Lives in United States AK, United States
Joined on Oct 12, 2002


Total: 68, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Lightgreen: Cha-Ching!

Sounds profitable for Sandisk's respective business units... And more expensive for us end-consumers as Lexar was Sandisks only "serious" competition in the high end flash removal media category; it's like Canon or Nikon leaving the DSLR world, sure others exist still, but they're the heavy hitters; without one to check the other, expect price increases shortly.

I'd suggest it'd be wise to stock up on anything you've been eyeing. I won't as my needs are presently met and technology is bound to change before I need another card; I do expect to pay double next round for it should Lexar have otherwise existed though...

Or was that Seagate that was bought out by Western Digital ?

Or both??

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 20:07 UTC
On article LG G6 camera review (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zoom Zoom Zoom: Phone cameras keep improving. Huge steps above what they were a few years ago. But in the end, its all the same thing and they all look the same.. low-resolution, low DR, limited DOF (or worse, fake), noise everywhere and a permanent oil-painting look from too much NR applied. As long as the sensors are as small as they are, this will never change. iPhone, Samsung, LG, Sony and everyone else in between.. with small variations and different processing algorithms, all phones yield about the same results. All it takes is a bigger sensor for real improvement in image quality.. instantly. Is that simple.

@zoom zoom zoom
NOT that simple. The bigger the sensor, the bigger/thicker the phone will be.
Avoid the NR smearing and noise issues...shoot RAW

DXO claims there is a difference in cellphone camera's. They even post there results, which are not the same, as you claim.

I see a difference in my G2 and G4 images, and thats shooting jpeg.

Better O.I.S. helps too.

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2017 at 20:11 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Consumer Long Zoom Compacts (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

MOHAMMED RESEN: I think the Canon SX60 best one , zoom 65X * 4 = 260X .
Also supporting (RAW format) and flash area on viewfinder , good image ... Great video full Hd ...

Shame that the previous SX50 has better image quality than the newer SX60.
How did Canon mess this up ?

P610/ B700 would give better I.Q. IMHO

Link | Posted on May 29, 2017 at 13:38 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix FZ80/FZ82 real world samples gallery (78 comments in total)

Some adjustments are needed before judging the I.Q.

Lower sharpness and NR...turn off I.res and I.zoom

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 16:20 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic Lumix FZ80/FZ82 real world samples gallery (78 comments in total)

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 16:19 UTC as 8th comment
On article Panasonic Lumix FZ80/FZ82 real world samples gallery (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: Smudging of details even at ISO 80. Right?

Is it worth ≈$400?

There's detail there.
Stay away from iS mode...turn off I.rez and I.zoom

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 16:15 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix FZ80/FZ82 real world samples gallery (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark9473: Looks like an excellent camera if you never pixel-peep. I find that very hard to do, however...
I'd be interested to see how it does at flower close-ups.

Pretty does decent Tele macro...

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 16:12 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix FZ80/FZ82 real world samples gallery (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henry McA: The images of my old Panasonic FZ5 looked way better at base iso. Less artefacts, sharper, better colour. This camera is useless.

Far from useless.....but one would have to actually try one...and change the default settings to see the real I.Q. obtainable, IMHO

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 16:05 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix FZ80/FZ82 real world samples gallery (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

paul13walnut5: I was considering one of these to augment my video kit (Panny M43 based) as the headline 1600mm equivalent FL (in UHD mode) 3200mm when cropped to HD, would have been epic for some situations...

But the IQ leaves me very cold. I wasn't expecting miracles, but there is fringing everywhere, and disruptive noise even at iso80.

Have a look with the loupe guys...

I think I'll be looking towards an fz1000 instead... couldn't live with that IQ even at a bargain price.

I have the FZ1000...but have good bird shots from far away, with this FZ80. Amazing O.I.S.

Check them out at the Panasonic forum


Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 14:40 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix FZ80/FZ82 real world samples gallery (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henry McA: The images of my old Panasonic FZ5 looked way better at base iso. Less artefacts, sharper, better colour. This camera is useless.

Not,really. First one needs to avoid iA, and also any I.resolution....I.zoom.
Then one needs to choose a Photo Style, and lower in camera sharpening and NR.

Then one will get decent photos from it.
Amazing O.I.S. can handheld at 1200mm.....and shutter speeds asow as 1/60...even have one shot of a bird...with feather detail at 1200mm...1/15 shutter !!

Look at some,of my shots in the Panasonic forum...tell me what you think

Link | Posted on May 2, 2017 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

pjl321: It's still a phone sized sensor so the image quality will only be that of a phone (or lower as a phone uses a prime lens). Yes, you do get 30x zoom which has benefits but it's at the cost of low light and wide angled bokeh. A decent phone today offers F1.7, this camera at it's widest is F3.3 and going all the way to F6.4 at the telephoto end. Anyone who cares about IQ would only be able to use this under the brightest of conditions as the ISO won't be great from such a small sensor.

I'm not trying to knock this camera, i'm sure Panasonic has made a class-leading product here but i am just not sure we need this class anymore. For a camera to sell it needs to set itself apart from a phone. A 1 inch sensor is a minimum now, even if that is at the cost of zoom range. A customer has to *choose* to buy this camera and then *choose* to carry it with them over their phone which they will always buy and always have with them. You have to give customers a real reason to spend their money.

Ever heard of a optical zoom lens....with reach like 720mm?
Cellphones can do this now ?

Boy, my phone is ancient:)

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 14:44 UTC
On photo Wedge Wave-4280 in the An A to Z of Subjects. W challenge (13 comments in total)

Great Photo

Eye candy for sure

Perfect timing

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 23:11 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Wally Brooks: Hmmm. I'm, an Ex View Camera shooter who owns Sigma Merrill’s and this makes me re think my workflow... It’s still show up at dawn, shoot at ISO 100, use a big heavy tripod, use a cable release, and pray for no wind...... now without the clunky workflow. Well Done Sigma. Many bloggers have postulated about DNG in Camera and only Sigma has the courage to do this for cameras most of us can afford.

Ricoh offers DNG RAW for many years now

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2017 at 19:14 UTC

I loved mine. Took it to Arches National,Park, Yellowstone, Mr. Rushmore.....excellent external,controls. I bet film users ( rangefinder) loved this model.

Noise and yellow patches kept it at ISO400 or lower.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 12:57 UTC as 80th comment
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: When Olympus first came out with 4/3 I don't think they ever meant for it to be a physically smaller system so the telecentric lens design which means bigger lenses wasn't an issue they were seeking to address.

They had no legacy AF system of lenses to support (unlike Nikon and Canon) so they went back to first principles and were free to do what they liked. They decided the 4/3 sized sensor was sufficient and built a system around that not to be small but to simply be a new system with lenses built for the sensor.

As far as Olympus was concerned there was no automatic need to design for a full frame or aps-c sized sensor. Digital for them was starting from scratch. For Olympus, 4/3 was full frame! The 35mm legacy aspect ratio was just that to them.

The "problem" down the line was Panasonic. It is they if I recall correctly that decided to turn 4/3 into a much more compact system by coming up with m4/3. Whoever invented m4/3, the end of 4/3 was then inevitable when they did.

Olympus claimed and advertised that the 4/3 system would allow for smaller lenses and cameras. It was the heart of it's design...otherwise just use an APS-C sized sensor.

Panasonic made that a reality , by removing the age old mirror, and using EVF...and live view. Go Panasonic!

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 16:56 UTC

Crap...i just renewed my subscription :(

They will be well as the next 11 issues I'll never get.
That's assuming they send me my first ( and last) issue.


Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 01:50 UTC as 167th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Jarpen: Why people, not monkeys, use mirrors? To know how they look. Taking self portraits takes it one step forward- it creates a copy of the present look and the moment. In 10-20 years you can look back and see how you have changed. Why not ask someone to take a photo of you? Because more and more people are socially withdrawn (in real life) and they prefer to take selfie rather than ask anybody for help. See the perspective here.

well said marcio_napoli !

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2017 at 22:12 UTC
In reply to:

Hubertus Bigend: Too bad that until now there's still no 'travel zoom' camera yet I'd offer my money for. The only camera I ever saw that came close to one is the Olympus C-70Z aka C-7000Z. Give me something similar, with a half-decent EVF instead of the (at least) optical finder, a half-decent sensor (1/1.7" or larger), and a stabilized lens reaching up to around 200mm with really decent image quality, and I'm sold. As of now, there is no such beast (there's a Panasonic plus a Leica variant that comes close, but as far as I could see lens IQ isn't enough).

Smaller sensors have decent detail...just need to bring out the best in them:

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 23:22 UTC
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: Interesting. I didn't know about folded optics. Is there the same solution in my TZ-5? And is this used in today's travel zooms?

No...only the TZ1 had this feature.

I think Minolta made a camera with folded optics.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: I didn't understand the advantage of this over an FZ20 and I still don't understand the appeal of this segment today. Maybe I've just never been a big fan of slow telephoto lenses (f4.2 1/2.5" was dark even then). The Canon S1 IS I owned at the time this came out was anchient but the lens was very similar and the size wasn't that different. 40mm thick is less than 66mm thick... but neither one is going into my pocket. I got a little elph a bit later on because it had 1/2.33" 28mm f2.8 and even that was too big for a pocket. Cell phones are THIN and still people complain about those in their pocket. I don't see the size difference as that significant.

Huh. Big difference in size and portability.
These TZ series can fit in shirt pocket ( a bit heavy though.

Easy to carry with you all the time. FZ20 and all the FZ's (even FZ3, one of the smallest FZ's) could never fit in pants pocket, forget shirt pocket .. most always would need a camera bag, and would not be found always with you.

At least not me. That's why I use a ZS/TZ along with the larger FZ's (currently FZ1000) for times when I purpose to go out and shoot.

TZ/ZS is small and light enough to have with you....wherever you go...great for those unexpected moments ...I could wish I had the FZ1000 with me...or just reach for the ZS)

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 23:10 UTC
Total: 68, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »