AngelicBeaver

Lives in United States San Antonio, United States
Works as a Steel Detailer
Has a website at www.ndowell.com
Joined on Nov 3, 2004

Comments

Total: 48, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

felix from the suburbs: Kind of a silly stunt. If the cameras still work, why destroy them? Can they not be donated to some school program or at least sold to a collector. I have some old film cameras that I only use rarely to shoot a few rolls of slide film, but I would never destroy them for the sake of being funny.

Have you seen the movie "Idiocracy"? I think we're well on our way to that future.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 13:26 UTC
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

M1963: This is cringeworthy. Two beautiful cameras crushed by some clown with a ridiculous accent. What do people do these things for? I can understand Jeremy Clarkson bombing an Alfa Romeo Arna, but this is just gratuitous.

It gets views on YouTube, and they get paid good money. There are kids that make millions of dollars a year playing games and posting videos of them playing the games along with their commentary. This guy smashes expensive things. I guarantee you he's making way more off this video than the cameras cost.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 22:44 UTC
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

felix from the suburbs: Kind of a silly stunt. If the cameras still work, why destroy them? Can they not be donated to some school program or at least sold to a collector. I have some old film cameras that I only use rarely to shoot a few rolls of slide film, but I would never destroy them for the sake of being funny.

Crushing really expensive stuff is their thing. They crushed a really big diamond the other day. They probably make pretty good money off these videos, way more than the cost of the things they are smashing. If you can get enough people to watch your videos, you can be a YouTube millionaire.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 22:42 UTC

Interesting video, but I don't understand why this particular photo is so popular. I enjoy a lot of Ansel Adams' work much more.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2016 at 04:34 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Oh well... 1.4 http://petapixel.com/2014/02/21/olympus-patents-impressive-12mm-and-14mm-f1-0-lenses/

I agree that the 12/25/50 lineup wouldn't be too thrilling. I'd really like a legitimately updated 20mm with snappy autofocus. I find that the focal length suits me better than the 25. Since I won't be buying new lenses anytime soon, I hope you get your 17.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 02:56 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Oh well... 1.4 http://petapixel.com/2014/02/21/olympus-patents-impressive-12mm-and-14mm-f1-0-lenses/

Apologies. I assumed that you believed that your link was referencing this lens. My mistake. I'm looking forward to the rumored Olympus fast prime announcements.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 18:31 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Oh well... 1.4 http://petapixel.com/2014/02/21/olympus-patents-impressive-12mm-and-14mm-f1-0-lenses/

This is a Panasonic offering, not Olympus.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 13:11 UTC
In reply to:

flektogon: Well, everyone is upset with the price of Leica. But Leica has been always far more expensive. And why not? It is fully made and assembled in Europe if not in Germany. So, how can you compare its manufacturing cost with those "Japanese" cameras made/assembled in China, Vietnam and who knows where else, just not in Japan? But even the products "Made in Japan", like what at least Sony claims, are made/assembled by the "guest arbeiters" from South America.

Hey BeaverTerror, you're like my name opposite!

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 19:41 UTC

Hey! We were just having this discussion! Unfortunately for the people asking for it, Leica was the only company listening.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 18:13 UTC as 313th comment | 1 reply
On article History Repeating: Olympus PEN-F Review (1068 comments in total)

Are the JPEG noise reduction presets the same as the E-M1 (i.e. "Off" still applies a significant amount of NR) or have they corrected that?

DPR used to let you compare the noise reduction settings across cameras, but I haven't seen a way to do that lately. I keep hoping Olympus will restore the ability to really turn the noise filtering off like they did for the E-PL2 and earlier cameras. I prefer a gritty image to a smudged one.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2016 at 21:20 UTC as 73rd comment
On article Week in Review: One for the history books (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

odpisan: I do not understand some writers of comments here.

Are they so extremly stupid?

For K-1 we have plenty & all kinds of diferent lenses which work perfect on FF.

But some poeople think that if Pentax did not make FF-camera until today there also is no lenses for FF - or what? Why they show their stupidity here & do not first look in the Pentax site?
>:o(((

I am happy for Pentax people. When I was first shopping for a DSLR back in 2004, Pentax made a very compelling argument, and it's always been an intriguing and unique alternative to Canon and Nikon. I'd be excited if I were invested in the Pentax system right now.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 15:21 UTC
On article Week in Review: One for the history books (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

odpisan: I do not understand some writers of comments here.

Are they so extremly stupid?

For K-1 we have plenty & all kinds of diferent lenses which work perfect on FF.

But some poeople think that if Pentax did not make FF-camera until today there also is no lenses for FF - or what? Why they show their stupidity here & do not first look in the Pentax site?
>:o(((

There are fanatics in every forum. At some point, their camera manufacturer of choice did something (in their view) better than all the competition they viewed. Over time, maybe the competition improved, but not enough to make a switch over. Also consider that the technology leader changes periodically, so Canon might lead for a while, then Nikon, then Olympus or Pentax, then back to Canon. It's like the stock market. The happiest people are the ones who focus on the bright side of their system and enjoy it. I occasionally look longingly at what Sony, Fuji, Pentax, or even Canon is doing with their cameras, but I am still very happy with my choice of camera system (Micro 4/3) because, for my needs, it was the best when I chose it and it still does 90% of what I'd like it to do. If someone came in and needlessly trashed my system, I might argue and try to show them why it has admirable qualities, and I would expect users of other systems would do the same.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 15:17 UTC
In reply to:

Blumfeld: Looks very much marketing-driven to me. But to each his own.

I think Blumfeld is saying this would be more of a "heart" purchase rather than primarily a "head" purchase, like the people who buy the Leica version of a Panasonic camera for more money just to get the good, Leica feeling.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 15:48 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: So a few years ago when anyone complained about the lack of EVF options they were ridiculed by the fan boys. I wonder now that pretty much every mirrorless has an EVF option what these peanuts will have to say.

I don't recall people getting ridiculed as a rule. People got some really nice photos without an EVF, so to have people trash a camera because of a single feature omission causes some defensiveness. People tend to speak very strongly when their pet camera feature isn't included (i.e. "A camera without an EVF is dead in the water"). Maybe those people are too feature-focused. I've always liked the EVFs for stability/power saving/ glare-reducing purposes, but I've used cameras successfully without them. There are always a handful of people who are jerks about a camera's lack of features or are jerks when people offer constructive criticism. I filter those people out and listen to the many reasonable people that populate the forums.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 15:43 UTC
In reply to:

Don Diafragma: Not blaming Olympus particularly as this goes up for most camera manufacturers:

- What is it with camera manufacturers that they keep falling back to USB 2.0 support? The world is already embracing USB-C.

There's no such thing as "Future proof". I think USB 2.0 (or at least adapters for it) will be around for much longer than the life of this camera. Heck, you can still get an external floppy disk drive w/ USB connection and when was the last time you used a floppy disk or saw one on a new computer? USB 2.0 compatibility isn't going to evaporate over the next ten years, even if you use the camera for that long.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 15:26 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Provia_fan: THis is a little long for DPreview so will have to split into two threads, one in reply

So many badly informed opinions it gives me a headache.

1- Super 8 cartrigdes can still be bought from different brands although limited and at £25-£30 a pop

2- Film Schools still teach the format

3- It still has a depth of colour that digital still struggles to get

4- There were Super 8 SOUND cartridges! But you could use a separate recorder as is the case in my Cosina Magic Sound (and many others)

5-You can develop Super 8 at home. Tanks still exist and can be bought on eBay, many new. Use a reversal process or if you feel experimental, you can cross develop with many available developing kits that you would use for stills photography (it's film for God's sake!) and scan at home (there are 3rd party adapters to use flatbeds, although it's a long process). Many Super 8 emulsions were e6 process and some still are.

I think what Landscaper was referring to was the trend of consumers to gravitate to ease and convenience when certain quality standards are met. I have friends who aren't interested in some excellent and well-priced cameras because they just don't see themselves carrying a camera AND their phones when they are happy with what their phones give them. Convenience trumps quality.

This new Kodak will certainly be a step backward from the ease and convenience of a cell phone, or even a DSLR. Consumers will need to be really intrigued by the idea and nostalgia of film to pull the trigger and get into film making as Kodak is hoping they will. The current trend seems to point to that not happening, at least in large enough numbers to make this move seem smart. However, maybe Kodak can see the future.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 20:50 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Provia_fan: THis is a little long for DPreview so will have to split into two threads, one in reply

So many badly informed opinions it gives me a headache.

1- Super 8 cartrigdes can still be bought from different brands although limited and at £25-£30 a pop

2- Film Schools still teach the format

3- It still has a depth of colour that digital still struggles to get

4- There were Super 8 SOUND cartridges! But you could use a separate recorder as is the case in my Cosina Magic Sound (and many others)

5-You can develop Super 8 at home. Tanks still exist and can be bought on eBay, many new. Use a reversal process or if you feel experimental, you can cross develop with many available developing kits that you would use for stills photography (it's film for God's sake!) and scan at home (there are 3rd party adapters to use flatbeds, although it's a long process). Many Super 8 emulsions were e6 process and some still are.

I think the target for this would be young people wanting to experience retro film making (like the kids that collect and listen to records) and perhaps some indie film makers. Are there enough young people clamoring for Super 8? I'm 31 and I know less about Super 8 than I do about 8 track. Kodak is making an odd, counter intuitive move.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 17:14 UTC

Well, I'm glad the size oriented people are happy, and coming in $700 under the rumored price is good.

Maybe Oly will release a faster lens with a similar range in the future for those that want one (similar to the 35-100 Panasonic vs the 40-150 Pro Oly). Maybe a 150-450 f4?

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 21:54 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

Frank C.: 35mm...
too wide for portraits
too narrow for landscapes
the no man's land of focal lengths
what is there to like??

Surely photography is more flexible than that. Environmental portraits?

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2015 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

shademaster: seems like the "advanced amateur" market is disappearing. soccer moms use their iPhones instead of their D5100 or T3i. I think all the ILC vendors were hoping to pick up these consumers from canikon, but those consumers simply stopped buying this class of product.

Soon, there will be either pro-level or camera-phone with nothing in between. I'm an NX user and I'm sad. If I were a Fuji or μ4/3 user, I would be worried.

I ultimately dumped my Canon T2i due to poor autofocus. My Olympus cameras were far more accurate. Samsung had cool cameras, but uninspired lenses (big and slow). Same as Sony. I do worry about M4/3, just because I've never seen anyone else use them, and only one store in San Antonio even carries them. I'm certainly invested.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2015 at 15:25 UTC
Total: 48, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »