redhed17

redhed17

Lives in United Kingdom Liverpool, United Kingdom
Has a website at http://500px.com/redhed17
Joined on Nov 6, 2003

Comments

Total: 70, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

redhed17: It will be very hard to get a new format into a market dominated by SD cards, especially if you are not an equipment manufacturer as well like Sony. Saying that Sony haven't really pushed their XQD format in their own cameras. Having only Nikon selling cameras that use the XQD card seems like a bad plan to standardise the format. Sill, I think it may only be Canon using CFast cards.

In theory Nikon could be well placed to take advantage of this new format if indeed all that is needed is a firmware update. Would the deal Nikon have done, with I assume Sony, to use the XQD format preclude them from making their cameras compatible with this new format. Will they wait to roll out compatibility with their next cameras if they go down that route. Time will tell.

For the format to be worthwhile more companies need to be using it as possible.

But none of their consumer Cameras do. The a9 would have been the perfect opportunity to move to XQD. Their larger megapixel cameras too may have benefited from moving the large amount of data to the camera quicker. If they feel they don't need or want the faster format on their cameras then maybe there is little need for a faster format. :-/

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 18:50 UTC

It will be very hard to get a new format into a market dominated by SD cards, especially if you are not an equipment manufacturer as well like Sony. Saying that Sony haven't really pushed their XQD format in their own cameras. Having only Nikon selling cameras that use the XQD card seems like a bad plan to standardise the format. Sill, I think it may only be Canon using CFast cards.

In theory Nikon could be well placed to take advantage of this new format if indeed all that is needed is a firmware update. Would the deal Nikon have done, with I assume Sony, to use the XQD format preclude them from making their cameras compatible with this new format. Will they wait to roll out compatibility with their next cameras if they go down that route. Time will tell.

For the format to be worthwhile more companies need to be using it as possible.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 13:43 UTC as 3rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

landscaper1: Would someone please explain to me why a DIGITAL photography web site would devote so much space to covering film photography equipment and materials. Did I miss something somewhere?

Mind you, I have nothing against those who prefer film, but I didn't choose the name for this web site.

@stevo23 Seeing as the Klingon's are not known for the open minds, maybe someone is pointing out that it is another way of doing Photography. They may be interested in. :-) And if not they can ignore the article. ;-) lol

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2018 at 02:31 UTC
In reply to:

landscaper1: Would someone please explain to me why a DIGITAL photography web site would devote so much space to covering film photography equipment and materials. Did I miss something somewhere?

Mind you, I have nothing against those who prefer film, but I didn't choose the name for this web site.

@landscaper1
It's a Digital Photography site, the two are not mutually exclusive. Why are there Film sections? Why Printer sections? Why Video sections? etc Photography can be as large or small a subject as you choose it to be. If you have no interest in Film, or large format cameras, ignore those articles/sections. Hopefully there are enough people interested for Steve to be a success, and judging by the fact that he had easily passed the amount he was asking for on Kickstarter will hopefully ensure its success and many happy users.
I have watched the design of the camera develop on another site for over a year, and while I have no intention to purchase one, and no interest in film at all, it has been interesting to watch. :-)

If you have no interest, ignore the article. There are many articles I don't read, and forums I don't visit. I don't go in them to spread the negativity. ;-)

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2018 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Been there, done that. No thanks!

@Reilly Diefenbach
Phew! now that you have taken the time to tell everyone you are not interested in the product the world can rest easy. :-/

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2018 at 19:27 UTC

I like using SnapBridge to occasionally attach GPS data to the images in my D500. It works OK, sometimes. I read that there was an update here, and so put on my Tablet to get the update. No notification appears. Mmm, so go to the Play Store and it seems my Tablet is not compatible with this update. Android 5 and above apparently. :-(

I hope it is a major improvement, but I won't be using it until the tablet goes pop! Maybe by then it may be v.3 or v.4 and be working not only as people expect, but maybe even beyond those expectations.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2017 at 21:32 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

redhed17: Another sad money making scheme. Lots of European destinations already impose a 'tourist tax', which is purely a money making scheme. Saying that it pays for the costs tourists supposedly incur on a community obviously doesn't take into account the money generated by tourists through accommodation, travelling, eating, drinking, and buying goods and services which are all taxed. The tourist tax is just greed, which is what this charge is in Positano imho.

It may just be only be for commercial photography now, but hopefully not the thin end of the wedge and the start of charging all photographers for taking pictures in popular locations. I am not a pro by any stretch of the imagination, but I hope it doesn't spread like the 'tourist tax' did. :-/

Btw, what happens if you take a pic while travelling and then sell it! ;-)

Of course they do, didn't say they didn't. :-/

Locals do get savings on travelling in Italy which is not an option for non Italians. Some restaurants charge tourists more than locals. People may think that is OK, but they are taking advantage of tourists as they do with the 'tourist tax' and as Positano is with their new charges over and above what tourists already generate by buying goods and services.

I'll never be in a position to do a commercial shoot anywhere, nevermind Positano, but that doesn't mean I think their new policy is right.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2017 at 23:45 UTC
In reply to:

redhed17: Another sad money making scheme. Lots of European destinations already impose a 'tourist tax', which is purely a money making scheme. Saying that it pays for the costs tourists supposedly incur on a community obviously doesn't take into account the money generated by tourists through accommodation, travelling, eating, drinking, and buying goods and services which are all taxed. The tourist tax is just greed, which is what this charge is in Positano imho.

It may just be only be for commercial photography now, but hopefully not the thin end of the wedge and the start of charging all photographers for taking pictures in popular locations. I am not a pro by any stretch of the imagination, but I hope it doesn't spread like the 'tourist tax' did. :-/

Btw, what happens if you take a pic while travelling and then sell it! ;-)

I can't see Positano having a huge problem with Commercial Photographers and Videographers on every corner on every day. Thousands of tourists every day taking pics and videos yes.

If it were a large commercial shoot that were to "disrupt pedestrians and result in "discomforts and bickering."" they could be moved on by the Police, just the same as anyone who were to do similar things. Charging a fee doesn't mean that another commercial shoot who had paid a fee would not also "disrupt pedestrians and result in "discomforts and bickering."", it is just that not the town had made a lot of money off them.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2017 at 04:03 UTC

Another sad money making scheme. Lots of European destinations already impose a 'tourist tax', which is purely a money making scheme. Saying that it pays for the costs tourists supposedly incur on a community obviously doesn't take into account the money generated by tourists through accommodation, travelling, eating, drinking, and buying goods and services which are all taxed. The tourist tax is just greed, which is what this charge is in Positano imho.

It may just be only be for commercial photography now, but hopefully not the thin end of the wedge and the start of charging all photographers for taking pictures in popular locations. I am not a pro by any stretch of the imagination, but I hope it doesn't spread like the 'tourist tax' did. :-/

Btw, what happens if you take a pic while travelling and then sell it! ;-)

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 21:48 UTC as 84th comment | 5 replies

I'm not understanding how are these tripods and heads going to different to normal Manfrotto gear? :-/

Btw, will you need to prove that you own Sony gear to buy something? Lol

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 19:44 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

ozturert: Bold statement from a company whose about 85% of its customers prefer APSC.

If they can make something similar to a D850, which is quite expensive, with additional features, with the expensive prism taken out, and less materials for a smaller body, they will make more money. Add to the fact there will be an initial rush because it is a Nikon mirrorless camera, and unless they mess something up, they should have a minor hit on their hands.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 13:29 UTC

Doesn't he mean if Nikon enter the mirrorless market 'again'!

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 17:19 UTC as 180th comment
In reply to:

ozturert: Bold statement from a company whose about 85% of its customers prefer APSC.

But generally the APS-C buyer's don't spend top dollar. If and when they come into the mirrorless market, they won't be at the entry to mid level. Sony have shown that they can get $3k+ for mirrorless cameras with the right features. A Nikon would not need to be so feature rich to sell imho. :-/

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 17:18 UTC

Sounds like Leica want to stick their badge on someone else's phone and charge more money for the same thing, like they did with the Panasonic cameras. :-/

The acolytes will buy it and claim it is the best thing ever of course. ;-) lol

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 21:54 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Photoman: Wow Leica. Bad sensor in the M9 and weird power up problem on the M240 (had one yesterday). A bit more testing would have gone a long way. Kudos on replacing the M9 sensors until the 15th of August this year.

Hey, testing costs money and they are a niche company selling a small number of cameras for HOW MUCH! LoL

No excuse then. A lot of company's have had problems over the last few years, including Leica themselves, but to have a (not cheap) viewfinder accessory designed in conjunction with the camera potentially turn the camera into a brick is not so good for the reputation. Ah Leica, quality? :-/ LoL

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 18:37 UTC
In reply to:

redhed17: A very poor D500 update in comparison to the D5 imho. The D500 was already behind the D5 AF features as well.

Seeing as they are both supposed to have the same AF systems, surely it can't be that hard to update to the same features in both cameras.

If they improve the D5 AF any more over the D500, they may not be able to claim the 'same AF as the D5' in their literature and ads. ;-) :-(

I think you'll find that the D500 does also have a dedicated processor for the AF.

http://www.nikon-asia.com/d500/en/shooting-features1.html

The differences now is how Nikon differentiates the AF of the D500 and D5 with firmware, giving the D5 extra/improved features, and not giving the D500 the same. :-(

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 20:05 UTC

A very poor D500 update in comparison to the D5 imho. The D500 was already behind the D5 AF features as well.

Seeing as they are both supposed to have the same AF systems, surely it can't be that hard to update to the same features in both cameras.

If they improve the D5 AF any more over the D500, they may not be able to claim the 'same AF as the D5' in their literature and ads. ;-) :-(

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 01:15 UTC as 9th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

bolador: Actual AF-S 70-300 ED G VR is not sharp enoguh at 300mm until f/11..
Will this be better??

My AF-S 70-300 ED G VR is quite sharp wide open on the D500. It wasn't so good on the D300S, but it is like a new lens on the D500. This lens will have to go some to be better for me. I hope it is noticeably better, because my 70-300 ED G VR is getting on a bit.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 15:15 UTC
In reply to:

redhed17: "The Phones will be cheaper than DSLRs!"
Canon 1300D Camera with 18-55mm IS Lens = £309.00
Nikon D3400 Camera with AF-P 18-55mm VR lens = £389.00

Apple iPhone 7 = £510
Samsung = £444
Sony Xperia XZ = £421

No doubt there are cheaper phones, new and used, with less spec than these cutting edge monsters that can deliver similar photographic results, but general statements like Marques Brownlee said in the vid about price comparisons, even when they seem to be using pretty high end (camera) phones, gives the impression that DSLR quality is more expensive, when compared to what they were using in the vid, from the prices above, they probably are not. And that is not taking into account used and previous models but still new DSLRs too. ;-)

This is just the price / quality comparison though, no doubt phones are the multi purpose tool to give you more than just photos. ;-)

My point exactly, and the best cameras are on the top end phones. All people showing off 'how to' do things with the phones generally have the latest and greatest. ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2017 at 14:42 UTC

"The Phones will be cheaper than DSLRs!"
Canon 1300D Camera with 18-55mm IS Lens = £309.00
Nikon D3400 Camera with AF-P 18-55mm VR lens = £389.00

Apple iPhone 7 = £510
Samsung = £444
Sony Xperia XZ = £421

No doubt there are cheaper phones, new and used, with less spec than these cutting edge monsters that can deliver similar photographic results, but general statements like Marques Brownlee said in the vid about price comparisons, even when they seem to be using pretty high end (camera) phones, gives the impression that DSLR quality is more expensive, when compared to what they were using in the vid, from the prices above, they probably are not. And that is not taking into account used and previous models but still new DSLRs too. ;-)

This is just the price / quality comparison though, no doubt phones are the multi purpose tool to give you more than just photos. ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 19:47 UTC as 16th comment | 3 replies
Total: 70, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »