Biowizard

Biowizard

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 628, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

And the GoPro "CONTROL" app STILL locks you into using a GoPro account, even if all you want to do is link your tablet to the camera via WiFi for local control. THIS IS BAD.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 23:58 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Biowizard: That dome over the lens ... nice scratch-proof Sapphire? Nah, thought not. Gorilla Glass? Nope. Glass of any kind? Might hope so. But don't tell me, it's "Scratch Resistant Plastic"?! If so, with an fish-eye ultrawide lens within, this will be unusable the first time you wipe some sand off the camera after a surfing wipe-out.

Brian

PS - from the pic, it isn't even A/R coated. #FLARE

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 21:28 UTC

That dome over the lens ... nice scratch-proof Sapphire? Nah, thought not. Gorilla Glass? Nope. Glass of any kind? Might hope so. But don't tell me, it's "Scratch Resistant Plastic"?! If so, with an fish-eye ultrawide lens within, this will be unusable the first time you wipe some sand off the camera after a surfing wipe-out.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 21:27 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Biowizard: This obsession with so-called "full-frame" would be laughable, if not so sad. Throughout the history of photography, there have been MANY different frame sizes, from 10x8" (and larger) down to tiny Minox spy cameras. Why does a legacy format, the one the Leitz had the brainwave of introducing, to allow the use of early cinema film in a camera, retain some "magical" sense of the only "real" size?!

Why not settle on a new format altogether - say 50mm circular (or at least octagonal), from which you could "pluck" either a landscape or portrait "full frame" image, without having to hold your camera on its side? Or a square one bigger than "full frame" allows?

Don't tell me its so photographers can use their 20-year-old film lenses! Who the heck does that?!

FORGET "full frame", make cameras the size you need for any given job. And for mine, 4/3rds does fine. When I want bigger, I'll get a Hassy.

Brian

Truly, you MISS the point. I have been shooting 35mm all my life (since 1976 at least), and totally "get" the 35mm thing. But in all those years of using an Olympus OM-1, Canon A1, Nikonos IV and Contax S2, I have never thought of 36mmx24mm as the ONLY valid image format. Throughout, I'd considered buying Mamiya 645 or similar. But figured my existing cameras did what I want. And now, I feel the same about my Olympus OM-D E-M1. What's wrong with that?

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: This obsession with so-called "full-frame" would be laughable, if not so sad. Throughout the history of photography, there have been MANY different frame sizes, from 10x8" (and larger) down to tiny Minox spy cameras. Why does a legacy format, the one the Leitz had the brainwave of introducing, to allow the use of early cinema film in a camera, retain some "magical" sense of the only "real" size?!

Why not settle on a new format altogether - say 50mm circular (or at least octagonal), from which you could "pluck" either a landscape or portrait "full frame" image, without having to hold your camera on its side? Or a square one bigger than "full frame" allows?

Don't tell me its so photographers can use their 20-year-old film lenses! Who the heck does that?!

FORGET "full frame", make cameras the size you need for any given job. And for mine, 4/3rds does fine. When I want bigger, I'll get a Hassy.

Brian

What the heck is "format envy"?! Sounds like Nikonese to me. Happy, indeed VERY happy with my current choice, because it lets me take the photos I want, in a quality I am happy with. My latest camera has an even smaller sensor than 4/3rds, because it also flies. I'm sure some Nikosaur will tell me "you need a full-frame drone, or you will have format envy". Grow up! Read my comments, they make SENSE.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 16:03 UTC

This obsession with so-called "full-frame" would be laughable, if not so sad. Throughout the history of photography, there have been MANY different frame sizes, from 10x8" (and larger) down to tiny Minox spy cameras. Why does a legacy format, the one the Leitz had the brainwave of introducing, to allow the use of early cinema film in a camera, retain some "magical" sense of the only "real" size?!

Why not settle on a new format altogether - say 50mm circular (or at least octagonal), from which you could "pluck" either a landscape or portrait "full frame" image, without having to hold your camera on its side? Or a square one bigger than "full frame" allows?

Don't tell me its so photographers can use their 20-year-old film lenses! Who the heck does that?!

FORGET "full frame", make cameras the size you need for any given job. And for mine, 4/3rds does fine. When I want bigger, I'll get a Hassy.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 15:44 UTC as 198th comment | 14 replies

Will the iOS App continue to INSIST you create an on-line account, JUST to control your camera and transfer files? This is a KILLER for me. Sticking with my Hero-3 Black and NOT using the GoPro iOS software at all.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 23:35 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Biowizard: Cute, but for the life of me, I can't see the point of a $2-per-shot "film" which leaves you with a single print with a huge white border, small image area, and no negative or other backup from which to make copies.

Totally irrelevant in these digital days.

However, bring me back Kodachrome 25, and I might get my old kit back out of the bag on a regular basis!

Brian

Anything the Polaroid can do, so can any of my cameras or my iPhone, teamed up with a portable dye-sub printer like my little Canon CP-300.

The reverse is not true ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 23:32 UTC

Cute, but for the life of me, I can't see the point of a $2-per-shot "film" which leaves you with a single print with a huge white border, small image area, and no negative or other backup from which to make copies.

Totally irrelevant in these digital days.

However, bring me back Kodachrome 25, and I might get my old kit back out of the bag on a regular basis!

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 16:41 UTC as 13th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Duncan D: What is the battery size ? cause we all know that half of the people out there are already looking for those battery ...

Can they JUST for once make it a tiny bit thicker and give us a normal battery ?!!

Totally agree - although I use a skin on my iPhone, which is just about thick enough to recess the lens. I really would prefer the back of the phone to be completely flat, however.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 12:51 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: The quoted screen resolution - does it take into account the notch at the top for the face sensors, and the rounded corners? In other words, what's the actual resolution (and aspect ratio, for that matter) of largest _rectangle_ the iPhone X can display? I don't want my photos - or movies - cropped and crimped!

Brian

I disagree, Rambalac. I find partial obstructions VERY distracting. I cannot stand watching my TV if a piece of furniture or somesuch is blocking my sightline to part of the screen; I will not go to a theatre if my seat has "restricted view"; even one dead pixel in the middle of (an old-style, non-retina) computer screen has had me return the device for replacement under warranty. I will most certainly NOT stop noticing that intrusion, so I very much hope there is an option to scale the image to give true rectangular outline.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 12:35 UTC

The quoted screen resolution - does it take into account the notch at the top for the face sensors, and the rounded corners? In other words, what's the actual resolution (and aspect ratio, for that matter) of largest _rectangle_ the iPhone X can display? I don't want my photos - or movies - cropped and crimped!

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 11:11 UTC as 59th comment | 10 replies

Any schoolboy knows how to burn things with a magnifying glass, focusing the sun into a small spot. Surely the grown-up versions of these boys understand that a lens is effectively nothing more than an expensive magnifying glass? Just HOW stupid are some people?

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 13:29 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

nir-vana: It could have been better if they upgraded the camera to the 1" of the P4P.

The Spark is still a LOT cheaper than the Mavic, especially if you consider the "Fly More" package, which gives you the remote control, a spare battery, multi-battery charger, prop guards, carry case and more. After buying this, and a third battery, compared to the equivalent Mavic package, I have enough money left to buy an iPad mini should I so wish.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 09:05 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: I would prefer my brand new drone (Spark!) NOT to fall out of the sky, and inasmuch as I trusted DJI with my £700 purchase, I also trust them with firmware updates. And if they have found a bug which could cause half a kilogram of spinning plastic props and LiPo battery to crash to the ground, and FIXED it, I think it very responsible of them to make the update "compulsory"!

Brian

Not quite so HowaboutRAW - unless my iPhone is online when I am flying, there is no way for my RC or the Spark Drone to communicate with DJI. The Drone itself "knows" where it is, because it picks up GPS, and it has a built-in, frequently updated list of "no-fly" zones, designed to stop me flying over the Gatwick runway, or dropping drugs into prison compounds. But these are pre-loaded, NOT administered in real time by some overseeing uber-lord! And yes, when I reconnect my phone, the DJI app can report, retrospectively, where I have been - as if ANYONE in China actually cares!

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 16:17 UTC

I would prefer my brand new drone (Spark!) NOT to fall out of the sky, and inasmuch as I trusted DJI with my £700 purchase, I also trust them with firmware updates. And if they have found a bug which could cause half a kilogram of spinning plastic props and LiPo battery to crash to the ground, and FIXED it, I think it very responsible of them to make the update "compulsory"!

Brian

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 12:27 UTC as 14th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: HEADLINE: Muppet packs fine optical gear in sh1tty unpadded bag. #FAIL

Brian

That really depends upon what 250lb flight case the loaders drop onto your bag from a height of several feet, I would suggest.

Brian

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2017 at 09:03 UTC

HEADLINE: Muppet packs fine optical gear in sh1tty unpadded bag. #FAIL

Brian

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 22:42 UTC as 30th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

M Chambers: Unless he can show what packaging he used it's hard to know whom to blame. I have to wonder what the lens came in contact with that broke it.

I suspect the guy didn't put his $11,000 lens in the proper container, probably just a backpack.

Absolutely. Show be the CRUSHED Pelican Case. Or MANGLED plywood and alu Flight Case. Not interested in seeing your torn-up rucksack.

Jus' sayin'

Brian

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 22:41 UTC

My first thought is - what kind of CASE was this in? Surely if properly padded and inside an appropriately proportioned Pelican case, this could NEVER have happened. Guess it was in a regular floppy, crushable bag.

Brian

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 22:39 UTC as 31st comment
Total: 628, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »