Peter Galbavy

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

Comments

Total: 69, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
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 83rd 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 (93 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 29th comment
On article Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography (154 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
In reply to:

Peter Galbavy: Still no white balance settings - which are rather important.

I have and I still do. While not my real camera I do occasionally use my phone and tablet for random shots. Editing kills what little JPEG quality is there already.

AWB is defeated by indoor and backlit scenes quite easily.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 14:59 UTC

Still no white balance settings - which are rather important.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 11:55 UTC as 3rd comment | 2 replies
On article Stream your photos... via backpack? (34 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter Galbavy: Erm, much as I dislike the Eye-Fi card for it's poor support and lack of stated confidentiality (for their mandatory upload-to-cloud-to-auto-share), once it's working it's good. I shoot, WiFi Direct to my tablet, select images and upload. If I wanted to I could also edit but I don't generally.

This is nothing more than a bit of ego-massaging PR. No innovation here. Move along.

Published where? This puff piece is promoting some sort of gosh-wow "backpack", perhaps testing the waters to see if they have a spin off opportunity, when all it is is a change in process. There is nothing here but a workflow, like you say.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2014 at 10:09 UTC
On article Stream your photos... via backpack? (34 comments in total)

Erm, much as I dislike the Eye-Fi card for it's poor support and lack of stated confidentiality (for their mandatory upload-to-cloud-to-auto-share), once it's working it's good. I shoot, WiFi Direct to my tablet, select images and upload. If I wanted to I could also edit but I don't generally.

This is nothing more than a bit of ego-massaging PR. No innovation here. Move along.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2014 at 14:04 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
On article Google working on RAW imaging for Android (84 comments in total)

Android is making it into "real" cameras now so this is to be expected. Look at the Samsung etc.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 21:07 UTC as 34th comment

Has anyone in the EU - and not the US - done a proper analysis of the likelyhood of any of these changes being allowed? Data protection laws actually exist in the EU and while Facebook may claim to be a US business and so only subject to US laws (this was very recently, probably in conjunction with this change) I don't believe the lawyers will see it that way.

Don't forget DPReview is owned by one of the other big, evil, data sucking giants - Amazon.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 08:56 UTC as 20th comment
Total: 69, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »