Francis Carver

Lives in United States Mid-Atlantic, United States
Joined on Nov 20, 2011

Comments

Total: 3023, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

ChaosCloud: I so wish for a 1" 24-600 with a manual/mechanical zoom.

This class of pricey, all-glued-into-one cameras are neither here.... nor there.... not even over there. They'll be gone soon enough, along with their cheaper P&S kid brothers.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 19:14 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

zcus: I was waiting for this camera. Was going to get the RX100 5 but the zoom is just to limiting..

This should be capped at $1500 (which is still high) $1700 is good apsc camera... If this had a bigger sensor then yes it would be worth it, but this is crazy expensive in my opinion.

Sony is nothing if not clever! As soon as they fixed the poor autofocus system in the RX10 Mark II, they are now bringing out the fixed-up version and calling in a Mark IV, and charging a few hundred bucks and euros more for it. Simply brilliant marketing strategy, Dear Sony-san! Now if they can only fix the notoriously horrid Sony color science -- wow, we will indeed have an RX10 Mark V on our hand in time for Christmas 2017.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2017 at 19:58 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

sean lee: I wish If this is APS-C sensor....

A 1-inch sensor is neither here nor there. Not professional and not semi-pro and likely not even prosumer.... and not a $300 P&S or cell phone sensor, either. Orphan child territory -- 1-incher sensor is thy name. Ditto with the lens for it.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2017 at 19:53 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

ChaosCloud: I so wish for a 1" 24-600 with a manual/mechanical zoom.

Professional motion picture and D-film camera zoom optics are always 100% manual and 100% mechanical. The serve attachment is for video shooters mostly. This lens here on the RX10 is of very little practical value. It's a bridge-cam lens, but at a whopping $1,700 for the package..... And you cannot just "lose it."

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2017 at 19:49 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

rsser: Hands on? Just a rewrite of Sony advertising.

What "re-write?"

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2017 at 19:43 UTC

Sony is nothing if not clever! As soon as they fixed the poor autofocus system in the RX10 Mark II, they are now bringing out the fixed-up version and calling in a Mark IV, and charging a few hundred bucks and euros more for it. Simply brilliant marketing strategy, Dear Sony-san!

Now if they can only fix the notoriously horrid Sony color science -- wow, we will indeed have an RX10 Mark V on our hand in time for Christmas 2017.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2017 at 19:36 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: Funny thing is, they shot the entire movie with Fuji film.

You could still purchase raw Fujicolor MP film stock as recently as two years ago.

With proper climate controlled storage, that raw stock will be as as good as new for 20 more years, i.e. until about the year 2037. At which time one of the many film labs still around will gladly develop it for you.

Right now we have motion picture film stock manufacturing plants in the USA and India, and soon hopefully, Russia. They "buried" celluloid film for so long an so often, it will definitely be around for a long, long time.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2017 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

Fujica: It was shot on 'film', but not on Kodachrome...

Shot on Kodachrome in dual-8mm, Super 8mm and also in 16mm narrow gauge formats.

Right now Eastman Kodak makes motion picture film stock, and so does an outfit in India, and I think they'll be re-starting the old Sochicolor manufacturing plant in Russia.

The digital folks are "burying" motion picture celluloid film for at least a good 25-30 years now. Which simply means that celluloid analog will outlive the digital attempts by about a century -- or two.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2017 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

Derek Dean: Wow, Nicola Perscheid's, 'Grand Canal, Venice', is stunning. What a wonderful gift it is to now have this tremendous archive available on-line.

Thank you Photoconsortium.

FYI, Texas, Here is the Grand Canal in Venezia, Italia:

https://www.google.hu/maps/@45.4355059,12.3296284,3a,75y,43.31h,90.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIWUGMe8OrAaDGl1TE6dXNw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DIWUGMe8OrAaDGl1TE6dXNw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D29.37437%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

If you really cannot tell the difference between this and that little canal shows in the old photo, perhaps you need to get yourself some new perspective on the canals and by-waters of Venezia. :-)

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2017 at 19:09 UTC
In reply to:

Derek Dean: Wow, Nicola Perscheid's, 'Grand Canal, Venice', is stunning. What a wonderful gift it is to now have this tremendous archive available on-line.

Thank you Photoconsortium.

I am a bit familiar with Venice, and do not live too far from from Venezia... but that does not seem to be any part of the Grand Canal I know, at least as it is today. Maybe it got widened since this photo was taken.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 19:55 UTC
On article RX aeternus? Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 II review (271 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scales USA: I have a tough time getting past that price, it seems excessive.

Guy's obviously totally confusing PRICE with QUALITY.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 19:16 UTC
On article RX aeternus? Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 II review (271 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scales USA: I have a tough time getting past that price, it seems excessive.

Yeah, the one from Canon (XC-10) is a joke. I held it, it was totally unimpressive. How do you figure the XC-10 is anything but a consumer-cam?

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 02:32 UTC

Wow, an F5.6 single focal length lens, wow. Good lens on bright, sunny days on the beach and on the ski slopes, though.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2015 at 23:51 UTC as 19th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

bakhtyar kurdi: I know this is like religion, no logic will help, but I ask photographers to do a simple thing, download the picture of the flag that has no shadow, then open photoshop, then file, open as, camera raw
Now move the exposure slide all the way to the right, you will see clearly that the flag was been selected,then pasted as a perfect rectangle shape, then they darkened the extra areas or brushed or whatever to blend it to the rest of the picture, but unfortunately they forgot to make shadow for the flag on the earth(studio or moon) , and don't forget, this is after 2 million times of editing so that they don't leave any signs of mistakes,so how do you want me to accept the rest of their lies?
The flag has been added later to another picture that also been faked in studio .

Fortunately for them, NASA did not have yo to use 2010s digital photographic and television technology to do anything back in the good old analog 1960s and early 1970s, see?

Reason this Moon landing had to happen by a certain date -- 'cause of one of the country's president had said many years earlier that it must. After that, there was no going back or pushing out the Moon landing date into decades later.

BTW, The Soviet Union's Communist Party Central Committee had given out a similar edict, in secret, for a one-person Moon landing expedition. This was back in 1964, and the date set for it was to be on 7 November 1967 -- the 50th anniversary of the Great Soviet Socialist Revolution. Unlike the Americans, when the top brass saw that is just not going to happen, the Soviets decided to pull the plug on the enterprise in early 1967.

BTW, NASA even had plans for a manned Mrs mission -- by the year 1990! The fabulous "Capricorn One" movie shows how that would have been faked.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2015 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

bakhtyar kurdi: I know this is like religion, no logic will help, but I ask photographers to do a simple thing, download the picture of the flag that has no shadow, then open photoshop, then file, open as, camera raw
Now move the exposure slide all the way to the right, you will see clearly that the flag was been selected,then pasted as a perfect rectangle shape, then they darkened the extra areas or brushed or whatever to blend it to the rest of the picture, but unfortunately they forgot to make shadow for the flag on the earth(studio or moon) , and don't forget, this is after 2 million times of editing so that they don't leave any signs of mistakes,so how do you want me to accept the rest of their lies?
The flag has been added later to another picture that also been faked in studio .

Parts of it may have been faked, yes -- but I understand the blowing up of one of NASA's Space Shuttles and the disintegration upon re-entry of another one of NASA's Space Shuttles were all too real, unfortunately.

@ MAT: "the same organization which was capable of faking an entire multi-billion-dollar moon landing would somehow forget to paint in a shadow."

Nothing particularly surprising there, really. Even the cleverest of forgers can slip at at times on the tinitest of details. In the case of the "Moon photographs," well there were more tell-tale signs than in an Edgar Allan Poe short story.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2015 at 00:30 UTC
In reply to:

Phileas Fogg: Here is the thing for me. The Moon landing hoax fools and their ignorant opinions are an insult to the many people who built America's space programme and ultimately the Apollo Moon landings. From the astronauts, to all the engineers, scientists, astronomers, and the many, many, folks who built, transported and prepared all the gear and rockets to send men to the Moon. This hoax crap is so tiring as its all easily dispelled with even by most educated high school students. It must suck to know that if you are a Moon Landing hoaxer that you are considered to be more stupid on this topic than most educated high school students.

Dunno about that -- but I do hear here and there that because of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's apparent capability of delivering long range missiles with nuclear warheads, real estate prices in Hawaii and alongside the West Coast of North America are dropping rather precipitously.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2015 at 15:45 UTC
In reply to:

Phileas Fogg: Here is the thing for me. The Moon landing hoax fools and their ignorant opinions are an insult to the many people who built America's space programme and ultimately the Apollo Moon landings. From the astronauts, to all the engineers, scientists, astronomers, and the many, many, folks who built, transported and prepared all the gear and rockets to send men to the Moon. This hoax crap is so tiring as its all easily dispelled with even by most educated high school students. It must suck to know that if you are a Moon Landing hoaxer that you are considered to be more stupid on this topic than most educated high school students.

Nu-ku-kaka, you know kaka.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2015 at 02:27 UTC
On article Light L16 packs 16 cameras into a single portable body (397 comments in total)

Mankind is long overdue for extinction.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2015 at 02:25 UTC as 118th comment
In reply to:

skysi: The earth is flat says the Flat Earth Society. All this nonsense comes primarily from this group of numbskulls.
Guys please do not feed these trolls. They should be completely ignored. You can't prove to them anything no matter what evidence you present.
Save yourself some time.

@ skysi: "Guys please do not feed these trolls. Save yourself some time."

Yeah, like after you had just wasted some of our precious time on them, right?

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2015 at 22:08 UTC
In reply to:

Hannu108: They doubt nobody ever landed on the Moon. Even a photo of a waving flag seems to be a fake.

“On the moon, there's no air to breathe, no breezes to make the flags planted there by the Apollo missions flutter”

http://www.space.com/18067-moon-atmosphere.html

Weird...

@ SirSeth: "As far as NASA sending people into near earth orbit, there is an international space station that you can observe with the unaided eye!"

Read what I said: "NASA cannot even send one single individual into near-Earth orbit. Are we then supposed to believe that they could do Moon shuttles 42-46 years ago? Not too likely, you gotta admit it."

Now, you are probably going to argue here that the Russian Federations's space agency is also being called "NASA?" Really?

How do you figure, that the American NASA ( as opposed to the Russian NASA) is able t launch anybody into space these days, hmmm? Heck, even the American private space rockets are falling out of the sky at alarming frequency. The American space program is right back where it was in the 1957-61 period.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2015 at 22:05 UTC
Total: 3023, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »