rpm40

rpm40

Lives in United States Buffalo, NY, United States
Joined on Sep 22, 2005

Comments

Total: 463, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

What is that thing in the top? Is the kid swinging a bird around?

Oh, and the con artist's "new work" is terrible.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 18:53 UTC as 41st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

JT26: This is pretty awesome, if only they brought out a camera like this with fixed 28 or 35mm lens in a tiny both with a 20mp sensor. Smaller version of RX100 without a zoom, I would take it everywhere.

Try the Canon g9x, it's probably small enough, it's f2 at wide angle, and you still get a zoom. If not, there's always that weird Dxo camera thingy..

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 02:59 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: From a marketing standpoint, I would think that 16MP would be a tough sell. These days, even 1" sensor compacts have 20MP.

The consumers buying the entry models are more impressed by the megapixels, but a higher end, enthusiast buyer probably understands the more subtle advantages of that higher end model, whether its the better build, viewfinder, etc.

Personally, I want to see the manufacturers' high end models pushing the envelope on technology, and trickling down to the lower models. To me, purposely hamstringing your entry models to protect sales of your higher models is just admitting you can't do any better.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

ShaiKhulud: It's actually quite tempting. I would love to use compact 1 inch camera with my DJI drone.

Why is that the case?

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 20:32 UTC
In reply to:

ShaiKhulud: It's actually quite tempting. I would love to use compact 1 inch camera with my DJI drone.

True, those specs are the real advantages of this model. If you just want it for your drone I think it would be overkill.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: From a marketing standpoint, I would think that 16MP would be a tough sell. These days, even 1" sensor compacts have 20MP.

Totally agree. M4/3 is a great option for people who want a smaller interchangeable lens system, but this sensor probably has way too much in common with my old e-mp2 which is 5 years old now. Olympus especially has always had a tendency to really wring every bit of life out of a sensor, and I understand as a new generation of tech is expensive, but its past due.

My cell phone is 12mp, and my compact is 20. M4/3 needs to be more if it wants to be in the discussion with system cameras, which is where it needs to be.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

ShaiKhulud: It's actually quite tempting. I would love to use compact 1 inch camera with my DJI drone.

DJI models already offer a 1" 20mp sensor (I would assume probably the same Sony sensors everyone uses). And its f2.8.

http://www.dji.com/phantom-4-pro

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 15:05 UTC
In reply to:

Trundling: "Smartphones killed the compact and now they're coming for entry-level ILCs"

I have heard this thousands of times for the past 10 years. But, to date, I have seen a lot more new IlCs coming out to the market from Sony alone (just as example) than all smartphone models of all manufacturers put together.

Its not even close- current smartphone sales are crushing sales of all cameras, compact/mirrorless/dslr/you name it combined.

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/latest-camera-sales-chart-reveals-death-compact-camera/

The number of models might be comparable, since Apple or Samsung for example might only release 1 or 2 models a year while Sony offers 10 different cameras, but that just further supports the problem- 1 or 2 smartphone models meet the needs of most customers, while camera companies need to make 10 different models to satisfy everyone- much less efficient, and much more costly. (That's one of the reasons my Iphone 7+ and my camera cost about the same, even though the phone is far more capable in most respects.)

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 14:37 UTC

So half the people commenting love this idea, and the other half think its totally worthless, interesting polarized response to something so apparently benign

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 18:33 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

Lee Jay: All you need to add to a current smart-phone camera to make it usable for me is:

At least a 24-120 equivalent zoom range.
At least f/2-f/5.6.
A Xenon flash.
A 1/1.7" or larger sensor.
An eye-level viewfinder.
Decent ergonomics.

That's it. Nothing much.

You're right, the S4 zoom was a little closer- smaller than the galaxy camera. I think they need to address the big lens and grip sticking out to make it more phone shaped, then it would probably be more widely accepted. I wonder why they don't use those parascoping lenses like Sony used in their cybershots for years.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 17:54 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: All you need to add to a current smart-phone camera to make it usable for me is:

At least a 24-120 equivalent zoom range.
At least f/2-f/5.6.
A Xenon flash.
A 1/1.7" or larger sensor.
An eye-level viewfinder.
Decent ergonomics.

That's it. Nothing much.

I know there have been a couple of android cameras in the past that you could probably shoehorn into service as a phone with the right apps and whatnot, but they have been pretty clunky devices.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/samsung/compacts/samsung_galaxycamera_2

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 16:04 UTC
In reply to:

Phil Birder: "a complete imaging experience that doesn't just set the standard but redefines it"

*yawn*

All that corporate jargon just made me want to gag. Ugh

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: All you need to add to a current smart-phone camera to make it usable for me is:

At least a 24-120 equivalent zoom range.
At least f/2-f/5.6.
A Xenon flash.
A 1/1.7" or larger sensor.
An eye-level viewfinder.
Decent ergonomics.

That's it. Nothing much.

They should just cut to the chase and design a compact camera that can take calls.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 15:53 UTC
On article 2017 iPhone Photography Award Winners Announced (179 comments in total)
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: My first 35mm camera was a Konica auto S2 purchased at a PX in Vietnam in 1966 for $35. Still have it, still works. My iPhone 7+ takes photos of comparable IQ, fits in a shirt pocket, always with me, supports chimping, has date and time, GPS data, and can be transmitted instantly. Also movies, panorama, HDR. Memory cards support near infinite capaciy. Apps provide PP, and EXIF info.

Damned amazing.

Enjoyed the photos in his article.

Yeah, and like he said, damned amazing.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 13:04 UTC
On article Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 sample gallery (180 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dennis Linden: Sooo, I have and like this lens a whole lot. I would humbly suggest that it would be nice to have this lens in manual aperture and manual focus. I don't mean manual focus by wire, I mean manual. It's got a pretty good focusing distance and depth of field to make zone focusing work, but we need something all manual for street work. Right now you can go Oly with the clutch for focusing OR the Leica for manual aperture control, perhaps it's time for both? Voightlander? Leica? ???

Get a manual lens adapter for your m4/3 body and knock yourself out with an endless selection of lenses. They are quite cheap, and for primes you can even enter the focal length in your Olympus body to use IBIS.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 19:36 UTC
On article Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 sample gallery (180 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steve NYC: I like the look of images from the 15mm, but the price is a problem (even on sale or used). So, other than maximum aperture, what would one give up by choosing the far less expensive Pana 14mm f/2.5 instead? Just wondering.

If the price of this is too high, go for the 20mm f1.7. Equally fast, very small, and sharp. Absolutely great for low light, and I really liked the 40mm focal length. A great walk around lens. The focusing speed on the original wasn't the best but the mk ii may be better. You can get them for $269. It was one of my favorite lenses in my m4/3 kit.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 19:33 UTC
In reply to:

Christop82: Polar ice thinning and breaking away is a fake story. The thickness of the summer ice has been unprecedented. Reports of it being over five meters thick. Polar bears follow food, not ice.

I don't understand the motivations of people to be so closed off to the idea of climate change (reverence for a higher power? not wanting to take responsibility for our actions and face the consequences? Loyalty to their political party? fear of change?) but science is telling us that man-made climate change is indeed real. We should listen.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 15:27 UTC
In reply to:

Christop82: Polar ice thinning and breaking away is a fake story. The thickness of the summer ice has been unprecedented. Reports of it being over five meters thick. Polar bears follow food, not ice.

Guess what else has been rigorously tested, and so far shown to be a pretty reliable theory, by just about all of the scientific community? Human-caused global warming.

"The scientific consensus as of 2013 stated in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is that it "is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century".[236] A 2008 report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated that most scientists by then agreed that observed warming in recent decades was primarily caused by human activities increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.[79] ... In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[239] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.[11][240]"

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 15:27 UTC
In reply to:

Christop82: Polar ice thinning and breaking away is a fake story. The thickness of the summer ice has been unprecedented. Reports of it being over five meters thick. Polar bears follow food, not ice.

Things like gravity, evolution, relativity, etc. are scientific theories. And guess what? They are good ones. Ones that have been subjected to extensive research and testing.

"A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them."

In science, theories don't become facts just because they are rigorously tested. Science looks for the most right answer, and the very core of science relies on continuous testing, continuous learning, and continuous progress.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 15:26 UTC
In reply to:

bolt2014: Please don't use the term "from the edge of the earth" unless you want "flat earthers" all over us!

That would fall into the category of "if you believe it, you're too dumb for me to bother explaining.."

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 16:35 UTC
Total: 463, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »