Lives in United Kingdom Cardiff, United Kingdom
Joined on May 7, 2010


Total: 306, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Meet the Canon PowerShot G1 X III (282 comments in total)

If I wanted a dinky little camera with proper dials on it... oh, and a large choice of interchangeable lenses, 4K video, very good dynamic range, likely firmware updates, and all for much less $ than this Canon will ever be... I'll take the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III please! Far, far, more versatile and still tiny.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 11:46 UTC as 41st comment | 1 reply

What a silly price to pay for the limitation of a fixed lens camera. Even when it gets down to $1149, who will buy it? What happens when the dealer shows the (potential ) Canon customer an Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III? And whether anybody really needs it or not, the omission of 4K yet again makes Canon look behind the times / mean / technologically incompetent; Olympus included it long ago, so why not Canon?

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 11:35 UTC as 133rd comment | 3 replies

My girlfriend once lived at a remote farmhouse in Wales (UK), far from any city and with no noticeable light pollution. After a long journey to get there, I stepped out of the car and suddenly felt very small. I'd never seen so many stars in my life. I thought there was some high cloud at first, until I realised it was a perfectly clear night and the long stain in the sky was the Milky Way. Never seen it since {;-(

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 10:36 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies

"<I>slower-than-expected development of the VR market</I>" Yep. Just like the "3D TV revolution" that was pushed a few years ago: if it's a crap experience people don't want it. Wearing 3D shutter glasses in your own living room was silly enough, but wearing a nauseating wired VR headset and standing/sitting rooted to the spot is far from reality. VR is useful for specialised commercial/military applications, such as learning to fix a $20m aircraft or a wind turbine when you don't have a real one to play with. For the rest of us, Augmented Reality is a far more useful concept.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 10:00 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Reactive: What's really interesting is how the camera is now becoming the major feature that Apple/Samsung/Galaxy use to attempt to differentiate their obscenely priced 'flagship' models. And yet, I expect 99% of the gear-lust idiots crazy enough to spend this much on a phone will never, ever, pixel-peep the shots on a PC screen, attempt to read a DxO mark review, or even understand what's lacking in their pictures. They'll still take the same duff selfies, mainly just so everybody can see how much they spent on their stupid phone.

Oh there are, plenty! I have witnessed both my children's friends and (sadly) their mothers too, all crowding around the person who is first to get the latest iPhone. As they stroke and coo over it, nobody asks what it can do for them that a phone at half the price couldn't, or whatever happened to their 'old' ultra-expensive phone that they bought only a year ago. These stupid parents and children have no idea why they're holding such an expensive device - they just had to have it to 'beat' everyone else.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2017 at 07:35 UTC
In reply to:

vadims: There was (and maybe still is, haven't visited it in years) a popular lens review site that used to rate lenses on several categories, and then provide overall scores. All those categories, except for the last, were usual ones like resolution, flare resistance, etc... The last one though was "Magic and sparkle". And it would often outweigh everything else.

DxO adds more and more "Magic and sparkle" to their "measurements", and as a result their scores make less and less sense.

IMO as a reliable source of ratings DxO is in deep trouble. They are desperately trying to stay relevant, but modern photographic technologies are just too complex to "measure". They, in a way, can no longer be measured, even though DxO keep insisting they're still doing that.

Their story start to remind me the one of SoftRAM: a product that could compress (and thus "enlarge") RAM transparently for 16-bit apps, but with the advent of 32-bit flat address space of Win32 they got into deep sh!t.


I know what you mean. The UK's Digital Camera magazine once did a test including the Canon 50mm f1.4 and the f1.8. IIRC, the cheaper f1.8 scored as well as, or better than, the older f1.4 on all of their subjective tests, but they still concluded that the f1.4 was better, despite it being three times the price of the f1.8. Weird.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2017 at 06:58 UTC

What's really interesting is how the camera is now becoming the major feature that Apple/Samsung/Galaxy use to attempt to differentiate their obscenely priced 'flagship' models. And yet, I expect 99% of the gear-lust idiots crazy enough to spend this much on a phone will never, ever, pixel-peep the shots on a PC screen, attempt to read a DxO mark review, or even understand what's lacking in their pictures. They'll still take the same duff selfies, mainly just so everybody can see how much they spent on their stupid phone.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 11:59 UTC as 14th comment | 6 replies

I like these articles. They help to slap down all the howling monkeys here who fall off their stools with laughter if you say your camera is more than 1 year / 1 model old. Nowadays ALL digital SLRs and CSCs are capable, in the right hands, of creating an award-winning A2-sized gallery-quality print.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 18:31 UTC as 38th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

junk1: Full fame caught the sun, washing it out (less contrast) ...just random bad luck though I think. I think it's obvious that nobody would see a difference in good light, and with both being 24MP. Would need FF to have more pixels, and view at full size or large poster up close.

PS: does she have a single sister? :-)

Why bother - the one in the video got dealt all the aces.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 18:19 UTC
In reply to:

Franz Weber: I wish that Apple would create a real zoom camera with a 1inch or a micro 43rd sensor and a fast lense. This camera should have instant Wi-Fi, iOS, iCloud Photosteam, and the clever True Tone flash technology with a Xenon white light and a LED brown light. And wireless charging.

At least they will charge us wirelessly with the iTunes store.

It's unlikely Apple would make a standalone camera, as they are working so hard to pretend that the iPhone is all the camera you ever need. If they did make one, they'd probably collaborate with Leica, Hasselblad, or some other similar brand that operates in the silly-priced end of the market, much like Apple.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 12:06 UTC
On article The Nikon D850 could be the only DSLR you’ll ever need (1100 comments in total)
In reply to:

adengappasami: Just a new bench mark only to be surpassed in 12 to 18 months time. One has to simply time their next upgrade. Skipping one or two is totally fine....unless its earth shattering.

True. I detest the silly incremental upgrades on each iteration of a camera, so will only upgrade my SLR when I feel it's genuinely holding me back, not because I have 'potential lust'* for a new model. Very soon there'll be people here jumping up and down and complaining that the latest model doesn't shoot 8K video at 120 fps... like they really need that.

* The foolish ability to deceive yourself that you need, and have the ability, to really benefit from the latest model's features.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2017 at 12:04 UTC

This would be a much more useful test if the Canon footage had first been colour corrected to give it a closer overall cold/green/blue bias of the Arri*, since it is always the colour balance that jumps out and dominates each comparison. With the colour aligned closer, we'd then be able to do a proper 'spot the difference', trying to detect noise and dynamic range differences, etc.

*An 80D user might do exactly this to try to get 'that Arri look'.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 12:12 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

toni2: So, CC is really good for Adobe to make money.
And CC is really bad for innovation because with CC, Adobe doesn't compete with themselves.

I explain it: Before CC they need to improve every release fo force you to buy that release; now, they don't need to improve it because you are renting, so you are always paying every month to use it. Obviously they make some cosmetics changes but nothing really important.
When will an Adobe CC product get better? When the rivals get better, Adobe will need to improve that product, not before.
So, it was a lie when they said that CC will bring more innovation; it only gives them more money.

You are spot on with that analysis. Before CC, Adobe was already very slow making any worthwhile improvements. Now they sit back with their feet on the desk, laughing as they continue to flog ancient code for huge profits.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 11:57 UTC
On article Review: Affinity Photo 1.5.2 for desktop (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shiranai: I guess it depends on personal taste but if it just would look like a professional software and not like a children's book with these colorful icons, I would actually consider it as an alternative.

There are countless people infuriated by Adobe's crazy decision to make all their icons 50 shades of grey! Some icons are so similar (identical in Acrobat's case) that it is impossible to make a quick tool selection. The whole point of an icon is that its distinctive appeance breeds instant recognition. Adobe, in their idiocy, think it's fine to spend three seconds each time identifying the stupid grey icon you want. The price of Affinity proves once again Adobe's obscene greed charging what they do for what is nearly all ancient code.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 17:08 UTC

I would hope Zenit returns just like they used to be - bargain basement no-frills products that just about do the job, but undercutting everyone else. A cast iron Zenit FF body weighing 2kg would be fun. They could call it the Zenit FFS ;-) But really, I think it's all a joke. Are Leica really prepared to take the pi$$ out of their brand even more?

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 20:39 UTC as 70th comment
On article Yashica is teasing a comeback to the camera market (299 comments in total)

I must congratulate Yashica for selling me a load of junk when I was 13 years old. It was called the Yashica Partner, and was the most shoddily built piece of rubbish you can ever imagine. Almost from day one it ruined every single shot with some degree of light leakage, then the winder mechanism started slipping so I'd get massive yellow/red patches over half/double exposures. I was so disappointed I saved up and bought an Olympus OM10 SLR, which got me really interested in photography. Thanks Yashica.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 11:59 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Gollan: A whole new generation of photographers will learn to do the mental calculus: "is this image worth the cost?" In the mid-1970's, the price of film was skyrocketing and my teenage self knew exactly how much each finished photo would cost.

Yep, this new product is clearly designed to survive on the Gillette razor / printer cartridge rip-off principle. Buy the product cheaply, then spend a small fortune feeding it.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 12:05 UTC

This article is confusing. Backup and Sync isn't even listed at ?

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2017 at 11:40 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply

This tool is virtually useless unless it provides adjustment handles on the Bezier points. As usual, Adobe demonstrates a very particular case that works (just like they did with Content Aware stuff) but don't bother polishing the tool before release. The lazy Adobe Cash Cow just keeps getting fatter.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 11:44 UTC as 10th comment

Gun + Cop = Dumb + Dumber

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 12:00 UTC as 75th comment
Total: 306, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »