ptox

Joined on Dec 18, 2011

Comments

Total: 289, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Close-up: Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 (127 comments in total)
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: Despite housing only an mFT sensor, the body of this camera is as large, or even larger, than a lot of APS-C DSLRs ...

How interesting.

In the British sense, of course.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 21:07 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1206 comments in total)
In reply to:

alvareo: I just can't get excited over such a tiny sensor

@alvareo, lol! I agree completely, but come on--what discussion could you possibly have hoped to engender with your contentless post?

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 20:33 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1206 comments in total)
In reply to:

alvareo: I just can't get excited over such a tiny sensor

@alvareo, I think people are just wondering why you're bothering to share your opinion, if it's so personal and irrelevant to the rest of us, as you claim it should be?

I mean, we all have personal opinions, but most of us realize that their individual expression is not that interesting or relevant to the world at large--particularly when it concerns camera equipment whose value is highly subjective, depending on the user and his/her needs.

So when you reply to an announcement about a camera that a lot of MFT users _are_ excited about with your utterly (utterly!) pointless personal opinion, you're being disingenuous if you expect to be taken as anything less than a provocateur... at the very least.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 20:19 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: a Olympus E-M1II Killer with the best Viewfinder and 6K photo
and far better ergonomic and better weight (more!) and larger grip with the best accu.

But Panasonic should blow up the sensor - mFT is for many light situations to small - good and clean pictures must be possible with 12.800 ISO.

They should "blow up the sensor" and kill compatibility with every MFT lens?

...

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 20:10 UTC
In reply to:

Jon Porter: Seems the lens could be smaller and less expensive if it was a straight f/4. I don't see a huge advantage of having f/2.8 at 12mm. Same with my Fuji 18-55mm and Nikon 16-80mm.

Considering the dimensions required for f/4 at 60mm, f/2.8 at 12mm is probably a gimme .. in terms of size, anyway, if not optical formula.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 20:05 UTC
In reply to:

Mac McCreery: I always bemoaned the lack of image preview on my film cameras. Awful.

Old school snobbery .. check
Implied photographic superiority .. check
Snark before content .. check

Am I on DPReview? .. check

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 17:42 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1397 comments in total)
In reply to:

SeeRoy: I got caught by the EM5. It did me one favour, forever stopping me generating any enthusiasm for the constant "churn" of the latest, greatest product of the camera industry. That camera has the most abominable ergonomics and general interface design (both firmware and hardware) of almost any consumer electronic device I've ever had the misfortune to own.
It goes on . Olympus managed to destroy the camera (twice) after I asked them to remove the fingerprint from the sensor with which it came.
Every time the latest "must-have" variant emerges I wonder if they've managed to redesign this series of cameras so that they're actually enjoyable to use. The EM5 is almost permanently in some unwanted mode. It's actually amazing that a mal-executed product like that could ever get to market. Actually, on second thoughts, it's not that unusual.

Unenjoyable to use? What fulsome flubbery. If the EM5 was as fatally flawed as you claim, it would hardly be considered the modern classic that it is.

For me, it was the first digital camera I'd picked up that met all my usability expectations: fast in operation, the perfect number of control points, and excellent image quality.

Yeah, sure, the menu system is a bit hairy. But that's nothing.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 22:02 UTC
In reply to:

Shiranai: Not really better than what's been available freely for years (Image analyzer's wiener filter or fractal interpolation / Smilla enlarger).

And you came to this conclusion based on what? Two sample images?

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 16:54 UTC
In reply to:

Alan2dpreview: This is what happens when you give the government too much power. They make more laws that reduce your freedoms.

The power in this case would appear to be the power to enact laws.

Not really sure how much use a government without that power would be...

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2016 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

Thomas Traub: Sorry Guys, but to fly a drone is much more difficult and much more dangerous than most of you think. And to fly a drone with a camera is an attak in privacy of everyone under the drone.

I drove RC-cars for years before I started to fly RC-airplanes (and beside that, I'm a photograper much more and for 35 years so I'm realy one of you). It seems that it is easy to fly a drone because of the technique inside. But if only one component of the drone does not work anymore it comes down like a stone from the sky - 1, 2 or more kilogramms from 300 meters above you - thanks guys, that's no joke anymore. And nobody can tell me that he flies the drone not over zivilisation, not houses or people. For sure, nobody should do that intentionally, but a small or or not so small wind could move the drone for 10, 50 or more meters

"Attack of privacy"? What privacy in public? Come on...

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2016 at 21:46 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: I'm not into endless laws but this is a good one. If your work is legitimate, get a licence. If you're perving, spying, or intruding on people's privacy, hopefully you won't get that licence.

You realize the license you'd need to get is a surveillance license, right?

How many people are even going to be eligible for that?

And you think this is an appropriate law?

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2016 at 21:44 UTC
On article DJI goes portable with the Mavic Pro (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bas Emmen: I noticed that the unedited footage from Casey Neistat look Crap! @1080p
Just not sharp.
https://youtu.be/iPG1Xa5Uqwo?t=10m16s

It does look awful, but if you compare this footage to the footage shot in the official release video, it's pretty clear that this guy screwed up his postprocessing / downsampling. The official video footage looks very sharp.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 17:10 UTC
On article DJI goes portable with the Mavic Pro (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nigel Tafferham: If you get the full kit plus goggle + spares you are at $2000.

I think most serious videophiles will want to choose their cam and lens.

Looks nice but lots of alternatives, this just easy but not the best ?

That's kind of a silly comparison -- if you get any drone with all the extras it's obviously going to cost a lot more.

This isn't intended for videophiles, anyway. Isn't that obvious?

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 16:55 UTC
On article DJI goes portable with the Mavic Pro (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

junk1: The only way I'll buy a drone is if they design it for a standard 1/4" tripod mount so I can mount my own "real camera".

You won't be mounting any "real cameras" on drones this small or this inexpensive -- fully integrated is the only way to go. Kind of obviously.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 16:52 UTC
In reply to:

Arizona Sunset: The ultimate 'tweener lens. Not fast, not slow, not long, not short, not huge, not small. Just the wrong amount of this and the right amount of that to make you wonder if it's compelling. I don't think it is, now that the dust has settled. I preordered the other two Olympus lenses, but this one, I patiently waited. I'm glad I did.

Sorry, what, one sample gallery containing no comparison images with competing lenses and suddenly "the dust has settled"?

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 18:17 UTC
In reply to:

Atsel: This lens seems no better than 14-150 & 14-140 zooms from Olympus and Panasonic.

Urgh... how can you possibly tell without looking at a side-by-side comparison of the same subject matter shot with each lens?

I mean -- you can't, of course!

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

Adam Sharp: It's cost so much and it's not great value for money . It's s nice lens but nothing amazing

You can tell that just by looking at a sample gallery?

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 18:14 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

dbltapp00: That camera body is HUGE!

You must have small hands?

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2016 at 18:36 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

User6915810299: You need FULL FRAME sensor or even bigger 70%, fully articulated HD touch screen and lens can be fixed super zoom like compact cameras has bur lens will be wide . 4K and time lapse will be great too without frames limit to make long time lapses. With huge sensor ISO will very high in auto mode for night pictures without flash .

cameron2: lol!

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 23:00 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Olympus E-M1 Mark II overview video (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: The size: m4/3 system was created to minimize the size and weight of bodies and lenses. But this body is almost of the same size with D7200. So, why not to purchase an APS-C camera instead?

Wu Jiaqiu "the Oly is doing nothing in particular that hasn't already been done"

The E-M1 II is a more capable camera in almost every single way than the v3 but you pick framerate and size and say "oh, nothing new here" ?

That's just silly.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 22:59 UTC
Total: 289, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »