cgarrard

cgarrard

Lives in United States Southern, CA, United States
Works as a Person
Joined on Jan 20, 2006

Comments

Total: 2651, showing: 2481 – 2500
« First‹ Previous123124125126127Next ›Last »
In reply to:

dpsahoo: A provision to make calls would have been superb; it would have been a all-in-one

You can bet your uncles favorite fishing rod they are already in the process of making one, and others are following suit.

C

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2012 at 06:03 UTC
On article Just Posted: Fujifilm X-E1 hands-on preview (277 comments in total)
In reply to:

cgarrard: Is it just me or is the grip sorely needing to be removed from both the xpro and the xe1? It looks superfluous and glued on to me, and unnecessary. It ruins the look of both cameras a little bit. I prefer the clean classic lines without the grip personally. I just want to pry it off with a screwdriver or something every time I see it and wipe off any excess sticky tab ... or something.

@Jesper- I've used similar designs without a grip- Leica M's and the Digilux 2, no need for a grip as long as the body has a textured surface and is the right size (that being the key component). Smaller cameras, I'd agree, yes they need some sort of grip (rx100 comes to mind), but not larger cameras (think G12 and larger).

I think the X100's grip looks nicer if there must be a grip. The one on there looks like you can take it off- its tacky and ugly (as is the raised LCD on the back). I'd be willing to compromise that a grip would be better but not the way they designed it- for looks or how it feels in hand (I've used the XPRO1 several times).

Carl

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2012 at 15:04 UTC
On article Just Posted: Fujifilm X-E1 hands-on preview (277 comments in total)

Is it just me or is the grip sorely needing to be removed from both the xpro and the xe1? It looks superfluous and glued on to me, and unnecessary. It ruins the look of both cameras a little bit. I prefer the clean classic lines without the grip personally. I just want to pry it off with a screwdriver or something every time I see it and wipe off any excess sticky tab ... or something.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2012 at 07:22 UTC as 66th comment | 7 replies
On article Samsung releases 12MP EX2F 'Smart Camera' (370 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Unfortunately both the Samsung USA website and the B+H website (it’s now available there) state that this Samsung does NOT shoot RAW. It’s jpeg stills only.

What on earth is Samsung thinking? With that high quality lens and with Samsung’s poor reputation for jpegs, who’d buy this camera?

Samsung should issue a firmware fix immediately–no there’s no new firmware on the Samsung US website for download. The competition sure shoots raw, and raw makes use in lowlight much easier.

Samsung said in their press release it shoots raw, you really think they would do that and it only shoot Jpeg? C'mon. Really..

I'll have mine on Friday and I'd bet my next 10 paychecks it has raw.

C

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2012 at 03:50 UTC
In reply to:

MrPetkus: This is a specialist's tool expected to be sold at low volume. For a photographer carefully and patiently framing their shots, I'm sure this camera will produce wonderful images that are unparalleled in its form factor. If I had a bottomless purse I'd probably want to own one.
That said, however, I'm not the target audience for this camera. But to trash the camera because it doesn't have blazing fast AF or competent video is a misunderstanding.

And thats the point, almost nobody has a bottomless purse these days :). Not as if this is a totally void market this camera is positioned in, clearly there are other alternatives :).

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2012 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: Cough. I feel like I just got a physical.

Sigma, Sigma, Sigma.

I'm at a loss of words.

Carl

LOL- Sarcasm radar just blew up on my end :) Love it.

I thought Sigma was nuts with the SD1 and then later came to their senses, but this confirms the intial reaction still holds true.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2012 at 19:50 UTC

Cough. I feel like I just got a physical.

Sigma, Sigma, Sigma.

I'm at a loss of words.

Carl

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2012 at 15:33 UTC as 74th comment | 2 replies
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

moimoi: Amateurish sample galleries. The RX100 is the best of its kind, it is gold award. Period!

Best for what? A bit broad speaking, and speaking for all at the same time too, don't you think?

C

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 06:13 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

Simon97: This is a good camera with a larger than typical P&S sensor. Much cleaner images than the 1/1.7" sensor compacts. I think a lot of people would be happy with it. I do have some nitpicks however...

Even at low ISO with the lens zoomed, noise does show. I applaud Sony for not trying to smear it away. The lens is a bit soft off axis. Sony should have used a 15 or 16mp sensor. This way the noise and lens would not be so challenging.

Lastly, an important thing to me, is that dynamically compressed audio manufacturers use on digicams. It makes background sounds thundering loud and live music impossible to record with any quality. At least have the ability to turn it off for natural sound quality.

Of course, you're always right.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 06:12 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vitruvius: In the video (25s mark) you claim that it has "a sensor over two times larger then most of it's rivals" and you point to the four other cameras on the table, which happens to include the Canon G1X. The sensor on the Sony is half the size of the Canon. Where did you take math class? At Sony PR University?

Lol go Barney. The answer was in his complaint. Face palm.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 06:09 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

Simon97: This is a good camera with a larger than typical P&S sensor. Much cleaner images than the 1/1.7" sensor compacts. I think a lot of people would be happy with it. I do have some nitpicks however...

Even at low ISO with the lens zoomed, noise does show. I applaud Sony for not trying to smear it away. The lens is a bit soft off axis. Sony should have used a 15 or 16mp sensor. This way the noise and lens would not be so challenging.

Lastly, an important thing to me, is that dynamically compressed audio manufacturers use on digicams. It makes background sounds thundering loud and live music impossible to record with any quality. At least have the ability to turn it off for natural sound quality.

Had Sony made the sensor with less pixels and same tech and processing yes, the sensor would show less noise. Larger pixels gather more light, but its only fair to compare if you are using the same processing/processor, substrate, electronics, etc etc only with larger pixels vs smaller ones.

So had that been the case, the sensor would perform even better in this regard.

Theoretically.

C

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 02:22 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

armandbogdan: I thought your medals are relative to cameras in its class. You call RX100: "The RX100 is probably the most capable compact camera on the market today". Wouldn't this warrant a gold medal?

PS. otherwise pretty good review

Scroll down, Richard answered that same question below. And I agree with him as well.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 22:19 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

repdetect: Great can't wait to compare it to the A57 review.

Oooops, I forgot, you never published a review of the A57.

Sometimes things are worth waiting for. Patience is a virtue.

C

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 22:15 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

Simon97: This is a good camera with a larger than typical P&S sensor. Much cleaner images than the 1/1.7" sensor compacts. I think a lot of people would be happy with it. I do have some nitpicks however...

Even at low ISO with the lens zoomed, noise does show. I applaud Sony for not trying to smear it away. The lens is a bit soft off axis. Sony should have used a 15 or 16mp sensor. This way the noise and lens would not be so challenging.

Lastly, an important thing to me, is that dynamically compressed audio manufacturers use on digicams. It makes background sounds thundering loud and live music impossible to record with any quality. At least have the ability to turn it off for natural sound quality.

Simple, lower noise at higher ISO's. Doesn't seem all that difficult to understand for me.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 22:09 UTC

I wanted to yawn so bad, but I figured I'd save the energy.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2012 at 04:54 UTC as 5th comment

Good camera for the son or daughter who want Daddy's K5.

Correct me if I've missed something.

:)

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2012 at 04:53 UTC as 81st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

kewlguy: Why does Pentax put Toy Camera filter on a toy camera?

LOL that struck me as really funny.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2012 at 04:52 UTC
On article Olympus releases SP-820UZ and SP-720UZ 14MP superzooms (42 comments in total)

NO raw, 14mp, small sensor, looks like more soft mush porridge :)

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 22:04 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Tsk Tsk...

They should have IMPROVED on the Optical Viewfinder rather than have junked it.

Had they made the OVF better than the G12 and G1x, this could have been a come from behind winner, overtaking those 2 aging runners.

Another missed chance...

.

Yep. You wonder if manufacturers really have a pulse on what they are doing sometimes, or not.

Or not.

C

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 12:50 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: Ugh, when are manufacturers going to stick a small evf in the upper left corner of one of these enthusiast compacts? (See nikon p60 if you need an idea it can be done). This camera with a compact evf with decent magnification and resolution would jump its way into my bag. No viewfinder, sorry Nikon just not for me.

C

Pretty much Lyle. Adding a finder whether optical or evf just gives you another tool to use that can help in certain situations for various reasons (I can think of a lot of them). It doesn't mean the P7700 is useless, I've used many cameras without viewfinders, its just that an "enthusiast level" camera should always have a finder of some kind- in my opinion.

It doesn't mean I don't like the P7700. I just think Nikon should and could differentiate themselves from the rest of the makers by doing something with an EVF on a camera like this.

I don't get why so many manufactures insist on making products that are so close to one another in design. Needs to be more free thinking in camera design.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 06:00 UTC
Total: 2651, showing: 2481 – 2500
« First‹ Previous123124125126127Next ›Last »