cgarrard

cgarrard

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

Comments

Total: 2502, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

I'm glad my money isn't part of those big numbers Adobe came out with recently. I'll never go subscription based, ever. Looks like Elements is the last frontier.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2017 at 15:35 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

cgarrard: I'll allow myself to pontificate Dale.... I'll quote:

"the camera that landed in our laps still felt rough around the edges and a bit, well... unfinished when it arrived."

That is one major reason Samsung isn't in the camera business any longer.

Samsung owners? :)

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 00:19 UTC

I'll allow myself to pontificate Dale.... I'll quote:

"the camera that landed in our laps still felt rough around the edges and a bit, well... unfinished when it arrived."

That is one major reason Samsung isn't in the camera business any longer.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 17:02 UTC as 73rd comment | 3 replies
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (419 comments in total)
In reply to:

rhlpetrus: Isn't the LX100 a closer competitor, with m43 sensor and faster zoom?

True bud, true :). And yes I recognized ya.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 01:47 UTC
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (419 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: I'd much rather have a Lumix DMC-G85 with the 12-60 OIS kit lens than this thing. Much more bang for the buck, shoots 4K and $300 less at $998 w/lens. Also huge M4/3 lens system options available. Yes, this is a compact with big sensor under 1 lb weight but the lens is a slow f-stop and zoom is too limited. For $300 less the G85 is much more versatile, even though its only 16mp. The G85 kit lens is a 24-120mm equivalent. The G1 X Mark III looks very nice but is way too expensive for what you get.

My bad on the weather sealing miss.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 16:57 UTC
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (419 comments in total)

First thoughts:
...sorry for that price its gonna have to come down
...weather sealing, cool
...nd filter cool
...aperture range for size of camera and sensor is fine
...didn't like the G5X handling, probably wont like this one
...I better try it before I judge anything
...I better wait for the price to come down first
...I have icecream in the freezer, oh better stop typing now

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 03:14 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (419 comments in total)
In reply to:

rhlpetrus: Isn't the LX100 a closer competitor, with m43 sensor and faster zoom?

Probably its best competitor. That said, the Canon has a larger sensor with more dynamic range and more resolution. The LX100 is a fantastic camera though.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 03:11 UTC
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (419 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: I'd much rather have a Lumix DMC-G85 with the 12-60 OIS kit lens than this thing. Much more bang for the buck, shoots 4K and $300 less at $998 w/lens. Also huge M4/3 lens system options available. Yes, this is a compact with big sensor under 1 lb weight but the lens is a slow f-stop and zoom is too limited. For $300 less the G85 is much more versatile, even though its only 16mp. The G85 kit lens is a 24-120mm equivalent. The G1 X Mark III looks very nice but is way too expensive for what you get.

Yes, better price. BUT, smaller sensor, bigger lens, much larger camera overall, and not weather sealed.

For you sounds like you have a better choice made, but clearly there are advantages to both cameras you mentioned.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 03:09 UTC
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (419 comments in total)

Glad it has a built in 3 stop ND filter.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 03:06 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
On article Shooting with a used DSLR kit that cost me just $80 (284 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aleks7: c'mon we've been shooting past decades with whatever was available, selling prints, making exhibitions etc. so no need to re-discover what we did 10years ago.

10 years ago the cameras were a bit more expensive though, which is the point of the article (bang for the buck).

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 11:06 UTC

Another case of an idea poorly implemented.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 20:01 UTC as 147th comment
In reply to:

nebedaay: You know what would have been a real innovation that we would have looked forward to using? If their "digifilm" had turned out to be a sensor you could stick in the place of film on any old camera. The idea of setting ISO by changing a cartridge instead of letting the camera do it automatically or turning a knob just doesn't sound like a step forward to me. I might try out the same camera if they don't require extra parts just to change settings.

The "something about them" is simplicity. We need a damn break from complicated machinery and gadgetry. Its why hammers still work well, why paint brushes still paint.... ;) Capability make not a better camera, necessarily. :).

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 01:29 UTC

Only DXO really knows. And without pressure it makes me wonder if they would have ever posted it.

It's odd though reading Petapixel daily, then coming here and seeing the same articles up with a slightly different branded tone though, I will say that.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 13:35 UTC as 63rd comment
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Even 600mm looks ok. Of course, this being digital, someone will make a zoom that goes to 800mm. It would be fun to do a blind test and see if people can tell it's a small sensor.

Okay champ, whatever you say :).

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 04:49 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Even 600mm looks ok. Of course, this being digital, someone will make a zoom that goes to 800mm. It would be fun to do a blind test and see if people can tell it's a small sensor.

MyReality- Have you seen my wall? Lot's of ass-u-mptions there. Lots. Perhaps, rethink your reply next time.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 03:46 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

phazelag: I like a lot about this camera, but honestly my FZ1000 currently $1000 cheaper and subjectively in my opinon nearly as good. The extra 200mm would be nice, but rarely needed for me. I would like the water resistance, but not like the extra weight. The FZ1000 is nice and light for travel and hikes.

tkbslc- then good for you. :)

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 19:04 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: I see this announcement as a first iteration of a unique idea. It should sell enough to fund the next project, hopefully one with a more serious camera (and sensor, etc).

Neat idea.

All of those implementations are NOT the same thing that they are doing on this new camera. Related, yes, similar, yes, but NOT the same. I'm aware of all of them, but thank you for reminding me of what I'm already aware of regardless.

I"m not buying into this camera, I don't even want it, im merely stating a FACT that nobody else has implemented this kind of thing into this kind of design exactly the same way. Period. End of debate!

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 19:03 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (289 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gesture: Just too bad as cameras became digital that designers didn't try and rethink the format and ergonomics. We are left with these 25 dial, button, lever, switch monsters.

Unless you shoot Leica, or find more "simple" designed DSLR's of the past. But I agree, we need more "just the facts maam" designed cameras. Basic designs, but not simple designed digicams. Give us the basic tools in an ergonomic and well built design with excellent image quality. Thanks :)

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 16:38 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (289 comments in total)
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: Talk about blowing out someone else's birthday candles. What kind of unresolved emotional pain is a person carrying through life that prompts them to seek out and crush the dreams of our visionaries? What life experiences taught him that only the most mediocre ideas have any chance at success?
Not to mention that the problem was solved by Leica with the R9 as others have already mentioned.
The universe loves you Richard, please try to love it back.

If someone solved the problem, I wonder how that would affect the digital photography industry as a whole. ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: max SS of 1/500th of a second with an f/2.8 aperture, good luck not over exposing :)

LOL

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 05:46 UTC
Total: 2502, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »