physics52

Joined on Nov 19, 2010

Comments

Total: 33, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

I think you got the exposure compensation using ISO backwards in your two examples, as to which way to turn the ISO dial.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2020 at 06:17 UTC as 59th comment

I don't understand how what we are seeing can be assumed to be any kind of objective "Acros." What we are seeing depends on how the negatives were digitized (equipment, settings, etc.). There is no objective standard like printing on a certain type of paper with a certain brand of chemicals at a standard temperature for a standard time.

Thus I have no idea whether the "Acros" film simulation is anything like the "Acros" that was printed many years ago.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2020 at 00:01 UTC as 14th comment

My parents got me a Petri 7S rangefinder when I was in junior high. That started "my photography life." It was my first "non-box" camera. [We also had a Brownie and a Polaroid 100.] The Petri brand was B-grade (cheaper than Minolta, Canon, etc.) but it was a fine camera with a 1/500s leaf shutter. Less than $50 at the PX. It had a fixed 45mm 2.8 lens with a ring of selenium cells around the opening as the exposure meter. There was strong chromatic aberration in first pictures I took on a school field trip to Knott's Berry Farm, of a mining train running thru a fake mountain. I thought the blue fringe along the contrasty edges was cool! Anyway, that camera got me reading Popular Photography, all the reviews and ads, I learned about f-stops, shutter speed, depth of field, etc. I don't recall the term "bokeh" from back then (late 1960s). Now a camera that merely looks like a rangefinder can sell for more than a $1000 (like my X-Pro2, or X100V) but it was easy to own the real thing then.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2020 at 06:35 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

physics52: When will DPreview quit giving these frauds (only my opinion so that I can invoke first amendment if they sue me) free publicity?

Their software remains unusably slow on quad core Macs, the DAM is still a work in progress though it was promised long ago, they keep promising and never delivering, they up the version number just to collect upgrade money, and the purposes they emphasize seem to be to create fake images, like skies that the camera never saw. I cut my losses at $60. Maybe that was version 3 that I was entitled to as an early purchaser.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2020 at 10:27 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (950 comments in total)

I doubt that the X-700 was the first manual focus Minolta SLR. I had an SRT-101 back in about 1970. Perhaps Dan meant to say it was the first auto-exposure manual focus Minolta SLR?

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2020 at 10:01 UTC as 28th comment | 4 replies

I'm pretty sure there was a way to avoid this: Work 6 feet apart (rent more space if necessary); disinfect incoming gear, handling with gloves until then. I'm not a pro but I'd be mad if I were and my Nikon camera broke.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2020 at 01:17 UTC as 27th comment | 3 replies

When will DPreview quit giving these frauds (only my opinion so that I can invoke first amendment if they sue me) free publicity?

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2020 at 19:43 UTC as 10th comment | 4 replies
On article Fujifilm X-T4 review (1477 comments in total)

Suggestion: Leave the headphone dongle attached to the headphones. Then you won't have to worry about forgetting it unless you forget the headphones!

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2020 at 04:27 UTC as 167th comment | 4 replies
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-T4 (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

Horshack: "...stabilizer that's good for up to 6.5 stops of shake reduction with 18 of Fujifilm's current total of 29 lenses. We're told the remaining lenses will all be stabilized to a minimum of five stops. This comes down to the image circle each lens projects. Most XF lenses, particularly the early ones, simply weren't designed to project an oversized image circle for stabilization in the first place."

Would be a nice feature if the camera let you optionally ignore the IQ implications and allow the full IBIS movement capability for all lenses, with the proviso you would get degraded edges/corners on some. There are likely many scenarios where getting a sharp photo is more important than getting sharp edges/corners. Also, to enable 1.25x crop selection in all shooting modes and allow the full IBIS movement for it.

I suspect the 18 favored lenses are the OIS lenses, and the others are not. That, together with the image circle issue, might be the whole explanation. But I'm not sure.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2020 at 19:42 UTC
In reply to:

BrexitDefCom3: no displayport/thunderbolt2 ? and you say it is designed for macs? There's a lot of 6,1 and Mac Pro buyers out there this is NOT designed for. A shame as I'd buy one straightaway!

Apple sells a two-way thunderbolt 3 to thunderbolt 1/2 adapter. Theirs is the only one that is two-way. I think it is about $50.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2020 at 04:06 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T3 vs X-Pro3: Which one's right for me? (236 comments in total)

After reading about the disastrous choices Fujifilm made for the X-Pro3 (single magnification for the optical viewfinder, no infinity focus point showing, screwy rear screen), I bought a near-mint used X-Pro2 for about $900. It is great coming from the X-Pro1. I wish Fujifilm made the X-Pro3 essentially just an updated X-Pro2. Hopefully they will have learned a lesson when the X-Pro4 comes out.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2020 at 08:38 UTC as 20th comment | 2 replies

These fraudsters are still at it and Dpreview is still giving them air time.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2020 at 21:51 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

physics52: Why is Luminar taken seriously? If the features work, it is in part a way to turn your photos into something you did not really create. Their edits are extreme, almost fraudulent.
Each example of slowness or bugs will always be fixed in the next release, which just brings more bugs. It is always slow, PC or Mac.
I loaded the 3.1.4 update and suddenly all of my images were blurry. After an hour of hunting, worrying that it had screwed up my images, and wondering what the white caution sign meant, I accidentally discovered that confirming the location of my Pictures folder on my mac fixed the issue. Who would have thought? There are complaints on the internet of blurry photos. Try refinding your Pictures folder and it might fix it.
These bozos are not to be taken seriously. I fire it up out of morbid curiosity every few months, download the latest update, amaze myself at all the bugs and problems, wonder who really uses it, and quit for another few months. I wish I had saved my $60.

hifimacianer: Like you said elsewhere, you only do jpgs. Try it with raw as a stand-alone and you'll see what the complaints are all about. It would be really pathetic if it couldn't handle jpgs (though nothing would surprise me about them).

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2019 at 20:33 UTC

No mention of the in-lens image stabilization in the video section (unless I missed it). I'd be interested in how well that would work and if it could be used with the electronic IS.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2019 at 22:31 UTC as 70th comment
In reply to:

physics52: Why is Luminar taken seriously? If the features work, it is in part a way to turn your photos into something you did not really create. Their edits are extreme, almost fraudulent.
Each example of slowness or bugs will always be fixed in the next release, which just brings more bugs. It is always slow, PC or Mac.
I loaded the 3.1.4 update and suddenly all of my images were blurry. After an hour of hunting, worrying that it had screwed up my images, and wondering what the white caution sign meant, I accidentally discovered that confirming the location of my Pictures folder on my mac fixed the issue. Who would have thought? There are complaints on the internet of blurry photos. Try refinding your Pictures folder and it might fix it.
These bozos are not to be taken seriously. I fire it up out of morbid curiosity every few months, download the latest update, amaze myself at all the bugs and problems, wonder who really uses it, and quit for another few months. I wish I had saved my $60.

It is amazing to me that a reputable site like Dpreview would cover this garbage as if it is a serious tool.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2019 at 01:30 UTC

Why is Luminar taken seriously? If the features work, it is in part a way to turn your photos into something you did not really create. Their edits are extreme, almost fraudulent.
Each example of slowness or bugs will always be fixed in the next release, which just brings more bugs. It is always slow, PC or Mac.
I loaded the 3.1.4 update and suddenly all of my images were blurry. After an hour of hunting, worrying that it had screwed up my images, and wondering what the white caution sign meant, I accidentally discovered that confirming the location of my Pictures folder on my mac fixed the issue. Who would have thought? There are complaints on the internet of blurry photos. Try refinding your Pictures folder and it might fix it.
These bozos are not to be taken seriously. I fire it up out of morbid curiosity every few months, download the latest update, amaze myself at all the bugs and problems, wonder who really uses it, and quit for another few months. I wish I had saved my $60.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2019 at 01:28 UTC as 33rd comment | 5 replies

My opinion:
It is time to quit being fooled by these bozos. Luminar, if the features work, is in part a way to turn your photos into something you did not really create. Their edits are extreme, almost fraudulent.

Each example of slowness or bugs will always be fixed in the next release. But the next release just brings more bugs. It is always slow, PC or Mac.

I loaded the 3.1.4 update and suddenly all of my images were blurry. After an hour of hunting, worrying it had screwed up my images, and wondering what the white caution sign meant, I accidentally discovered that confirming the location of my Mac Pictures folder fixed the issue. Who would have thought? There are complaints on the internet of blurry photos. Try re-finding your Pictures folder.

These guys are not to be taken seriously. I fire it up out of morbid curiosity every few months, download the latest update, amaze myself at all the bugs and problems, wonder who really uses it, and quit for another few months. $60 wasted

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2019 at 19:55 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Fujifilm X-T30 review (1095 comments in total)

How long is this review going to be "in progress?" It's been two months!

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2019 at 18:31 UTC as 125th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Bill Ferris: I don't understand the court's finding that the RNC's use of the image does not impact the photographer's ability to earn income from the photo. If the court considers the RNC's use transformative, then by definition the RNC has rendered the image unusable by the Democratic candidate for whom it was made. And since the court has seen fit to allow the RNC to continue using the image without consent, the only potentially viable customer has no incentive other than personal integrity - wait, we're talking about the RNC - to pay for their continued use of the photo.

How is this decision not an instance of trampling on an artist's right to control use of their original creative work?

Because the ADDITIONAL elements (musical notation, political text) in the ad created a "transformation" under the law, according to this judge. The use of sufficiently transformed, though copyrighted, works are protected as free expression under the first amendment. The RNC may not use the photo by itself. But its use with the additional elements were found to be protected. Therefore, by the court's reasoning, the artist may still profit from the photograph standing alone.
Politically satirical images have long been protected under this standard so I don't think it is such a "reach" to extend the protection to a political ad. I suspect if there had been an appeal, the decision would have been upheld. The courts are extremely deferential to political speech with regard to the first amendment. I am an attorney.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2019 at 18:10 UTC

I wonder why the white balance is so "off" on the cured meat picture.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2019 at 23:57 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
Total: 33, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »