peterpainter

Lives in France Finistère, France
Joined on Aug 12, 2008

Comments

Total: 153, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

artistguy: Those advocating shooting the drones down might think of a few factors involved such as where the round might actually end up after it has passed through or missed the drone. Even the very best trained snipers are not generally trying to hit a small moving target at perhaps half a mile range with any success.

It did say somewhere or other in the BBC reports that they refrained from shooting them down because of the risk of where the 'stray bullets' would go. Not sure if anything's changed, but there were photos of armed police (or military) shown....

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2018 at 17:16 UTC
On article Canon EOS R review (3303 comments in total)

Oh dear!

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2018 at 15:45 UTC as 263rd comment

Interesting article, thanks. However, I do agree with those questioning the heading for it's 'political wind-up,' though - I come here to find out about about photography not politics. I know a lot of journalism these days aims to use controversy as a 'hook' to get people to read things, but heavens, there's enough bickering going on over Sony v Canon v Nikon and so on without highlighting politics.
But thanks for the write-up - interesting stuff, as I say.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2018 at 15:41 UTC as 201st comment
On article Ricoh announces development of long-awaited GR III (701 comments in total)
In reply to:

22codfish: I really question why any competitive small camera company doesn't provide in a compact travel camera with what I consider the Big 3; and what's lacking in cellphones. My essential 3 being,
Weatherproofing
GPS
Some articulation for LCD Let's face it, there are more older photographers in the small camera market because of all the younger people relying on cell phones for photos, and mobility can be a problem.

WR and an articulated screen for me too. Not too fussed about GPS, though.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2018 at 17:04 UTC
On article Ricoh announces development of long-awaited GR III (701 comments in total)
In reply to:

turvyT: One of the best digital cameras. Issues with dust and motorized lens though. We'll see if they've improved that. The comments of dpr about ricoh gr af are laughable (but in the dpr tradition on Pentax/Ricoh).

Dust and weather-sealing would make it more appealing to me.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2018 at 15:11 UTC

Will wait for the reviews, particularly feedback on Birdforum. My SX50 is getting a bit 'cranky' - AF a bit iffy, flash working sometimes and then sometimes not. Removing the hot shoe seems like a backward step (why do that?) but I have to admit I've rarely used the one on the SX50. Hopefully they have improved the AF, though - can be a bit of a pain waiting for it to lock on. A better EVF is a plus, although it didn't tempt me to try the SX60 because it's lukewarm reception.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2018 at 18:46 UTC as 13th comment
On article SeaLife DC2000 sample gallery (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

peterpainter: Mmm downloaded 34 and 35 raws and ran them though Faststone - look much warmer ('pinkish' almost), very different from the JPEG. No idea which is more accurate or if Faststone is a problem. Ah well, will wait for the review.....

Yes, and I 'developed' it, unchanged, to a tiff and it was 'pinkish,' just like the embedded JPEG is. No surprise, there, I guess, although I had expected the embedded JPEG to represent the 'look' of the finished JPEG, not an unmodified raw - possibly my misunderstanding......
Tbh, though, my interest is that the raw and embedded JPEG showed a nice, 'warm' scene (probably a bit too warm, really, but I wasn't there when the picture was taken..) whereas the gallery shot is rather 'cold' - so I wondered which was closer to the truth, what WB setting were used and so on. The difference made me wonder how 'accurate' the JPEGs actually are.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2018 at 19:26 UTC
On article SeaLife DC2000 sample gallery (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

peterpainter: Interesting, and thank-you. Seems an odd choice (well to my mind, anyway) of settings on 16, though - 1/400 at f2.8 - difficult seeing where focus is, or is that because the camera isn't doing it's job?

Understood - thanks!

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2018 at 21:34 UTC
On article SeaLife DC2000 sample gallery (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

peterpainter: Mmm downloaded 34 and 35 raws and ran them though Faststone - look much warmer ('pinkish' almost), very different from the JPEG. No idea which is more accurate or if Faststone is a problem. Ah well, will wait for the review.....

Fine, but my main interest in this is as a 'go anywhere' camera, so for that it would help to know how good the WB / JPEG processing is for that purpose. Quote from the article, explaining the reason for the gallery:
"A quick search across the interwebs turns up no shortage of stunning underwater photography that's been captured with this camera, but remarkably little from its use above land as a large-ish sensor point-and-shoot that's both easy to carry around and will withstand a knock or two"

*edited to add. It has been mentioned elsewhere that RAW processing is slow, hence JPEG may be a better option. To be fair, though, I find JPEGS often quite good start points - it would just be nice if they were good to start off with.

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2018 at 15:25 UTC
On article SeaLife DC2000 sample gallery (156 comments in total)

Mmm downloaded 34 and 35 raws and ran them though Faststone - look much warmer ('pinkish' almost), very different from the JPEG. No idea which is more accurate or if Faststone is a problem. Ah well, will wait for the review.....

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2018 at 14:47 UTC as 34th comment | 4 replies
On article SeaLife DC2000 sample gallery (156 comments in total)

Interesting, and thank-you. Seems an odd choice (well to my mind, anyway) of settings on 16, though - 1/400 at f2.8 - difficult seeing where focus is, or is that because the camera isn't doing it's job?

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2018 at 14:19 UTC as 36th comment | 3 replies
On article DPReview TV: Waterproof camera shootout 2018 (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo_rb: Some here have mentioned cameras not reviewed such as the Leica XU or Sealife but another option for those not satisfied with those offerings might be the Sony DSC-RX0. A little pricey perhaps but does have a 1" sensor and 24mm equivalent lens.

Review of the Sealife here - looks like you can use it with or without the housing (different depths of course) and there are lots of add-on options - from my point of view the basic camera alone would interest me as I don't go scuba diving.
http://www.divephotoguide.com/underwater-photography-special-features/article/review-sealife-dc2000-underwater-camera

Link | Posted on May 21, 2018 at 19:09 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Waterproof camera shootout 2018 (177 comments in total)

Thought I'd see the Sealife camera in this review. 1" sensor, waterproof and comes with waterproof case for extra depth etc. it would be nice to know more about it....Ah well, https://www.uwcamerastore.com/sealife-dc2000-underwater-camera-sl740?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIk5vCx5WV2wIVSbcbCh2JrQVWEAAYASAAEgJoxPD_BwE

Link | Posted on May 20, 2018 at 20:56 UTC as 43rd comment | 8 replies
On article Pentax K-1 II Review: A worthy upgrade? (1543 comments in total)
In reply to:

powderhound: Using the image comparison tool, it does appear that the sample images for the K-1ii have been changed (for the better) since yesterday.

"I wonder how many orders were not placed, cancelled or postponed due to this review."
I wondered that, so started a poll a few days ago - not specifically about this camera (although I did mention it) but about the affect of a 'poor review' here. People's definition of a 'poor review' may vary etc. etc. and the poll is still open so I've no idea how it will look eventually - at the time of writing this it showed a reasonable proportion would not buy if the camera had a 'poor review,' and of course sample size, not the right questions (7 people said none of the options suited them when there were just over 100 votes and that number will rise) and so on... still, I think reviews here could affect buying habits: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61119660

Link | Posted on May 12, 2018 at 19:14 UTC
On article Pentax K-1 II Review: A worthy upgrade? (1543 comments in total)
In reply to:

peterpainter: Something very wrong here. For their flagship camera to get such an awful review it isn't going to do much for Ricoh / Pentax in terms of image (company image, that is;)) - they really need to respond. Despite what DPR might say, such a lukewarm reception for the product here could seriously damage sales - some of the 'faithful' may dismiss this review but many people who are considering buying will just dismiss the camera.

I don't know, Kris, I can only say that when I'm buying gear I check reviews on-line. It's pretty difficult to check all the gear out oneself, so I usually draw up a short-list. Stuff that gets poor reviews doesn't make the list unless it has feature(s) that I want and that the others don't have.
With DPR being linked to from Amazon and their popping up prominently on internet searches when looking for gear I'd say there is a good chance of their reviews are seen by people going through the same process. However I don't know of any research into the subject and I'd be interested to see some! Reviews certainly affect my buying choices more than the manufacturers' advertising, but other people's mileage may vary.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2018 at 13:41 UTC
On article Pentax K-1 II Review: A worthy upgrade? (1543 comments in total)

Something very wrong here. For their flagship camera to get such an awful review it isn't going to do much for Ricoh / Pentax in terms of image (company image, that is;)) - they really need to respond. Despite what DPR might say, such a lukewarm reception for the product here could seriously damage sales - some of the 'faithful' may dismiss this review but many people who are considering buying will just dismiss the camera.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2018 at 12:07 UTC as 177th comment | 2 replies

The swirly ones remind me of van Gogh night paintings, like the idea but on the whole I'm one of the 'didn't like it' crowd - even after I'd turned the sound down. Some of that is due to the hectic city time-lapse, the rest due to the cut-out effect against the sky - but maybe the latter would look better on a larger scale (and I have to admit I groaned inwardly at the juxtaposition of the roundabout with a swirly sky - I mean, subtle it wasn't, was it?).
Thanks for sharing.
(It's easy to criticize and no I couldn't do better etc. - just my opinion and we're all different..... hopefully they will do more)

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2018 at 10:59 UTC as 21st comment
On article Canon EOS M50 Review (1332 comments in total)
In reply to:

thoth22: I wonder if it would score differently if no 4k, as that is where many negatives reside. You can see lots of potential here, nicely played Canon.

Doesn't that raise a question about the usefulness of the scoring system to us punters? Suppose we want to choose between the M5 and the M50? I guess we have to read the reviews and take the scores 'with a pinch of salt' (which, tbh, I do). The reality is that 4K is very important to some people whereas to others it's an irrelevance - tricky stuff.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 19:26 UTC
On article Canon EOS M50 Review (1332 comments in total)
In reply to:

peterpainter: I wish you'd expand a bit on 'other use cases.' Specifically, on another forum someone is using an M5 with adapter / normal EOS lenses for wildlife and so far finding it very successful. Is there any reason why the M50 should be worse for this? (AF looks good and there are loads of EOS compatible long lenses available so I thought that the M50 might do OK)

Thanks - that's interesting. I tend not to use TCs as the ones I've had in the past (cheapies admittedly) have been pretty awful but I know there are some good ones around.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 11:19 UTC
On article Canon EOS M50 Review (1332 comments in total)

I wish you'd expand a bit on 'other use cases.' Specifically, on another forum someone is using an M5 with adapter / normal EOS lenses for wildlife and so far finding it very successful. Is there any reason why the M50 should be worse for this? (AF looks good and there are loads of EOS compatible long lenses available so I thought that the M50 might do OK)

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2018 at 18:57 UTC as 113th comment | 2 replies
Total: 153, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »