Joined on Jun 6, 2006


Total: 521, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Massive $33,500 2450mm f/8 NASA lens surfaces on eBay (235 comments in total)

The buyer will do what with the lens? Sell, of course.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2015 at 13:14 UTC as 35th comment

#1-4: Shots we'd never publish if they depicted people we knew.
#5: Pyrograph: creative arson. Is there a digital pyrography forum?
#6: "Sentenced to love": sung to other lyrics in a Johnny Cash album.
#7: What! DPR rated my beloved camera only 79?
#8: proof that slow AF sometimes wins.
#9: Ouch.
#10: Quixote's squire (escudero) as a youth.
#11: Fire water.
#12: R&R industry.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2015 at 14:22 UTC as 21st comment
On article Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 (326 comments in total)
In reply to:

attomole: I have read all the comments, and it's over priced wrongly spec' d on firmware. however, I still think the concept, ergonomics and general layout is bang on, I still want one,I've had it with SLR and rangefinder look-a likes because the conservative American market won't buy anything else. throw the rule book away and build cameras that make sense with modern technology rather than the constraints of roll film from half a century ago, Bravo Canon! ( specs aside)

American and most other markets have shifted away from traditional cameras to multi-task replacements made by Apple, Samsung, LG, and other smart phones.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 13:19 UTC
On article Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 (326 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul B Jones: Always amusing to see the crazy-town League of Canon Hating DPR Bias Conspiracy Theorists out in force. What is with you crack pots? Did Canon steal your lunch money? Dis-arrange your sock drawer? Sprinkle gluten on your rice crackers? Make you have a measles vaccine? Sheesh!

Canon makes fine printers and is striding into the world of medical diagnostics. Its legacy lenses asure it an eternal shrine in the museum of great cameras. But camera sales are down, not due to some conspiracy. Maybe Canon will sell some XC10s, and the hefty margins will outperform the thin returns on sales of thousands of compacts or consumer cameras, but only if persuades commercial producers to pay-up, rather than select cheaper alternatives.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 13:15 UTC
On article Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 (326 comments in total)

Nice were Canon to roll out a 4k successor to the sturdy HF G30 to compete with the AX33 or WX970, or maybe a poor man's version of the XC10 to compete with the AX100. 4k with a APS-c or FF sensor may entail heat problems, short battery life, and stabilization difficulties, but the courageous ought to try, sooner or later. Oh... Samsung already did!

Perhaps the A7s sensor in a VG900 type body?

4k in the T8i? In 2019? h.265 codec by 2025?

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 13:09 UTC as 61st comment
In reply to:

straylightrun: To all those wanting a 1" sensor, good luck getting a 24-720mm equiv lens that isn't the size of a bazooka.

FZ1000: mini-zooka. Rebel-ish in size.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 14:19 UTC
In reply to:

Sezano: Fantastic camera!
How about a constant f2.8. I'd gladly pay a lot of mullah.

RX10: constant f/2.8. Circa $900.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 14:17 UTC
In reply to:

utomo99: The Sensor size are too small. The Lens not fast enough. I hope next cameras will be better

See Rx100i, ii, iii. 1" sensor, f/1.8 at wide end, but limited zoom and twice the price. Or the RX10: also 1" sensor, and has 10X zoom, but not a pocket camera. Small body, long zoom, <$400 price new, and large sensor are mutually exclusive.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 14:15 UTC
In reply to:

Provia_fan: Looks like a great package but no RAW, so for me it's a non starter once more. I have been tempted by the HX series, I think they can be great for street but I need RAW.

I have a Pentax MX-1 and although its JPEGs are excellent and overall image quality excellent, the JPEG engine still commits a bit of a murder when converting RAW data to JPEG. So I shoot RAW and use Silkypix or Adobe Camera RAW.

And from what I have seen from Sony, being also a long time user, you definitely need the RAW file. I have learned over the years to never judge what a camera can do from the JPEG file alone, because in particular with the smaller sensors, they let you down a bit.

If shooting at 720mm f/6.4 equivalent zoom with a 1/2.3" sensor, one is lucky to get a half-decent JPEG. Auto noise reduction is obligatory. The choice is between a somewhat smudgy and flat picture, or one that is no good at all. RAW would be of no aid to the casual user and more headache than help to someone hoping to turn grape juice into champagne.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 14:11 UTC
In reply to:

lacikuss: The only problem is the small sensor...

I'd buy this with a 1" sensor and same size. You Sony figure it out

Perhaps the RX100iv, but with only 3X zoom, and for $950. If you want 1" sensor and more zoom, it won't fit in a pocket. Think: RX10 or FZ1000.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 18:08 UTC
On article Olympus Stylus Tough TG-4 to offer Raw capture (151 comments in total)

The f/2.0 aperture of Olympus' Tough cameras is more distinctive, and relevant, than RAW capture for this sort of camera. Recent "T" models also have faster AF than some of the competing models in the niche. Addition of RAW responds to demands of people who don't engage in activities that entail use of this sort of camera anyway. I'd sort of fear that the AF motor noise still intrudes on the audio in video mode.

No fault of Olympus alone, but these cameras all seem to have a short life if used for snorkeling and the seals get compromised by even tiny amounts of sand, plankton, or silt, which can be very sticky or glue-like. The cleaning must be very meticulous and regular, or corrosive and silty seawater will invade.

The test is not whether the cameras survive one dive, or bathtub tests, but whether they survive three sea submersions on separate days or trips.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 15:48 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
On article Samsung NX1 Review (1264 comments in total)

h.265 support does exist, and it's worth clarification.

PowerDirector13, an inexpensive video editor, supports the h.265 codec directly. With ad-ons, it can also do some fairly high level editing and grading for a fraction of the price of Premiere or Final Cut. Perhaps Adobe will introduce h.265 support this year. Apple? Not so soon. Why help Samsung, its smart phone nemesis? Avid may never get there. Sony Creative's Vegas or Movie Studio may not support h.265 until Sony cameras do. Right now they promote XAVC.

Grant Taiwan's Cyberlink PD13 a smidgeon of credit for being ahead of all the stodgy competition, and underprice it too.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 22:36 UTC as 154th comment | 5 replies
On article Samsung NX1 Review (1264 comments in total)
In reply to:

taktak91: Judging from the review, it's a very capable camera.
Too bad it's not sold everywhere like other brands.
I won't purchase a $2000+ camera if I can't see it in person first.

"Camera stores"? These survive, if barely, in a few large cities. These days, in most places, one is lucky to find an electronics retailer or Wal-Mart / Costco type affair where the shrinking faction of floor space dedicated to cameras is likely to include no more than Canon, Nikon, and maybe Sony or Fuji, and not very many models. You don't find a 5D or D850, and likely not a single Samsung, Pentax, Olympus, or Panasonic. Ricoh printers, not cameras.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 15:13 UTC
On article Samsung NX1 Review (1264 comments in total)
In reply to:

ljmac: Nice camera, shame about the system. Really, I often find it frustrating how most photography review sites seem to forget that a camera needs a lens to work - it doesn't really matter how great this camera is (or how great Sony's mirrorless cameras are, for example) if you can't get the right lenses for it. The only mirrorless system with a decent selection of lenses is Micro 4/3rds, but this critical fact is largely ignored by reviews.

Yes, reserve "gold" exclusively to the cameras that must be scored for each and every lens that might be use in every situation that could be imagined, even if that "kit" costs $50k, requires a hand truck to carry around, and takes a year to review.

Joking aside, the normal standard for rating camera bodies should be two zoom good lenses, and maybe one prime for the studio still life comparison shots.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 14:51 UTC
On article Samsung NX1 Review (1264 comments in total)
In reply to:

S Severs: It looks like a nice product, but I have no confidence that a company with it's hands in all things electronic will still be in the camera business 5-10 years out, especially with the continued sales decline in the premium camera market. It's all about the glass in front and established 1st party camera companies still refine, innovate, and make new lenses, and have lens roadmaps. In addition other 2nd party manufacturers are making other innovative/responsive lenses for Canon, Nikon, and m4/3.

What "camera business" will survive in 5-10 years? It will probably persist mainly as an appendix of "consumer apps" or a small high-price niche.

Canon is makes printers, mainly, and is expanding into medical diagnostic gear. Nikon also sees faster growth outside the camera world than within.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 14:31 UTC
On article Samsung NX1 Review (1264 comments in total)
In reply to:

GatanoII: If someone makes an NX to EF electronic adapter with AF, aperture and IS working (almost) as good as on a Canon camera this Samsung NX1 can make a difference in the market right now, i.e. sell a lot of pieces and force Canon to make something similar/better, sooner than later.

Otherwise, the huge difference in glass selection compared to Canon will still keep it in a much more limited market, the same way as Sony NEX mount cameras are adopted by many Canon users thanks to the NEX to EF adapter availability.

Why I compare it only to Canon? because it has the most selection of glass and can work easily once (and if) an electronic adapter is available.

How many people can afford (or bear to lug around) more than perhaps two lenses? Could one travel with the $719 Samsung 18-200mm f/4.0-5.6 Movie Pro lens, avoid pauperdom, and be quite happy?

Samsung has promised a 300mm zoom, but not that it will be cheap. Fit in pocket, no. Empty pocket, of course.

On the other hand, the LX100 has a fast lens and now costs less than a fast lens on its own.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 14:27 UTC
On article Samsung NX1 Review (1264 comments in total)
In reply to:

shademaster: for all the "arm-chair" pros out there complaining about lack of glass, I imagine the *real* pros are very happy with: i) fast standard zoom, ii) fast tele zoom, iii) fast portrait lens for 95% of their work. FWIW, as an amateur, the 30mm + 45mm + 85mm makes a great arsenal. I don't know what you "we need more glass…. it's all about the system" people want, really.

Or they say, "Nice picture. What of, I don't care. But look at this pixel noise in the corner. Some day, you might grow up and get a camera almost as good as mine."

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 14:17 UTC

Everyone dreams of flying, and bird's-eye shots are dreamy. Even caterpillars flee existence as worms, and endure weeks entombed in fuzz, in order to fly, if only for days or weeks at the end of their lives. Landlubbers who grimace and say "not me" don't convince anyone.

That said, drones do raise concern. No, not spying on neighbors. That is the last reason an enthusiast would give a hoot about.

It's cost. The prices and features are tempting, but how many flights do they actually last? Does $1,259 multiply into a five-figure expense afteer tallying the crashes, tree hang-ups, or other breakage?

Next comes access and safety. How long will viewers care for flyovers of vacant public wilderness? The temptation is always the same iconic landmarks or cities. This problem will lead to lots of buzz, literally, figuratively, financially, and legally.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 13:20 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies
On article Samsung NX1 Review (1264 comments in total)
In reply to:

JEROME NOLAS: This is VW Phaeton of cameras. A camera nobody asked for...heavy, expensive. Samsung have no idea what people want. I was a Samsung user but gave up.

I asked for a weightless camera that cost nothing. Added bonuses: no batteries, lenses, or SD cards needed. Does not break when dropped or submerged. Not even noticed when in pocket. Stabilization perfect. Fully customized options for resolution or codec. Discrete and draws no attention in public.

I found it in my dreams. And there it remains: weightless and worthless. Known as "Photon," not Phaeton.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 21:48 UTC
On article Samsung NX1 Review (1264 comments in total)

Do freshly sold NX1's come with the latest firmware? Or, when turned on for the first time, do they prompt one to log into a WiFi and obtain the firmware automatically? To obtain the firmware, must one register with a "support" service that simultaneously extracts user information everytime one turns on the WiFi? That is apparently what the "smart" Samsung TVs do. They aren't alone in that game, but just what sort of experience do users report?

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 21:23 UTC as 276th comment | 2 replies
Total: 521, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »