ShatteredSky

ShatteredSky

Lives in Switzerland Commute, Switzerland
Works as a Timetravel (i.e. Geology - Paleontology)
Joined on Dec 7, 2006

Comments

Total: 428, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Made my day, too. Though most comedy is going on in the mind of the beholder ... anthropomorphising and all.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 07:42 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

Funkyd3121: That's not music - it's Noise.

That's your personal choice and opinion. Does not contribute to the discussion (which is not about artistic merits and taste). Just saying ... (I do not really like the QUOTSA).

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 13:14 UTC

Glad that I do not really like the QOTSA. Well, if he has an issue with (non-intrusive) photographers and a (semi-) celebrity status he should have done (as it is it's unacceptable) what Monster Magnet frontman did some time back at a show in Lyss: being annoyed by the crowd talking (why the hell did they attend the concert anyway) and the multitude of constant cellphone imaging (with flash) he was deliberately pointing a compact camera at the people towards the end of the show (not that it did help).
I think that was my worst concert experience ever audience-wise ...

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 12:27 UTC as 51st comment
On article What it’s like to photograph a sandstorm (27 comments in total)

Yes, I can relate to your final paragraph. As a geologist I am ever curious about the processes that shape our world. I can stand for hours at the coast watching the waves crashing on the shore (or similar scenarios like thunderstorms). It's good to disconnect from your usual routine from time to time. It lets us appreciate some ubiquitous things differently and that we have a choice to be safe (under most circumstances).

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2017 at 17:31 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon D850 vs Sony a7R III: Which is best? (1059 comments in total)

Never one of those integrated-grip monsters (aka D5 etc lines, handled one for some time, just horrible ergonomics), D850 still being to big. So it would be A7R III all the way for full-frame if I would be so inclined. But since I am a cheapskate and still appreciate smaller I will be going on with the NX500. Still good IQ ... and when it falls apart there are still other nice options.

Camera-wise we are truly spoiled nowadays.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 15:31 UTC as 173rd comment
In reply to:

ShatteredSky: As nice as it looks, I do not need hair-thin. Face-thin is sufficient ...

Yeah, I figured that the NX45/1.8 is enough for me ...

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 18:46 UTC

As nice as it looks, I do not need hair-thin. Face-thin is sufficient ...

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 15:51 UTC as 154th comment | 3 replies

Yes indeed, I agree with what some of the others already said. Back in the days IR, DPR and DCR were my most visited sites. There was a period when DCR won out, since I really liked its simple and still very informative layout.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2017 at 08:28 UTC as 38th comment

As has been pointed out below, Olympus had this man years back, but dropped it later. I thought is was a good idea, but did not have it on my E-420.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 17:22 UTC as 54th comment
On article Instagram is 'liking' natural wonders to death (42 comments in total)

So, there is this old question again: should only people who REALLY appreciate these locations be allowed to visit them (or only be allotted let's say 5 minutes)? Gleaning form the comments there is a common disappointment ... but if something gets regulated (see drones etc.) the outcry on these forums (and outside) is huge.
Mind you, I also do prefer to enjoy my favourite spots solo (and am annoyed by the "snapshot crowd", even if I am quite certain my shots are also snapshots in the wider sense). So who is to say that I can come in and not the other person ...
But as has been pointed out below, too: just moving away for several hundred meters sometimes works wonders (already).

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2017 at 10:43 UTC as 4th comment

Didn't we get this bizarre story a year back already?

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 17:47 UTC as 75th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

jrconner: I still have two Nikon film SLRs and plenty of lenses for them. But I cannot think of a single good reason why I would want to shoot another roll of film. I don't begrudge those who would shoot Ektachrome, but I suspect not that many will, and that as film photographers and their equipment age and die, the manufacture of Ektachrome will cease and not enjoy a second resurrection.

"Sit at the kitchen table surrounded by test prints, neg sleeves, contacts and preliminary enlargements; with a light box, a loupe, and a marker pen. Honestly, there's no feeling like it. Give it a go - what have you got to lose?"

If you like to do this, than that is a reason I can relate to. But for me personally, that would be too inconvenient. After finally getting a printer I am even happier with the digital workflow. Ok, the irony is that I still have to do test prints of course ...

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 10:21 UTC

And I was griping about the cost for the LX100 housing :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 07:05 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Corephotonics sues Apple over dual-camera zoom patents (98 comments in total)

Since I am too lazy to dig deeper, what exactly was infringed upon? The idea of using two cameras instead of one (oh, what a unique idea)? Or some specific hardware development?
If the former it proves once again that something is rotten with the patent system(s). That reminds me of the discussion which name to use for a certain product with only two bizarre ones remaining available (in some Futurama episode).

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 09:38 UTC as 3rd comment
On article How to predict when your camera is going to die (19 comments in total)

HRMPF, what about the review button on my NX500 that is starting to act up? Shutter count does not interest me.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 08:13 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

ShatteredSky: And that is something that has puzzled me since owning my first digital camera back in 2004: why are producers of delicate electronics that are taken outside not obliged to offer the best possible built in protection. Probably because the majority of cameras still survived without. Slowly we are now drifting towards reasonable sealing, but not protection against dunking in (sea)water of course.
The problem of an ubiquitous and consistently working sealing is less the body, but the pumping of zoom lenses I guess.
For me personally it is less water ingress (except underwater of course), but keeping out dust and sand.

@Mike : I did not say salt-water resistant or waterproof, just normal resistant. I know, this is a story about salt water damage. Probably should have been clearer in the beginning.
@DGN: Not when there is wind, I get that a lot. I rather prefer a good poncho.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 12:32 UTC
In reply to:

ShatteredSky: And that is something that has puzzled me since owning my first digital camera back in 2004: why are producers of delicate electronics that are taken outside not obliged to offer the best possible built in protection. Probably because the majority of cameras still survived without. Slowly we are now drifting towards reasonable sealing, but not protection against dunking in (sea)water of course.
The problem of an ubiquitous and consistently working sealing is less the body, but the pumping of zoom lenses I guess.
For me personally it is less water ingress (except underwater of course), but keeping out dust and sand.

Shooting with add on crutches (the worst being an umbrella) is cumbersome. For underwater I got a housing. But I am not going to put the camera in a housing outside of the water. Of course my cameras survived until this day, because I take care, but sometimes not always having to mind your surroundings would make shooting a bit easier.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 11:38 UTC
In reply to:

Dougbm_2: Now please make an LX200 with a longer lens (24-125mm/f1.8 - f4) than before a much better EVF and this 20MP sensor.
Oh and better built. I had expensive issues with two LX100s.

@leen: that too I would buy in a heartbeat.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 11:34 UTC
In reply to:

ShatteredSky: And that is something that has puzzled me since owning my first digital camera back in 2004: why are producers of delicate electronics that are taken outside not obliged to offer the best possible built in protection. Probably because the majority of cameras still survived without. Slowly we are now drifting towards reasonable sealing, but not protection against dunking in (sea)water of course.
The problem of an ubiquitous and consistently working sealing is less the body, but the pumping of zoom lenses I guess.
For me personally it is less water ingress (except underwater of course), but keeping out dust and sand.

@Mike: I agree that the moving parts problem applies to zoom lenses, but not camera bodies. And industrial laptops are more expensive because a) they are produced (custom-built) in much lower numbers (at least that is what I assume) and b) they need to be excessively rugged (which cameras don't).

@DGP: but that IS the rub: why do have an outdoors product if you can not take it outdoors (except when the weather is fine).

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 13:17 UTC
In reply to:

Dougbm_2: Now please make an LX200 with a longer lens (24-125mm/f1.8 - f4) than before a much better EVF and this 20MP sensor.
Oh and better built. I had expensive issues with two LX100s.

That sir, would be the camera I would buy in an instant. Would not mind a somewhat larger size.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 09:54 UTC
Total: 428, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »