deep7

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a writer/photographer/ecologist
Has a website at deeppics.com
Joined on May 10, 2008
About me:

God makes it, I see it and photograph it. Sometimes that works well!

Comments

Total: 1335, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (583 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: Seems odd to remove stabilization, since the assembly was already baked into the GH5 and anyone who didn't want to use it (when on dollies etc.) could just turn it off. Either they needed the space to put the larger sensor in there, or removing it allowed better heat management during video recording. Both of which are totally valid reasons to drop the feature, but the "oh, we did it 'cuz _pros_ don't need it anyway" explanation represents everything about marketing I dislike.

Likewise I'm all for using a slightly oversized sensor to get the most out of different crop formats, but, "this also means that the diagonal angle of view is preserved" has no practical photographic merit in itself and should not be touted as a feature.

I read elsewhere that removing stabilisation removed unwanted noise. Even turned off, the system still suspends the sensor and is not quiet.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 10:34 UTC
In reply to:

Keith Cooper: Interesting in that 'standards' could help cut through variations in assorted marketing 'emphasis' ;-)

However, given the longstanding recommendation to keep screen brightnesses well down if editing for print, I guess we should brace for the inevitable increase in "Why are my prints too dark" posts ;-)

I'm lucky enough to test high end printers for Canon and Epson and making great prints doesn't benefit from superbright monitors - wider gamuts than sRGB for sure. Print technologies massively expanding the dynamic range in print are not imminent

As a working photographer not using video, screens having such brightness capabilities are of minimal use (for now). That may change but as it stands I'm minded to regard the new standards as being more relevant to general PC users and gamers than photographers

My other lingering concern is that such standards make it easier to give spurious performance ratings to monitors that have no real relevance for many photographers.

Having just read the article, I looked up the numbers for my brand new, budget, 4K I.P.S. monitor which arrived just a few days ago. I was stunned to see the manufacturers only claim 300 nits as I have the brightness turned down to 59% to make it usable. I can't imagine how you'd even use 600 nits, let alone 1,000.

Looking at test charts, the colour accuracy/contrast straight out of the box is so good I haven't bothered calibrating it yet! Things are definitely getting better in the world of monitors.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2018 at 21:03 UTC
In reply to:

Jesse_Just_Him: I think they just throttled the CPU too much, else it won't be that super obvious.

Drastic problems required serious research! That issue had me on the point of moving to a Windows phone but, oops, even more problems there now!

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2018 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: Cheap camera, several thousand dollars worth of lenses! Love it.

dpreview: your galleries are still broken. The info is still covering the photos. Please fix it. Just hide the comments if you need the space.

Micro four thirds sensors are capable of stunning output. You just have to process the files properly. DEFINITELY not Lightroom defaults!

But yes, lenses are far more important than bodies if the aim is best image quality.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2018 at 23:07 UTC
In reply to:

Jesse_Just_Him: I think they just throttled the CPU too much, else it won't be that super obvious.

You are right. It's absolutely disgusting but that was something they, bizarrely, copied from Android. Windows 10 also updates without asking. They all suck!

You can fix the problem on iOS by installing Weblock and carefully following the instructions. It does work very well but you have to set it for every router you use. Alternatively, make sure you never plug in the charger with WiFi turned on because it only does those nasty downloads on WiFi and external power.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2018 at 20:09 UTC

Cheap camera, several thousand dollars worth of lenses! Love it.

dpreview: your galleries are still broken. The info is still covering the photos. Please fix it. Just hide the comments if you need the space.

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2018 at 20:05 UTC as 31st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Jesse_Just_Him: I think they just throttled the CPU too much, else it won't be that super obvious.

Two different issues here. As the newer versions of iOS appear, they demand more power from the phones, which means older, less powerful, phones are indeed slower. Sometimes the difference is huge (iOS3-4 on my old iPhone 3G was disastrous), sometimes not so much. This battery difference will only be noticed by people who basically thrash their batteries and do power-intensive tasks. It's generally the urge to move to a newer (and rarely better!) version of iOS that creates the problem. That's why my 6S is staying on iOS9 for as long as possible.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2017 at 20:04 UTC
In reply to:

Jesse_Just_Him: I think they just throttled the CPU too much, else it won't be that super obvious.

It probably isn't even slightly obvious to most people!

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 02:27 UTC

Good on them.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 02:26 UTC as 126th comment
In reply to:

Steve Wilson: This article states "TeckFire pointed out that his iPhone 6s had become very slow, only to speed back up again after the battery was replaced". If this is the case, it has nothing to do with the phone being old, so why does this article repeatedly state Apple is slowing down old phones? My guess is that Apple hasn't changed their algorithm and they'll also slow down a new phone if there is an old, worn out battery in it. If TeckFire's statement is true, then this whole article should be re-written to say "Apple is slowing down iPhones as the battery gets old".

1) They're not really limping. You'll only notice the slowdown under heavy load.
2) Do some research on the difficulties associated with managing lithium ion/polymer batteries and sit in awe of what most manufacturers have managed to achieve. Exploding phones from other manufacturers notwithstanding!

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2017 at 00:41 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Wilson: This article states "TeckFire pointed out that his iPhone 6s had become very slow, only to speed back up again after the battery was replaced". If this is the case, it has nothing to do with the phone being old, so why does this article repeatedly state Apple is slowing down old phones? My guess is that Apple hasn't changed their algorithm and they'll also slow down a new phone if there is an old, worn out battery in it. If TeckFire's statement is true, then this whole article should be re-written to say "Apple is slowing down iPhones as the battery gets old".

Well said!

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2017 at 19:51 UTC
On article Have Your Say: Best Gear of 2017 (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

leuallen: I wonder how people feel about the Iphone with the revelation that they deliberately slowed down previous generation phones with IOS updates when a new phone came out. It was ostensibly to "save" a strain on the battery because it was getting old. Yeah, do you buy that?

Such silliness. What other manufacturer goes to so much trouble to make older products run as well as possible? This is a non-trivial use of battery monitoring technology. There are far bigger issues in the world to get you knickers in a know over. Seriously!

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2017 at 06:44 UTC
In reply to:

brn: No discounts? Let me run out and pay full price for a dead product.

As does my Leica.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2017 at 19:47 UTC
On article Have Your Say: Best Gear of 2017 (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

beavertown: Sony has two outstanding DSLR cameras on the list, it will cause them to lose to the D850 for sure.

Good point! The lines have blurred.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2017 at 19:45 UTC
On article Have Your Say: Best Gear of 2017 (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

beavertown: Sony has two outstanding DSLR cameras on the list, it will cause them to lose to the D850 for sure.

Maybe, but that will really be a win to Sony. I wonder if it matters to them?

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2017 at 05:02 UTC
On article Have Your Say: Best Gear of 2017 (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

AdrianPocea: It must be a joke that the Fuji x100f beat Sony RX10IV. The Sony is such a more complex and useful machine than that stylish, useless , pretentious toy, that they don't even belong in the same league.
For me Sony RX10IV wins overall, in everything. It was the only camera I was salivating for( me having the 5dIV with the Tamron 70-200 G2 for pro portraits) and I got it a couple of days ago. Super fantastic

That would have got my vote - oh wait, it wasn't in the list!

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2017 at 21:14 UTC
On article Have Your Say: Best Gear of 2017 (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Ma: This entire list seems very lackluster. It's like RadioShack put together their best sellers list for 2017.

Exactly.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2017 at 21:13 UTC
On article Have Your Say: Best Gear of 2017 (201 comments in total)

Well, I voted but it was an uninspiring experience. Nothing there that I would actually buy (well, maybe a Sony A9 if I was after something more hyper than what I already have). I guess that reflects the gear-head nature of this site, which is swayed more and more by "features" over ergonomics and pleasure of use; and DXO scores over how a photo actually looks!

On the other hand, it is ALL good gear. You really can't go wrong these days.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2017 at 21:13 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

George Zip: I am not against subscription software overall. I have it in my business. My issue with something like LR you are held hostage forever if you want to view your images via the Catalog and see the edits you have made. I know you can export the edits to JPEG or whatever, but it kind of defeats the purpose of having Lightroom. It's not like say a business application, where once you are done with it, that's it. Most people want to be able to access their photos for the rest of their lives. So going forward I might look at something else. The thought irks me paying for something simply to view images should I stop taking photography seriously down the track.

Oh wow, no matter what you use you really should have jpeg or tiff versions of your better photos. Even if you plan to stay with compatible software for ever, things inevitably change in the computer world and there is a non-trivial chance you will find yourself going through those raw files again one day!

I actually work the other way - I export and then re-import high quality jpg files( after I am happy with my edits, obviously) but store copies of the raw files on two hard drives so I can visit them again when better software turns up.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2017 at 08:58 UTC
In reply to:

kjeldsendk: Had one of those moments where i started LR CC and then it asked me to sign in, no problem, i had a mobile and could hotspot. But it did make me think, because i had some pictures that was pretty important and that i really had to export then and there. And there was no way around signing in. If i had been without a internet connection i would have been in serious problems..

That's appalling!

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 17:15 UTC
Total: 1335, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »