dqnielg

Lives in United States Cincinnati, United States
Works as a Environmental Engineering Student
Joined on May 20, 2007

Comments

Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Hands-on with the Panasonic Leica 8-18mm F2.8-4 (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

Quest21: Come on Panasonic it's time to make a camera with iso50 for low noise. With this lens it would be great for landscape or cityscape...

Just take multiple frames and average them. Better than waiting on a technology development that likely will never come :)

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 15:46 UTC
On article Western Digital launches its first portable SSD (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: IMHO the specs scream be careful!! WD themselves rate it only for a drop from 2 metres, and onto what? a feather pillow or concrete? Not said, but the idea that a force of 1500G is bearable needs investigation, since it must mean grammes, like being knocked by a bag of potatoes! It cannot mean G as in 1500x the force applied by our gravity here on Earth, as there is nobody around capable of applying that much. I could be wrong, but one and a half thousand times the force of our gravity- or G, Wow! or should one say G?

I have here a MacBook Pro from mid 2015, the 11.5 with the 1Tb hard drive I got before I knew they could have such problems. It loses stuff: Finder windows, whole folders, and then it sticks on a webpage, everything stops responding, no cursor, buttons zero. Or it Jams in Optics Pro. The screen vanishes, and it shutdown, wont reboot 3 online reformats later and only 50 battery recharges, and in perfect condition, 2 years old, trying again, fingers crossed, not good...

Somebody failed physics.

Robert hit the nail on the head.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 21:04 UTC
On article Extremely dramatic video touts Canon's CMOS technology (196 comments in total)
In reply to:

BadScience: who writes this nonsense?

"And it's true that Canon cameras can create usable footage in literal darkness"

does the author know what "literal" and "darkness" mean?

There seems to be a (grating) vogue for using the word literal to mean literally the opposite of literal.

At the end of the article, "literal darkness", which has an exact meaning (i.e. "NO LIGHT") is replaced with "extreme low light" which means nothing.

Come on, this is a tech forum, be precise, use some proper measures like flux or photons per metre.

The standard of writing on this web site is shocking; it reminds me of the NME back in the day. Young journalists doing their time waiting to get a better job, or old hacks that can't get a better job.

I literally know what "literal" means and it literally doesn't mean what the author of this story literally used it to try convey--which literally should have been "figuratively."

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 23:19 UTC
On article OnePlus 3T camera review (97 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: The pixel isn't THAT much more money and the camera's a lot better.

+1 for USB-C

48% price increase to the Pixel. Is it worth the minor improvement?

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 23:04 UTC
In reply to:

electrophoto: now if they could cut the "hum" out of the LX100's stabiliser too, I'd appreciate it.
it's one of the few annoyances using the LX100... that thing is loud.

"The LX100 does not have a stabilized sensor, if there is a hum, it has to have a different source."

I'd assume they're talking about being able to hear the optical stabilizer.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 19:36 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: This is why digital photography is nose diving — everybody does the same bloody lenses, with same focal lengths and same bloody f/stops and they do them over, and over, and over, and over again.
Tamron, Sigma, Nikon, Canon, etc., pull the wax out of your ears, change the tune once in a while! Bring forth a lens worth talking about — truly unique and crazy lens, unique design! Save this sordid industry from pale sameness. Too afraid to do that, because stereotyped pixel peepers and faux-photographers will bash you?
Remember: this fate is even worse! Always stereotyped and endlessly boring same piles of plastic and glass… The hell is already there.

"Or maybe they just want to add ART word and sell it at insane price over and over again?"

You say that like the Art versions aren't optically far superior to their old releases of the same focal length.

They didn't just add a word.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 14:58 UTC
In reply to:

deanfuller: NPS: Don't drive there. Don't walk here. Don't even LOOK at that. Just another part of the federal leviathan staffed by functionaries . . . . some with guns . . . .

Bravo, SirSeth.

If more people had this mindset we'd have a lot more natural splendor to take in rather than warning signs, guardrails on trails, people carving their names into natural wonders, and so on.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 17:46 UTC
On article Leica Summilux-SL 50mm F1.4 sample gallery (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

mxx: Just so everybody knows: I've got nothing to say about this lens.

There, I've said it.

I have no opinion on your non-opinion. Just in case anybody was wondering.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 16:23 UTC
On article Stunning time-lapse captures the seasons of Norway (65 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mustafa: I'm probably going to be in a minority of one here, but although I can admire the technique, dedication and ingenuity involved, I find the constant special effects distracting and eventually unwatchable.

I don't like movies with over-reliance on CGI either. Sorry.

"I was referring to CGI in movies, not in this timelapse."

"I don't like movies with over-reliance on CGI either."

"either" being the operative word. That implies this has CGI in it.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 15:09 UTC
On article Stunning time-lapse captures the seasons of Norway (65 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mustafa: I'm probably going to be in a minority of one here, but although I can admire the technique, dedication and ingenuity involved, I find the constant special effects distracting and eventually unwatchable.

I don't like movies with over-reliance on CGI either. Sorry.

BBQue: I feel like it's being intentionally pedantic or even obtuse to say that. Most people would not comment on a time lapse video that the complaint that "special effects" or "CGI" in the video is overused when it uses, SURPRISE, time lapse. It's a time lapse presentation.

Could be it argued time lapse itself is a "special effect"? I guess. I don't think it's what most people would think of when reading "special effect." Is "regular" video itself a "special effect", then? Both stitch frames together at a certain rate; one covers real-time and one condenses time.
and quietrich: No. I can't think of a way that this fits within the definition of CGI.

I guess, in the end, my question is this:

This is a time lapse video. It's advertised as such. Based on that, what excessive "special effects" did it have in comparison to other time lapse videos?

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 22:39 UTC
On article Stunning time-lapse captures the seasons of Norway (65 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mustafa: I'm probably going to be in a minority of one here, but although I can admire the technique, dedication and ingenuity involved, I find the constant special effects distracting and eventually unwatchable.

I don't like movies with over-reliance on CGI either. Sorry.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "special effects" or "CGI" for this?

It looks like neither were used.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 15:26 UTC
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: I'm not surprised by this at all. I first heard about the drone a year and a half ago, and thought it was so cool. The promotional video was shown on the big screen at an educational technology conference I attended.

When I looked it up and saw the low introductory price for early orders, I thought it was too good to be true. It was around 500 bucks, and I thought there was no way someone could make a drone do all that (tracking the subject after being tossed into the river, etc.) for five hundred bucks.

After about a year I started seeing complaints online about the delays and began to suspect that the product wasn't happening.

Finally, if they faked the promo video, that is not cool. I wonder the same thing about the Cicret wrist band that projects a smartphone screen on the arm. I saw the promo video at the same convention. No product yet that I can find. And the video appears to have a different design than what they are now showing. Was that video faked?

"I'm not saying Cicret faked their video."

They did. No need to worry about libel. It was fake.

They did a poor superimposition of a cell phone screen onto skin for the video. The distortion, color, and brightness are all wrong. It floats around oddly because the superimposition was lazy.

It was fake.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 13:43 UTC
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: I'm not surprised by this at all. I first heard about the drone a year and a half ago, and thought it was so cool. The promotional video was shown on the big screen at an educational technology conference I attended.

When I looked it up and saw the low introductory price for early orders, I thought it was too good to be true. It was around 500 bucks, and I thought there was no way someone could make a drone do all that (tracking the subject after being tossed into the river, etc.) for five hundred bucks.

After about a year I started seeing complaints online about the delays and began to suspect that the product wasn't happening.

Finally, if they faked the promo video, that is not cool. I wonder the same thing about the Cicret wrist band that projects a smartphone screen on the arm. I saw the promo video at the same convention. No product yet that I can find. And the video appears to have a different design than what they are now showing. Was that video faked?

The Cicret promo, if you're referring to the 2014 one that went viral, was definitely fake.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 23:23 UTC
On article Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlanG: So the pre-orders were between $499 and $899. One just has to look at the industry and see how DJI has been developing technology and driving the price down. (DJI will sell you a Phantom Standard refurb for $359... an actual product that works well!) DJI has a lot of top designers and programmers plus the economy of scale along with efficient production, marketing and distribution.

So if DJI can't sell one that is waterproof along with tracking etc. for the price of the Lily, how could Lily be able to do this?

The Lily does not appear to have a gimbal for the camera and does not have a radio control system with live video feed. Really... people must have to be pretty ignorant and hopeful to want to buy something like that.

I'd argue that DJI's drones are targeting a market whereas Lily was simply exploiting a market--one apparently filled with very trusting and naive people.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 23:19 UTC
In reply to:

nikos theodosiou: Great winning picture but I think the actual exposure info is incorrect:
1/30 sec at f2.8; ISO 231
f2.8?! everything is sharp from the top of the tree to the bottom, plus 1/30th sec for a moving subject, no wind?
Seems hard to believe the info here.

It's a GoPro. f/2.8 is right.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 22:10 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: Lenstip tested the Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC DN, it broke resolution records, besting the previous records holders (Voigtlander 25 and Olympus 75) and reaching a phenomenally high value of 83.6 lpmm at f/2.8 and f/4 easily beating the Panasonic 25 f/1.4. Don't believe the lukewarm tone of this review, the Sigma is a superb lens.

Sample to sample variation is also a real thing. It's completely possible that the Lenstip sample had better resolution than DPReview's.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2016 at 13:30 UTC
On article Nikon D5 real-world low light, high ISO samples (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

PKDanny: Which lens you use?

Every photo has the lens info displayed on the right :)

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 01:44 UTC
In reply to:

dqnielg: No touchscreen? Very disappointing. One of the best parts of using a mirror-less with a touch screen is QUICKLY selecting the focus point for certain situations.

Same thoughts as me salsaguy.

The A6300 has most of the features I want while the A5x00 series does not. It's only missing a touchscreen, basically.

Zandalee's analogy is silly. It's not like I criticized a DSLR for having a viewfinder--it would make sense for the A6300 to have a touchscreen, while it wouldn't make sense for a 911 buyer to want 4 doors.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2016 at 19:07 UTC
In reply to:

Eugene232: price is ridiculous..
who will by this camera for $1100 while Olympus PEN-F with smaller sensor costs $1200 or Fujifilm X-Pro2 costs $1700?

I see that a lot of people on here don't understand sarcasm.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 22:27 UTC

No touchscreen? Very disappointing. One of the best parts of using a mirror-less with a touch screen is QUICKLY selecting the focus point for certain situations.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 22:24 UTC as 173rd comment | 4 replies
Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »