immediately with results such as these. The main reason for purchase is the lens. Surely this can't be the fault of the lens. Could these files have been condensed before uploading to this site.

Seriously. My em10 takes better pics than this even with an old kit lens.

Very disappointing.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 21:47 UTC

Nice. So now I can use the same type of controls that I've had on Android for 2 years, on the same size devices that Android has had for 2 years.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 22:50 UTC as 16th comment | 5 replies
On article Olympus PEN E-PL7 First Impressions Review (510 comments in total)
In reply to:

zarabo: Ok, if this is intended for beginners, why not have a built in flash, while the more serious EM10 has one? I know they provide an external flash, but doesn't that make the whole thing bulky? I don't get it.
Also, if you have the flash installed, that means you can't install an EVF since the flash uses the hot shoe and the port?

I never thought I'd agree with Tedolph, but he's right. The EPL2 was nearly perfect in form factor and features. Give it a modern sensor, better screen, fast focus, and 5-axis IBIS, and you have the best PEN camera available.

This EPL7 is a step down, as far as I'm concerned.

(Then again, I just bought an E-M10, so I guess I don't care all that much.)

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 19:33 UTC
On article Olympus PEN E-PL7 First Impressions Review (510 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marc J: I am horribly appalled by the marketing of this thing, and by the accompanying change in the marketing of the whole PEN line. I was fairly proud of my E-PL5, but with the current marketing, I should feel embarrassed to ever pull it out. What happened to photography? Anyone want to tell me that those who like to match their cameras with their purses have any clue of, say, sensor size? Or of a difference between lenses? And that they actually want to know about it?

"I was fairly proud of my E-PL5, but with the current marketing, I should feel embarrassed to ever pull it out."

I use my camera to take pictures. Why would I ever be embarrassed at the tools I choose?

If you really need your camera to be a fashion accessory that badly, either buy a Leica or just shoot with your iPhone.

And while you do that, I'll be busy taking pictures.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 19:28 UTC
In reply to:

Daniel Lauring: I have a feeling this is just another low IQ superzoom that duplicates existing lenses. Tamron and Sigma should concentrate on some high quality fast zooms to support m43. How about a 12-60 F2.8 or F4? That would make a dynamite semi-pro walkaround lens.

"if they're still leary about joining m4/3 at all, targeting only the smaller group of high end m4/3 users is an even bigger gamble."

That's better than targeting no one by duplicating lenses that are already there (and good).

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 15:50 UTC
In reply to:

ray-ray: The fact is, the digital age has changed and everything heretofore has gone out the window in regard to intellectual property. We've seen this time and time again with digital music and digital imaging suffers the same plight. The days of original tape recordings and original negatives have faded into history. The onus is on the artist and photographer to accept the fact that the rules of the game have changed. It's way too easy to copy, manipulate, alter and otherwise pilfer digital files. You can't count on everyone being honest, because history has proved that not everyone is. The primary reason for protecting one's work is to protect the revenue it potentially can generate. That being said, new ways are going to have to be discovered to guarantee the revenue stream.

The answer really isn't that difficult. If all it takes to defeat your business model is removing a watermark (something any idiot can figure out how to do with 10 seconds of googling and some free software) then your business model is crap.

Charge for the shoot, with the agreement that all images from it belong to the client. Collect half up front, and half when you show the client the images on YOUR computer. Problem solved.

Jesus, no wonder the photographers here complain about losing revenue -- use your heads! The world has changed; change with it or find a new line of work.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 03:20 UTC
On article Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures (164 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wubslin: I'm with Walmart on this one. No-one has the 'right' to take pictures of people.

That's irrelevant. Legally, all that matters are the circumstances under which the photos were taken, which isn't at all clear based on this article.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 19:32 UTC
On article Olympus PEN E-P5 Review (500 comments in total)
In reply to:

SteveNunez: One ugly camera...just my opinion, which doesn't count for much, but I find it ugly!

I totally agree with you: Your opinion doesn't count for much.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2014 at 19:51 UTC
On article Did Amazon just patent the seamless background setup? (133 comments in total)
In reply to:

FRANCISCO ARAGAO: Soon Apple will sue Amazon.

Well, there *is* a rounded corner on the lower left-hand side, and Apple owns rounded corners.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 01:31 UTC
On article onOne Software's Perfect Effects 8 available for free (113 comments in total)
In reply to:

photosen: Pity, I don't have 8G of RAM either...

I only have 4 gigs and this runs fine. So does Photoshop CS5, FWIW.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2014 at 00:33 UTC
On article Pressy gives your Android phone an extra button (23 comments in total)

My first Android phone - the OG Droid - had a dedicated camera button that (unlike this one) was actually located in the right place: about 3/4 of the way down the right side. You could snap a pic just like using a camera.

It's a damn shame all phone's don't have those.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2014 at 19:07 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
On article Samsung launches Galaxy K Zoom with 10x optical zoom (114 comments in total)
In reply to:

DWare: Lot of negativity but photo potential is intriguing as this will likely be a camera that will always be on me. Price will be the ultimate factor.

I'd buy one if I needed to upgrade - it would be WAY better than my current phone camera, which is already one of the best (and still terrible).

One sticking point: No Kitkat? If there's a Cyanogen mod release for this, it would make all the difference.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2014 at 15:48 UTC
On article Samsung launches Galaxy K Zoom with 10x optical zoom (114 comments in total)
In reply to:

kff: OK, Samsung Galaxy NX is still the best Android camera,
but not so cheap and it doesn't have KitKat ...

Why doesn't Galaxy K Zoom have no less than 1" senzor ?
SONY QX100 seems to be a big competitor ... we can change a phone during the time and to have still a good camera :)

It would need to either be an inch thick, or the the lens would have to pop out significantly more than it does now (and would be much thicker and heavier). The best you'll ever see is MAYBE a 1/1.7" sensor, like the Canon S120.

Physics can't be overcome.

Personally, I'd rather then keep the phone slim and use dual smaller sensors with software noise reduction to help overcome the low-light problem. I don't expect that to happen, though.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2014 at 15:44 UTC
In reply to:

Kodachrome200: the intresting part of this would be info on how this works with photographers. how much do they get paid ect ect

You could just click the link and find answers to all your questions, but I guess that would be too hard.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 23:55 UTC
On article Am I missing something here? (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

BurkPhoto: Nikon and Canon are both missing the mirrorless boat. The Olympus and Panasonic offerings are much more ingenious and mature.

Even Sony, with their a7 series, has a better approach. Why haven't Nikon and Canon seen the light and given us mirrorless full frame cameras that are a cut above everything else?

The SLR design was never right for digital. I even hated it the first time I picked up a Canon SLR in August, 1968. That stupid mirror blacked out the finder during exposure, and I've been ticked off about it ever since...

@BurkPhoto: This is why I disagree with the author; it's ALL about protecting their DSLR sales.

Once those start to crumble for enthusiasts, you'll see Canon and Nikon finally release serious mirrorless lines (with decent sensors).

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 23:53 UTC
On article Lost 1960s moon photos recovered from analog tapes (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

quadraticadder: This is lovely stuff. And of course this high resolution technology was also used in military spy satellites at the time. I wonder how much of the development of early high resolution digital imaging was funded by the militaries for surveillance.

All of it.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2014 at 21:30 UTC
Total: 153, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »