ptox

Joined on Dec 18, 2011

Comments

Total: 356, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

bilmenot: No matter how promising the specs are I only wish for a more reliable and sturdy connector, I can not recall where I read about the magnetic typc C connector, not those after market ones with changeable tips but the socket itself is magnetic, currently both the type A and type C are not tight enough, ex. my phone always get bad connection while charging and transferring files, both the PC and phone end has loose connection.

@scrup Late to reply, but the spec is for 10,000 cycles -- not tens of thousands, which I misquoted, but still more than enough for the usage you describe.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/8377/usb-typec-connector-specifications-finalized

"Durability of 10,000 connect-disconnect cycles"

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2020 at 21:59 UTC
In reply to:

bilmenot: No matter how promising the specs are I only wish for a more reliable and sturdy connector, I can not recall where I read about the magnetic typc C connector, not those after market ones with changeable tips but the socket itself is magnetic, currently both the type A and type C are not tight enough, ex. my phone always get bad connection while charging and transferring files, both the PC and phone end has loose connection.

"Tension in the contacts"? If you're suggesting there's a problem with the USB-C design such that common usage will so quickly cause problems, I think you need to look elsewhere for the source of your issue -- although the port design is new, there's nothing new about the technology used to ensure reliable contact over tens of thousands of plug/unplug cycles.

In phones, which are often stored in pockets and so on, compacted lint is a very common cause of the exact problem you describe.

If you've actually tried the method I suggested without success, it's more probable that your device shipped with a bad connector than it is the spec itself is flawed.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2020 at 15:24 UTC
In reply to:

bilmenot: No matter how promising the specs are I only wish for a more reliable and sturdy connector, I can not recall where I read about the magnetic typc C connector, not those after market ones with changeable tips but the socket itself is magnetic, currently both the type A and type C are not tight enough, ex. my phone always get bad connection while charging and transferring files, both the PC and phone end has loose connection.

It is very likely there's a plug of compacted lint/etc at the deep end of your phone's connector which prevents cables from seating properly.

Even a compressed air can was not powerful enough to remove the plug in my USB-C phone .. I had to use a metal pin (careful not to scratch the connector, obviously) to break it up and dig it out.

Give that a shot, you'll probably find your connector works good as new.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2020 at 22:01 UTC
On article Hands-on with the new Fujifilm X100V (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Critical Thinker: Its a very superficial revision. The lens seems to be its main achilles heel. Still no update to the same noisy, extending lens AF system. Lack of IS and crippled WR is pretty sneaky hidden behind the $100 price increase.

Its unfortunate that Fujifilm is taking the easy route and targeting shallow hipster millenials/zoomers that have lots of disposable income, that are easily impressed with a new coat of paint and grip texture. Maybe after the tenth x100? iteration we'll see some proper upgrades.

And now to our correspondent "Critical Thinker", who has some very original ideas about "shallow hipster millenials/zoomers" to share with us ...

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2020 at 01:50 UTC

I meant once it actually fails/becomes inoperable, of course.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2019 at 09:30 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

dlb41: I wonder if these photos are in monochrome with color data embedded.

Billiam: Limb darkening is due to the increasingly oblique angle of the sun's light reflected back from the planet at its edges. Compared to the center of the planet, more of the light simply reflects off into space.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2019 at 20:27 UTC
In reply to:

Krav Maga: Portrait:

noun
1. a painting, drawing, photograph, or engraving of a person, especially one depicting only the face or head and shoulders.

Jupiter is not a person. It's a planet.

Just saying.

Krav Maga: since you utterly failed in this attempt to browbeat us with your superior literacy, will you now pummel us all into submission?

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2019 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

Alex Permit: Beautiful photographs.

The Webb telescope will be a wonderful thing, but it won't be taking these sort of photos. Unlike Hubble, which operates in the visible light spectrum, Webb will operate in the infrared and near infrared spectrum. It would be more accurate to describe Webb as the "successor" to Hubble, not the "replacement".

landscaper1 .. that's nice and all, but we're not talking about a bit of elbow grease and some outside-the-box thinking here. The Space Shuttle had numerous capabilities that are simply unequalled by any of the in-development vehicles that might possibly maybe be able to get astronauts to the Hubble -- the Canadarm, extended life support suitable for a days-long mission, an EVA-capable airlock, etc -- that would take years if not at least a decade to replicate for the rigors of space.

If you mean something like a remote-controlled maintenance vehicle that we insert into orbit like a satellite, again, think about how long complex satellites take to design and build.

The TMT, even at its secondary site, will provide much more detail than Hubble. It's got 144 times the light gathering area of the Hubble plus atmosphere-adaptive optics .. whereas most of the tech in Hubble is well over 30 years old. It's done amazing work, but it's time to retire the thing.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2019 at 20:14 UTC
In reply to:

Love Photography 888: Kia'i, protect Mauna Kea!!

So disappointing that we're still arguing about these things in 2019. Not that I blame the Hawaiians, mind you -- even if I don't think their loss of sacred space on Mauna Kea is worth moving the TMT over, I _do_ get it as a proxy conflict for all the ways they've been screwed over since they were first colonized.

It's likely that if they'd been treated better even over the last generation or two they'd be more amenable to making the land available, considering that the TMT isn't a profit-driven enterprise and is supposed to benefit humanity as a whole .. a much more worthy project than the myriad capitalist stains on sacred places / virgin forests / lands-of-the-people worldwide.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2019 at 20:06 UTC
In reply to:

Piotr W: I see no value in spending money on photos like that.

Not sure what you're saying -- that Hubble should never have been launched? What money are you talking about?

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2019 at 20:02 UTC
On article Hands-on with the new Peak Design Travel Tripod (309 comments in total)

As usual, DPReview commenters don't disappoint with their curmudgeonly knee-jerk negative reactions to a new product.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2019 at 18:09 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
On article Hands-on with the new Peak Design Travel Tripod (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

khunpapa: $600 for the unseen product? I better stick to the company that have designed and manufactured the small, light, sturdy tripod for over FORTY years.

The Cullmann Tripod. The Nanomax. Simply THE BEST.

My 200T is only 28cm (13") when being stored. It may not be "streamline" when out of the bag. But who cares. The most important duty of the tripod is to SAFELY support the camera, not to be the ornament.

DPReview really should have mentioned that PD is also making an aluminum version for 350 which weighs only .6lbs more.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2019 at 18:06 UTC
On article Hands-on with the new Peak Design Travel Tripod (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: It's not that small, not that light, load capacity is on the low side, and it's very expensive. The design is very good though and the integrated smartphone holder is a very cool addition. I wonder if it has any sag with an actually heavy combo on it (10lbs+ or so) - that would be the test. Too spendy for what it is in my personal opinion, but maybe I'd feel different with a hands-on. Products like this are usually better on the second iteration as well after all the customer feedback.

They have an aluminum version for 350, and it only weighs .6lbs more.

I don't get your other criticisms. It's smaller than every comparable travel tripod I could find (especially in diameter -- 3.1" max vs. 4.x" typical), and its load capacity is 20lbs, which is hardly low for a travel model.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2019 at 18:05 UTC
On article Hands-on with the new Peak Design Travel Tripod (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hendersons001: When I use a tripod its very often windy. Pretty much any tripod can keep a camera stable on level ground in a dead calm on a hard surface. I do wonder about the conditions that these tripods get tested in. Maybe there should be some sort of standard conditions- say 20mph breeze, ten degree slope on grass, or wet sand. I suspect most consumer grade tripods would fail to keep a camera consistently steady for a few seconds in these conditions.

PD addresses this with a counterweight drop hook in the center column. You can hang your bag or whatever from it to add additional stability to the tripod. Seems like an excellent solution to me.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2019 at 18:02 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Basically, "studio quality ... without the studio" got defined as having a list of attributes (qualities) that are associated with photos taken in a studio. Their ad defined some attributes, and that's what ASA found they were able to deliver. Apple also is right that delivering those attributes the 1960s way is harder even with a great camera.

However, DPReview is very wrong about "smart phones are genuinely becoming better and better at taking pictures" -- the truth is, smartphones are MAKING, not merely taking, better pictures. They're doing it by mimicking what they've been trained are good pictures, and the result is more a rendering than a photo, but it's important to understand that this really is a challenge to uninspired photography by humans. Don't fear the new tools of computational photography; learn to use them, with whatever camera(s), to help achieve your goals. :-)

No, the final image does not contain a rendered 3D model -- the model is used as a reference overlay to adjust the lighting of the pixels on the original image. That's a huge difference.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2018 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

99tollap: I really hate people describing smartphones as "computational photography", as if their fancy A7R3 and D850s don't have any computers involved?

Give me a break.... there is a huge amount of computation involved in the production of even a RAW image, let alone all the time spent correcting in lightroom.

Anything to make themselves feel better about the fact that smartphones are capable of truly outstanding results, and are amazing photographic tools.

"All kinds of operations" such as what?

Sony's noise reduction cheat was an aberration; most RAW data is as close as it's possible to get to the signal-level information from the image sensor. I repeat: that's the whole point.

The conversion of RAW data to pixel image is more complicated than is generally appreciated, yes, but that's not what the OP wrote, and RAW-to-image algorithms are totally different from the computational photography features found on smartphones.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2018 at 21:46 UTC
In reply to:

99tollap: I really hate people describing smartphones as "computational photography", as if their fancy A7R3 and D850s don't have any computers involved?

Give me a break.... there is a huge amount of computation involved in the production of even a RAW image, let alone all the time spent correcting in lightroom.

Anything to make themselves feel better about the fact that smartphones are capable of truly outstanding results, and are amazing photographic tools.

The "computers involved" in the cameras you cite are piddling little calculators compared with the processors found in modern smartphones.

Whether you like the term or not, computational photography refers to specific features found on smartphones that are almost entirely lacking on standalone cameras -- most of which would be impossible to implement on the latter for a variety of reasons: slower sensor readout, no full-sensor depth information, less powerful processors (i.e. meaning a slow/poor user experience), etc.

(And I'm not sure where you get your info, but no, RAW images are not subjected to "a huge amount of computation" relative to the final image -- that's the whole point.)

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2018 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Basically, "studio quality ... without the studio" got defined as having a list of attributes (qualities) that are associated with photos taken in a studio. Their ad defined some attributes, and that's what ASA found they were able to deliver. Apple also is right that delivering those attributes the 1960s way is harder even with a great camera.

However, DPReview is very wrong about "smart phones are genuinely becoming better and better at taking pictures" -- the truth is, smartphones are MAKING, not merely taking, better pictures. They're doing it by mimicking what they've been trained are good pictures, and the result is more a rendering than a photo, but it's important to understand that this really is a challenge to uninspired photography by humans. Don't fear the new tools of computational photography; learn to use them, with whatever camera(s), to help achieve your goals. :-)

If content isn't generated from scratch, you can't call it rendered -- so "more a rendering than a photo" is pure hyperbole.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2018 at 17:54 UTC
In reply to:

John Koerner: Glorified cell phone, without the phone, and without the connectivity of a phone. Freaking waste of money. Who would pay $2-3K for a camera with a fixed lens, and no other options, when you can get a better all-around camera with interchangeable lens options?

John Koerner: Riiight, the whole point of a 37.4 MP full-frame camera with a Zeiss 35mm F2 lens is for "in-camera processing" ..

The only stupidity here is your insistence that a secondary (if prominently so) feature negates the potential of the ZX1's high-end camera spec.

I for one am glad product designers aren't all so hidebound.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2018 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

John Koerner: Glorified cell phone, without the phone, and without the connectivity of a phone. Freaking waste of money. Who would pay $2-3K for a camera with a fixed lens, and no other options, when you can get a better all-around camera with interchangeable lens options?

What makes this a "glorified cell phone"? What does that even mean? Glorified how? A phone how? What?

Why do you keep ranting about phones? What on earth does this camera have to do with phones? Oh, because it runs Android? Android is a mobile device OS, not a "phone OS".

And who would pay $2-3k for a camera with a fixed lens? Well, uh, who buys the Sony RX1 or the Leica Q or the X100 series? Premium fixed-lens cameras are hardly a new idea, and there's obviously a market for them.

Talk about overreacting...

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2018 at 22:26 UTC
Total: 356, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »