Joined on Sep 12, 2011


Total: 237, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Scottelly: Fuji should sue the company calling itself Polaroid into the stone age.

"When the original Polaroid Corporation was declared bankrupt in 2001,[3][4] its brand and assets were sold off.[5] The "new" Polaroid formed as a result[3][5] itself declared bankruptcy in 2008, resulting in a further sale and the present-day Polaroid Corporation." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Corporation

"Polaroid" is just a name. They didn't invent anything, and they got their name for a song. They're trying to extort money out of a legitimate photography company. Sleaze bags.

Everything you believe to be lawful is only lawful by way of hoax, as you are being cheated out of common law, that should normally apply to you (and which is beneficial to actual human beings), if you live on the land, rather than at sea. Look at the high court building in Florida, its built in the form of a ship for good reason.
And the United States hasn't been the "United States of America" since the civil war. If you check, you'll find that the United States is a corporation, incorporated in Delaware.

And commercial law, i.e. maritime law has been inflicted by British banksters and other elite criminals upon all the world. Native Americans had to die in a massive genocide after it was recognized, that they would never stoop to our retarded way of living.

Emotion has as little to do with squares and rectangles as Trademarks and IP do. If things aren't checked for prior art, the so-called IP should be thrown out whenever it gets noticed, that there was nothing new about it.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 09:53 UTC
In reply to:

Francis Sawyer: Another example of the USPTO's dereliction.

Nobody should be able to extort a penny from anyone else based on where a picture is placed on a page.

damn right.

Prior art should be checked most thoroughly and then there should be a minimum requirement for complexity and uniqueness of geometry for corporations to start wasting everybody's time with this kind of bs.

That should get rid of squares, rectangles, rectangles with rounded corners etc...

And that "someone might reasonably confuse the two" should only matter if the first requirement is met.

Waiting for some Egyptian corporation to sue the FED for that pyramid lookalike atrocity on the dollar bill...

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 08:32 UTC

The reasons against VR or stuff not working yet won't matter, as long as the globalist elite wants VR as a node in their global control scheme.

And they want it, that's what the Facecrook investment means.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2017 at 06:31 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Maybe I am wrong, but is there not yet some other cons?

#7 - technical mismatch. What works today may not work tomorrow. What works with one equipment do not work with another. Lack of agreed upon technical solutions.

#8 - how about 3D? Nice, standing looking around. But, is it 3D - i.e. different content in both eyes, giving depth?

#9 - focusing. IRL you focus your eyes. But, in VR everything is pre focused.

#10 - how about accuracy when turning your head? Are the gyros in your mobile phone up to it?

VR is one further step into a totalitarian digital hell. VR, Implants, artificial "enhancement" with electronics that are ridiculously crude compared to the workings of our bodies. Involuntary software updates, because "hackers"...

Just like Aldous Huxley's book was not 'speculative fiction' but an announcement, so was the Matrix.

It makes sense to announce these things for a time before they are planned to happen: 1984 has passed and nothing obvious has come to pass, right? So, nothing to worry about.

The matrix is completely beyond any real possibility according to what you are taught in school and the imagery shown in the movie. Nothing to worry about either, right?

But the scheme has been inserted into your mind, making acceptance under the right circumstances more likely than if you'd never heard or thought of the possibility.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2017 at 06:25 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1512 comments in total)

I don't get Sony's inability to fix their color balance to get rid of greenish yellows etc...

Apple, using Sony's phone camera identical to Sony's Z5 or ZX has much more neutral color balance.

Not that it is hard to edit later, but is it acceptable from one of the world's 'premier' camera / imaging brands??

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 01:21 UTC as 237th comment | 5 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1206 comments in total)

Always been fond of Panasonic, cause they've never sold me a dud in any of their product lines, and past Panasonic purchases have outlasted most everything else I bought.

The only thing that bothers me about their cameras unfortunately are the M43 sensors.

Here's wishing Panasonic will make an APS-C or full frame GH5-B.

Yeah, I know, unlikely...

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 11:54 UTC as 151st comment | 1 reply
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1651 comments in total)

This Canon looks good, but not good enough to buy.

I'll wait till either Sony fixes its Touchscreen and UI, or Canon fixes its specs, including 4K and availability of native lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2016 at 03:38 UTC as 57th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

robbinsbox: how do photographers deal with such huge numbers of photos. I use lightroom, deleting is slow

try Capture One, I can delete rather quickly.
Also its not rent-ware. No continual drain on your bank account.
And Sony set up a special deal for their customers.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 10:14 UTC
On article Hands-on and in-depth with the Sony a6500 (556 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): There are good lenses available-if you get a good copy. The 50mm f1.8 OSS is excellent. As are the Sigma 35mm f2.8 and the 60mm f2.8, and my own luck was in when I bought a 16-50mm because it too is very good between 18-50, and perfectly useable at the 16mm end stopped down to f5.6.

Other than battery life they are all good cameras, but the cruncher is that they cost as much as a full-frame Nikon DSLR to run and are not as fast or as practical in use, and are not weatherproof. The lenses such as the 16-70mm f4 and the 55-210mm are not very good, and the better lenses cost too much when you can buy a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR Nikkor for peanuts that is much better-let alone the older versions at £50-£100 a go. These Sonys are VERY VERY expensive cameras to use with their own lenses. And no way does the battery life compare to a 7D II a D800 or a D7100 etc. They have the same battery in the bigger grip-it is a disaster.

bigger grip with unchanged battery probably means Sony didn't feel like making a new, different size battery, but didn't have enough space to fit two of the tiny ones.

I think with the A6500, maybe we're seeing the camera outgrow its original Nex concept. Probably the reason why Sony said "we couldn't put IBIS in the A6300, cause we would have had to make the camera bigger."

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2016 at 09:12 UTC
On article Hands-on and in-depth with the Sony a6500 (556 comments in total)
In reply to:

N13L5: Can someone tell me if there is ANY reason to buy this over the A7RII, other than what's fast becoming a minor price difference..?

Well, the lenses have a fairly large price difference also, but I don't actually need a whole bag full, so I'm not concerned about that.

@HenryDJP I called the price difference minor, because while the A6500 is brand new, still on pre-orders and won't be discounted for a while, you can find the A7RII for roughly a third less depending on the country you're in.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2016 at 08:51 UTC
On article Fast Five: Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V Review (434 comments in total)

Hi DPReview, I have a question - regarding Single AF for video: Does that work better (or at all) when shooting video on the A6500...?

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 16:13 UTC as 47th comment
On article Video: Sony a6500 First Look (339 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sportsgal501: Didn't they just drop the A6300 a few months ago, I can't even keep up anymore.

Its not a replacement, but an additional model, for more variety.

And it seems because Sony opened their ears and listened to what users said they were missing on the 6300.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2016 at 00:52 UTC
On article Hands-on and in-depth with the Sony a6500 (556 comments in total)

Can someone tell me if there is ANY reason to buy this over the A7RII, other than what's fast becoming a minor price difference..?

Well, the lenses have a fairly large price difference also, but I don't actually need a whole bag full, so I'm not concerned about that.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2016 at 00:44 UTC as 8th comment | 21 replies

If you don't mind a constant skeletal, muscular imbalance while walking about with your (usually weighty) gear, by all means, get a messenger bag.

Well if you always just shoot out of your car window, with the bag on the passenger seat, I see no problem either.

But if you like to hike places to get the exact pictures you want, don't get any bag with a strap for only one shoulder.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2016 at 21:36 UTC as 59th comment | 3 replies
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2160 comments in total)
In reply to:

cbphoto123: This whole comparison between Sony vs. Canon, Nikon etc... Reminds me of the decades long debate between PC vs. Apple. Windows vs. Mac OS....
Sony is Windows and Canon is Mac OS!


Your comparison is very stetched, but it does work 100% for one thing: People's irrational identification with one brand or or another, turning it all into a religious thing.

This has created the most ridiculous divisions among human beings... he's a Crapple person, the other one is a Microshaft person, another one is a Pepsi Croak person... its like wtf? don't you have something worth while to do? Should they be in closed institutions? Is it television with all these idiotic corporate advertisements that's doing this? The pseudo-reality peddled by the media?

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 20:52 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2160 comments in total)
In reply to:

NJOceanView: Did I miss the place where they pushed the picture 6 stops to see how much the picture breaks down, or is that just for Canon reviews? Not trying to be snarky, but I don't see it an "Exposure Latitude" page on this review. If I missed it, just let me know -- thanks!

If I was considering the a6300 for myself, I might actually end up with an 80D, after seeing some of the glowing reviews.

But I'm not in the market for APS-C, just reading out of interest.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 20:46 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2160 comments in total)
In reply to:

bobfonte: You can not say that this site has not done its best to promote the Sony products. First, it was Sony a7RII and now Sony a6300. Why do they not mention the poor quality of the lenses (like this 16-55mm) or the absurd prices of few good quality lenses. Photographers know that the most important thing in photography is the quality of the lenses. It would be irresponsible to leave a robust and reliable system like Canon or Nikon and jump into an adventure with Sony, with proprietary and few accessories. Remember BETAMAX. Let's get real!

Did you fail to notice that DPReview panned the kit lens in a single sentence, making it pretty clear its so bad, it doesn't even merit any further comment?

Further into the review, they also mentioned the poor state of things regarding lenses for the APS-C E mount.

If they have sufficiently weighted this in their rating is another question, but you can't say they didn't complain about the lens issues.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 20:43 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2160 comments in total)
In reply to:

MattLangley: Great review. Don't know why there is so much hate about Sony cameras.

Just don't fall into thinking every criticism is "hate"

To even bother criticizing something, there must be something you like about it, while other things fall short and you wish they didn't.

This naturally excludes fan-boys who have some brand's name written across their forehead. These are unfortunate creatures, compelled by an irrational love for one or another virtual entity called "corporation", most of which are far too sleazy to justify any kind of love for them.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 20:38 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2160 comments in total)

Just how does it come, that the low light performance of the A7 II is worse than the A6300 - and - stunningly, worse than the RX100IV with its little 1" sensor...?

And the Nex5 N still beats the A6300 in low light performance.
Is sensor technology really advancing or is it a sort of ground hog day?

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 20:30 UTC as 92nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

nandbytes: I wonder if the sensor, image and video quality is as good as Sony RX100m4??

Afaik, RX100m2 and m3 only had Exmor R sensors. Sony calls its BSI sensors Exmor RS and only the RX100m4 got one.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 16:56 UTC
Total: 237, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »