Lives in United States Arlington, TX, United States
Works as a retired Technical Writer
Has a website at www.w5jck.com
Joined on Dec 10, 2011


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

Oh goodie, another dumb bleeping Kickstarter project slash stupid non-photographers gadget. Buy a real camera from a company that knows how to secure financing. Kickstarter is just a ripoff web fiasco that allows undesirables to take money from morons to pay the salaries of lazy jerks who have no intention of ever bringing a final product to market, much less support that product. Vaporware would be the better term to use.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 14:39 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies

Or you could buy a really good chipped adapter for less the $100 USD and buy ND filters for lens(es). If you already have a need for ND, then you probably already own the ND filters. This adapter is a very expensive one-trick pony.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2016 at 16:10 UTC as 6th comment

Yuk. Were the judges mostly blind? The starling photo was at the bottom of the list for all the photos shown. It is not a good photo at all. I'm not sure how it even made the final cut, or even the first cut!

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 16:51 UTC as 40th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Ben O Connor: We need no cooler in Finland! There is the thing called "winter" here !

We don't need it in Texas either, even in summer. Heat really isn't that much of an issue.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2016 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

Ross the Fidller: I can see 'die hard' traditionalists being unhappy, because they won't be able to use the OVF. :D

Astrophotographers don't use the OVF. We use the LCD in Liveview and/or we hook up to a computer or external monitor. That being said, I really don't see the need for a huge fan attached to the back of the camera for cooling. Even in Texas during the summer I rarely have issues from overheating.

If you are wondering why in AP the OVF/EVF is not used, then imagine a camera on a tripod pointing up at 60° above the horizon. Now imagine your neck and body aches from trying to contort yourself into a position where you can use the OVF/EVF! :)

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2016 at 17:27 UTC
On article Canon EOS M10 real-world samples (61 comments in total)

"The Canon EOS M10 is the most beginner-friendly camera of that manufacturer's mirrorless family, doing away with many physical controls and embracing touchscreen functionality."

They made it easy ONLY for consumers who shoot in full auto mode. If you want to take FULL advantage of a camera like this, then you need to shoot in full manual mode. Good luck with that. The lack of external controls means that by the time you fish through the Canon maze of menus to properly set up the shot, the thing you wanted to capture is long gone. The old G1 X was a great camera for consumers and prosumers, the M10 not so much. Canon is getting their backsides beaten badly by Sony and other manufacturers, and they deserve the beatings.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 14:52 UTC as 2nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

jake werner: To be honest, I did think that most of these were a little unexceptional. I think it says a lot about how photography is evolving.

I totally agree. A few were good, but most were unexceptional. One, the billiards table was terrible with 40% of the photo completely blacked out. Many looked like the photos you would expect any vacationer with a fully automatic camera to occasionally capture by happy accident. It kind of reminds me of millennial kids competing in sports; they give them all a trophy just for showing up. Total meh....the new norm for DPR.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2016 at 14:06 UTC

I wish DPReview would stop showing Kickstarter projects. Most are just ripoffs designed to make a lot of money with no work for the project team, who will then simply disappear from the scene. If a startup company has enough savvy to write a good business plan and to build a good prototype, then they can get financing from a bank. But Kickstarter frauds don't won't to deal with banks because then they would have to be legitimate and actually build their bogus product.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 14:06 UTC as 8th comment

Not sure what universe you people live in. A sharp lens with good IQ does NOT capture photos that look like a watercolor painting!

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 18:27 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies

To be honest, beyond ISO 25600 in RAW it is NOT going to be very useful. You might salvage a RAW image at ISO 51200 with a lot of post processing, but at a high cost to IQ. JPEG is JPEG, meaning it is not really worth shooting in for pros or enthusiasts with an ounce of talent. So why even bother to add the totally BS ISO 3276800 setting in the menu, or for that matter, anything beyond ISO 51200. Just because you add it to the menu does NOT mean it is usable at all.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 16:49 UTC as 86th comment | 1 reply

I've been using a $79 Signstek EF-NEX Lens Mount Adapter for the past 18 months on my a6000 and it works well with IS, AF, and aperture control. It is really kind of a waste to pay $400 or more for a hyped up adapter that is not any better. I've also used it with my a7 and the Canon 400mm without any vignetting.


Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2016 at 16:09 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

W5JCK: To be clear, there is NO upgrade price to go from 6.x to 6.4. That is an incremental upgrade and is free. Upgrade prices are only for 5.x and earlier to 6.x.

For those having issues with installing try opening 6.3 and using the Help --> Upgrade menu item. It has always worked flawlessly for me on my Mac. The Adobe website is as bloated and convoluted as their software, good luck finding anything there.

Seriously? Judging from all the earlier posts about having to pay for 6.4 I would say many had no clue, as usual.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2016 at 17:33 UTC

To be clear, there is NO upgrade price to go from 6.x to 6.4. That is an incremental upgrade and is free. Upgrade prices are only for 5.x and earlier to 6.x.

For those having issues with installing try opening 6.3 and using the Help --> Upgrade menu item. It has always worked flawlessly for me on my Mac. The Adobe website is as bloated and convoluted as their software, good luck finding anything there.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 15:22 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Schweikert: Well LR 6.4 standalone crashes at start. Tried multiple updates and now full reinstall with update. Just craps out.

iMac running 10.8.5

Back to 6.3 to get work done.

I installed 6.4 on my MacBook Pro via the Update feature in LR 6.3 menus. It works fine with El Capitan.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 02:27 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: Prince of the Night (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

BadScience: if one is going to post an image with a tutorial, then the image has to be

A) good in the first place
B) processed with technical excellence

A) the scene; well its a stunning location - so difficult to mess it up really. But when shooting stars there are generally two ways to do it: with a fast lens and high ISO to get a shutter speed so that the stars appear as points; or with a low ISO to get star trails. Here the shutter is too long and the stars are ellipitical due to motion blur. For no reason.

B) the processing is abysmal. Far to brown and murky when it needs to be crisp and contrasty (the pool looks like a bog). Why is there a horrible brown smudge around the edge of the mountains?

Why are the stars not visible reflected in the pool? They would surely be orders of magnitude brighter than the muddy grey rocks which reflect perfectly?

What exactly was going on in the processing to mess this up?

Stars will noticeably trail if the exposure is too long. The old rule of thumb for 35mm film cameras was the 600 Rule. That is, 600 divided by focal length of lens. That rule doesn't work that well with digital, even full frame digital. Better is the 400 Rule for FF and the 267 Rule for APS-C cameras. But even that sometimes leaves star trails. If the OP used a FF camera with 16mm lens, then 30 sec exposure was too long. If he used an APS-C camera, then 30 sec exposure was way too long. But the real sad part is he used a terrible night sky lens that ruined the stars with horrible coma. And the next bad part is he shot at ISO 6400 which is too noisy. He should have used a faster and better IQ lens with better techniques to get decent stars. You will see much better star fields from the average poster in the DPReview Astrophotography forum.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2015 at 22:13 UTC
In reply to:

D200_4me: Despite all the crying and whining online, somehow I managed to figure out how to use the 6.2 interface and it was still a one-click "just import my dang photos" process. It worked well for me then and continues to work well for me now. No big news here. I never ran into any bugs (maybe I don't use the functions others were using?) and on my Windows 8 (now Windows 10) system, it keeps on churning out the files. Shooting raw, convert to DNG, export to jpg on PC as well as various online services. No issues.

My, so how does it feel to crawl up Adobe's backside? You must be pretty far up in there by now.

I too figured out the 6.2 method, but it sucked and took a while to drill down to the last directory. I really like the old import method much better. I installed this update and it is a great improvement, even though it takes us back in time!

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2015 at 20:39 UTC

They are kidding, right? These are slow lenses. Why not just buy Rokinon lenses that f/1.4 or f/2.8. Much better deal, much better lenses.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2015 at 01:28 UTC as 46th comment | 8 replies
On article Holga Digital camera project launched on Kickstarter (149 comments in total)

A fool with an urge to throw away money at Kickstarter is born every second. Might as well buy lottery tickets. Better chance of getting some of your investment back.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 21:56 UTC as 53rd comment
In reply to:

W5JCK: I don't understand the concept of making a $1300 bridge camera that is okay for taking Facebook and Instagram images but not images good enough to print. An a6000 with kit 210mm telephoto will do a much better job and cost less, and you will have printable images that are in focus. None, absolutely none, of these sample photos are good. That might be more photographer error than anything, but these tiny 1" sensors are never going to produce any real quality.

Digimat, you need to study photography physics. An f/2.8 lens on a 1" sensor is the equivalent of f/5.0 on an APS-C camera. So you are not losing two stops with a a6000 + 210mm kit zoom. You are gaining better sensor, better focus, better speed, and pretty much better everything including IQ, and all for less money and in a smaller package. The RX10 Mk I and II are both colossal wastes of money for grossly overpriced bridge cameras. I understand the allure of the pocket-able RX100 series, but not this big, lackluster monster.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 18:18 UTC
Total: 153, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »