johnduncan

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Works as a IT Professional
Joined on Jun 27, 2006

Comments

Total: 33, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

Given it addresses the perceived flaws of the 6000/63000, not sure how anybody could find anything to complain about in this camer...oh.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 19:42 UTC as 129th comment | 7 replies
On article Canon EOS 80D Field Test: Barney builds a boat (220 comments in total)
In reply to:

dave_bass5: Barney, I enjoyed the video. I'm sure you've heard it millions of times before but you are the spitting image of Jack Whitehall....only less funny ;-).
The video is what it is, using it in the real world. I can't see why some are complaining it wasn't a side by side comparison video, it's was never advertised as that.

You are fortunate.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 08:15 UTC
In reply to:

Neez: This would have made more sense when people had unlimited data plans.

I have an unlimited data plan.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2016 at 07:24 UTC

Want.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2016 at 06:31 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

probert500: "Eviscerate" has a very strong negative connotation - misleading headline.

Blah blah blah blah...

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 22:12 UTC
In reply to:

probert500: "Eviscerate" has a very strong negative connotation - misleading headline.

I think people need to find better things to do. The use of the word in this context is perfectly appropriate.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2016 at 21:11 UTC

*Manchester*?!?!?

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2015 at 18:57 UTC as 31st comment

Don't seem as sharp as the Sigmas, on first look. Shame.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 12:29 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

SteB: It's the game called football in the rest of the world.

I think you'll find it's actually called 'fitba'.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 08:21 UTC

CNET has image samples too:

http://www.cnet.com/pictures/tamrons-new-fast-primes-affordable-but-not-cheap-pictures/

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 10:44 UTC as 103rd comment

I see $600 each reported.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 10:42 UTC as 104th comment
In reply to:

micke69: This is going to make the majority of GH4 owners very angry. Having to pay $100 for something that should have been there from the beginning will give Panasonic a lot of bad PR. Remember rule #1: Don't f**k with the customers!

@D 503

My hardware is capable of running Photoshop, and always has been. Why should I pay in order for it to do so?

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 00:20 UTC
In reply to:

johnduncan: "He also says the photo media needs to be more fun, rather than reading like Physics books. We're not sure we know what he's referring to there"

This.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2

Don't get me wrong, I think this greater understanding is terrific, but I do sometimes think the internet then latches onto this stuff and demands it from all new technology and derides anything which does not meet that of other manufacturers or topology or whatever, forgetting (or not knowing in the first place) what it was like to shoot with T-Max 3200. It used to be resolution and high-ISO noise, and now it's dynamic range (which wasn't really being discussed three years ago).

I'n the meantime, I'm just trying to continue to enjoy photography with all the substandard equipment i own (Canon 20D, Moto G)...

I'm not sure I care. I just know that all I had with me at the weekend with a World Heritage Site in front of me (and nice light) was a phone, and I liked the resulting images a lot and other people did too.

That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the greater capabilities of other equipment when it's available to me.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 15:08 UTC

"He also says the photo media needs to be more fun, rather than reading like Physics books. We're not sure we know what he's referring to there"

This.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2

Don't get me wrong, I think this greater understanding is terrific, but I do sometimes think the internet then latches onto this stuff and demands it from all new technology and derides anything which does not meet that of other manufacturers or topology or whatever, forgetting (or not knowing in the first place) what it was like to shoot with T-Max 3200. It used to be resolution and high-ISO noise, and now it's dynamic range (which wasn't really being discussed three years ago).

I'n the meantime, I'm just trying to continue to enjoy photography with all the substandard equipment i own (Canon 20D, Moto G)...

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 14:23 UTC as 227th comment | 2 replies
On article Video: Summing up our Fujifilm X-T10 Review (16 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael J Davis: Dan's introduction made it sound as though this 'type' of camera was 'new' - with no reference to Panasonic and Olympus or even Fuji predecessors. Otherwise why explain that the evf isn't a DSLR? and that a flip out screen can be quite useful? (Oh yes, 'quite' in British English means something different from 'quite' in US English - best avoid it in an international forum.)

Also in such a short review does the reference to film styles really have any place?

Nice camera sure, but I'm not sure that the summary mentioned its stongest points...

Um...'quite' means lots of things depending on context, from damning with faint praise to quite the opposite...

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 07:40 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff Svuk: looking at the photos on different devices shows quite different output. I usually use an iPad with Retina display, on this the images are soft. Tried again on an MS surface and a PC and the images are tack sharp.
This is using the 'original' image in a new browser tab.
The helicopter shot is a great example, if you can read the name of the helicopter (bell) on the underneath of the blade, then your browser is probably displaying the image well, otherwise it is probably the way images are displayed within your browser.
I expected the iPad to be showing me the best, and I can understand the comments here if people are using iPads, now I have to go back over many of the camera reviews and galleries again and look again, but in a different browser.
Amazing levels of detail being captured by this camera though!

I'm not sure I see an issue with Chrome and a 13" Retina MBP - is this documented/discussed anywhere else, Rishi? Not a biggie as I haven't experienced any real world issue, but I like to know about...undocumented features.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 09:42 UTC

Well I would personally like to thank Canon for garnering me the most likes I have ever had.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 12:44 UTC as 472nd comment

(jinx)

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 10:47 UTC as 509th comment

It appears to be an ad campaign for an ad campaign...

http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/canon-s-new-camera-ads-focus-people-not-products-160595

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 10:42 UTC as 511th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: 1736 x 1156 is NOT low resolution for video. That looks amazing. Minus the Moire.

How is it shy of Full HD?

EDIT - ah, widthways. Got you, my bad.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2013 at 22:12 UTC
Total: 33, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »