Peter Galbavy

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Joined on Jun 1, 2001

Comments

Total: 77, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

Very big "meh?"

I have had my Panasonic DMC-CM1 for almost a year, it's a two year old model and the only negative versus this is the version of Android. It's got a better sensor, it's cheaper, it's proven tech. I was hoping for so much more.

Why can't any of this hoofwomble companies at least add a real mini flash? AFAICR only one old Samsung phone/camera has a xenon flash. These LEDs are awful.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 13:18 UTC as 13th comment | 4 replies
On article DJI goes portable with the Mavic Pro (161 comments in total)

Have folks looked at the side-by-side size comparison of the Karma vs the Mavic? Ignoring the features, the Mavic wins on portability by a factor of 2 in length and width at least. It can sit in your camera bag next to your DSLR ...

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 14:43 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
On article DJI goes portable with the Mavic Pro (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: Digital Rev has a great video about the image quality. It looks good but not as good as the Pantom 4 .. It has a smaller sensor. One great thing though is that the blades do not show up on the video footage in sport mode. Really hope they kill off the Phantom design It looks to much like a toy..

Pre-prod review units with pre-prod firmware? We don't know yet. The optics are smaller - much smaller if you look at the gimbal versus the P4 - but I'm probably still going to get one simply for the travel convenience. And keep my P4.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 14:40 UTC

I bought a Phantom 4 a few weeks ago having had a Parrot AR...2 for a few years. I am not disappointed with the P4 nor am I feeling anything but "meh" toward the Karma based on the launch materials. It's 2x the price point it should be at given the proposed features and performance.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 12:31 UTC as 6th comment | 4 replies

They sound perfect. I have been flying a Phantom 4 for a couple of weeks now and I am getting more and more impressed with the device and the video and photo possibilities. I have been looking at some kind of FPV headset solution and they all seem quick kludgly, so this comes as a nice option.

I am currently flying using a borrowed iPad Air 2 as my Nexus 7 (2013) doesn't quite cut it and have been looking at the nVidia K1 when it starts shipping again with some sort of FPV headset. Reading between the lines of how these will work I may not need the tablet either, so while there may be a premium and an big unknown in terms of functionality, given the declared partnership it may just work.

UK site says £629 and October 2016 with a £100 deposit. Which I've paid.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 10:24 UTC as 2nd comment

How a company shoots itself in the foot, lesson 2.

If they wanted to go out of business on bad faith they should just have declared bankruptcy rather than drag themselves and their customer base through this kind of nail-pulling torture.

I have an X2 Pro from a few years ago and I used to use it a lot but as shot sizes increased I had to return to normal flash and I was hoping for newer, updated, larger cards. Whatever they do in the future now though, they have lost my business and any good will that I may have had toward them.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 08:52 UTC as 11th comment

If there was a photographic record over time of public areas, roads, buildings (with and without permits and the safety requirements that go with them) and shared spaces (wildlife parks, nature reserves etc.) then it might be much easier to spot endemic corruption, especially as it develops over time.

So of course a number of states and their elites don't want this.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 15:36 UTC as 23rd comment

WTF? I have the CM1 (Amazon UK were doing a few daily deals for £399) and I like it, but without it being a phone too, why? Save some licensing costs? Not going to make it sell better.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2016 at 10:47 UTC as 33rd comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-CM1 camera review (260 comments in total)

Bought this last week as Amazon UK had it for £399 on the daily deal. Was interested last year but the high price put me off. So far, so good-ish.

The phone part, to get that out of the way, is a plain old Android 5.0.2 phone with no bloatware. I like it and it replaces my 3-year old Note 2.

The camera part is impressive for it's integration and there is a lot of control. The images get better the more work you put into understanding the settings. My main complaint is that not all settings can be saved, specifically sharpness and noise reduction always reset to zero when turning on to shoot or when changing modes. Both should be set to the real zero, which is -5. Many settings are not available when shooting RAW, which is fair, but as there is no official RAW editor - they recommend Silkypics (?) it's not all that.

I miss Qi wireless charging as the MicroUSB is behind a flap and annoying to plug in everytime.

There are no, zero, accessories available. Sadly.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 11:09 UTC as 5th comment

* Don't forget, to these people *you* are not the customer. They mean the retailers. You and I are "end users". Our opinions are only slightly more important than something they step in on the street by accident.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 15:16 UTC as 84th comment | 2 replies

Canon, you've got it wrong again.

I have had a CP510 for years and it's a great little printer. When the media cost was low and online 6x4 prints costs about the same it was a nice idea. Since then the price of online prints (or booths in some shops) had dramatically dropped and the media for Selphys have skyrocketed it's become less of a value proposition *unless* you are isolated in a field somewhere. Then add the extremely poor Canon support for updating drivers and you have an even poorer proposition.

Now the CP1000 without WiFi for more than the CP910 which does it with only CF card support as an addition? I'm confused by who they are taregtting...

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 12:22 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Mike FL: What's the average cost for a 4"x6" print?

Not for my CP510 - the ink and paper were always perfectly matched up (except for a couple of instances where I interrupted things, my bad)

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 12:18 UTC
On article Samsung Galaxy Camera 2 Review (89 comments in total)

You guys are seriously behind the curve here. The Galaxy K Zoom has been out some time, as a successor to the S4 Zoom, and gets no mention in the comparisons. No mention of then the reviewed camera was released etc.

Poor poor showing.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 13:18 UTC as 12th comment
On article BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs (204 comments in total)

Patent greed. Who knows if BPG will be different?Doubt it, since it contains a reference to a "H" codec, all of which are a recipe for patent hell.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 09:30 UTC as 35th comment
On article High-end full frame roundup (2014) (610 comments in total)
In reply to:

GreenMountainGirl: What are "cross-type AF points"?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/canon-eos-dslr-autofocus-explained.aspx ?

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 21:49 UTC
On article Travel tripods: 5 carbon fiber kits reviewed (94 comments in total)

I have a couple of older Manfrotto carbon tripods (443, 444 - the first belongs to a friend but I am storing it) and the similar vintage monopod. The carbon components are great and overall very light but the whole thing is still let down by the need to have a metal head that outweighes the rest of the ensemble.

I have tried a variety of ball heads and also a 3 axis video head type thing and in all cases they are the (weight) problem.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2014 at 14:34 UTC as 30th comment
On article Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

Adrian Harris: SAFETY (or lack of it) is the one word that springs to mind. I would like drones only to be legal if they have propeller guards fitted.

Spinning props make a nasty mess of the face. I can not believe that companies sell drones without them. I hope the manufacturers of 'guardless' ones do get sued.

PS. I am all for drones, they are a great idea, but choose safety, else all sorts of stupid laws will be forced on us (as if we haven't got enough restrictive laws as it is.).

I can only speak of my experience of the Parrot, which I've owned for about a year but not flown as much as I want, and it has very soft plastic rotors that are mostly harmless *and* the motors cut out when the drone detects any impact to any rotor.

I have hit my own skin without any visible impact apart from a slight "slap". I would probably not want to be hit in a soft spot like an eye, but I am not willing to experiment anyway.

Overall, it's safe - even if I have serious doubts over the company's ability to release software the hardware is safe to use.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 16:07 UTC
Total: 77, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »