GaryJP

GaryJP

Lives in Hong Kong Hong Kong
Works as a TV Production, Directing, Shooting, Editing
Joined on Mar 11, 2006

Comments

Total: 1192, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Mike FL: "blames battery" while the fact is battery burning.

What's the logic?
1. Are Samsung run by 10 years old?
2. Samsung run by guys with IQ=10 years old?
3. Who buy Samsung story has 10 years old IQ?
4. All of above.

Take you pick.

Oh don't talk nonsense. It was quite possible to follow the development of this issue as it happened if you followed the tech press. And it's unwise to assume people with no connection with the company somehow know better. Particularly before the report has even been seen. A major problem was that sporadic faults quite often are not easy to provoke or test under laboratory conditions and Samsung simply could not blow up their own phones

Compared with other companies, like Fuji, that I have dealt with (who have taken up to 18 months to even ADMIT an issue) this was a pretty fast handling of the situation.

In my experience every company has the odd ethics free person working for it. Even Apple.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 03:44 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: samsung is run by fools... the battery issue ....poor testing leading to failures in washing machines , and n abandoning the nx line when it was just gaining notice for its excellent sensor..... what a shame they didnt at least try to rebrand it by licensing a legacy name like so many lenses have done , ive never liked the ring of the samsung name its a clumsy word and does not scream quality

nikon makes the same blunder with the coolpix moniker , just a silly name or fuji excellence diminished with the stupid name finepix

they are not all bad i think panasonic using lumix name was a smart move

"samsung is run by fools."

Like Canon and Nikon.

Sadly, that's what happens when all the real experts are too busy posting to DPReview.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 01:26 UTC
In reply to:

junk1: If only batteries from certain supplier(s) failed, that would point towards the batteries. But if all of them failed, then it's likely something else.

There are good technical reasons (thermal runaway) why this is a potential danger of all lithium batteries.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/01/economist-explains-19

https://phys.org/news/2016-10-troy-wolverton-lithium-battery-dangers.html

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 01:25 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: "blames battery" while the fact is battery burning.

What's the logic?
1. Are Samsung run by 10 years old?
2. Samsung run by guys with IQ=10 years old?
3. Who buy Samsung story has 10 years old IQ?
4. All of above.

Take you pick.

No. Samsung initially believed the problem lay with batteries that had only been used in phones sold in certain countries .

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 00:56 UTC
In reply to:

junk1: If only batteries from certain supplier(s) failed, that would point towards the batteries. But if all of them failed, then it's likely something else.

Depends on the specs you demanded from the external supplies for the batteries. If there was, as some suggest, an unforeseen problem when the batteries expanded it could still be the battery problem, but the responsibility may have been those specs.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 00:28 UTC
In reply to:

wetsleet: Samsung should just have consulted some of the experts here, saved themselves a load of bother trying to work out the cause.

Factually they turned a very good profit for the year despite the problem.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/6/14188390/samsung-q4-2016-profits-guidance-increase-earnings

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 00:25 UTC
In reply to:

onemoremile: So, Samsung is saying that the battery is not hardware?

It is not THEIR hardware. Although one of the companies that made the battery still bears the Samsung name it is now a spin-off company.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 00:22 UTC

Pity. It was a great phone and I hated having to trade it in.

I gave up on iPhones two generations ago.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 00:21 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
On article Close-up: Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 (127 comments in total)

I need to start saving up, or figuring what equipment to trade in.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 02:01 UTC as 11th comment
On article DJI reportedly takes majority stake in Hasselblad (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kevin Coppalotti: Apple? Google? The white house?
who will be next???
Trust no one.
Mulder.

The White House is going to be sold to the Russians.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 23:54 UTC
On article CES 2017: hands-on with the Canon PowerShot G9 X II (193 comments in total)

Scroll down and look for the obligatory trashing and bashing .......

Never fails.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 05:47 UTC as 23rd comment
On article 2017 Roundup: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (466 comments in total)
In reply to:

GaryJP: "This one goes out to all the 'zoom with your feet' types."

Ah, the ones who don't know what the characteristics of different focal lengths actually do, and why. :)

Bit defensive there "dude". The fact is different focal lengths have psychological as well as physical characteristics - ask any even half decent cinematographer or even many stills guys - and a fixed lens does not do everything you might require in that sense.

You CAN shoot portraits on 24mmm full frame, nobody says you can't, but don't expect it to look comforting.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 05:41 UTC
In reply to:

SungiBr: Aside for the typo on 'cannon', I'was really shocked to read that the two people that wrote the article are both, professional and photographers. Really bad advice for that.

Also, I taught a Basic Photography class for undergraduate journalism students the last couple years and they often are confused on what are a professional camera, because they thought it would simple be a DSLR cam. My answer are always 'the camera you use to do a professional job'.

Of course, a better e more expensive camera are more capable, durable and are better at somethings, but they are not always a 'full format' one. Specially if you are invested in really good glass.

You'd be amazed how often writers get it right and a sub-editor knows "better".

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 01:16 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: How silly.
A true professional wedding photographer uses an 8" x 10" view camera with a thick black cloth.

How cool that could be!

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 01:15 UTC
In reply to:

Dimijis: why someone would spend that kind of money for this lens when you can get the excellent Tamron 15-30 at half the price with at least 90% of the quality is beyond me...

DOMINIK
http://dominik-photography.com/

For the extra 10%.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 12:16 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1644 comments in total)
In reply to:

Asarhaddon: it will sell because name is canon
Because there is a klan that thinks canon will do the best
A6300,6500, xt2, Em1 ii better than M5
But name is Canon
No matter what you say to them, their ideas do not change :)

Watching the denial of Sony fans about the color is as amusing as watching Canon fans' former denial about DR. The only time they admit there IS a difference, even in RAW is when they are claiming the Sony colour is better. If anyone can match the colours with Grey card and colour chart and a custom profile in Raw, why don't you do it and make a fortune? I've seen it claimed. I have never seen it done.

I have purchased and tried those profiles, including Huelight. They don't do it for me. If they work well enough for you, then Sony is fine for you.

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2016 at 11:04 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1644 comments in total)
In reply to:

GiovanniB: What do you mean by "JPEG colors are still second-to-none"? IMO Canon's green hues still miss the richness of any of their competitors, resulting in almost uniform green areas with brownish shadows. Skin colors are quite good but for landscapers, Canon means trouble - lots of effort in post-processing and some irrecoverably spoiled shots, particularly in challenging high-contrast lighting conditions. Of course my observations are based more on RAW files than JPEGs but in the JPEGs I've shot and seen so far I found nothing yet to support any claim of a particularly good color fidelity, again except for skin tones for which Canon equipment seems to be primarily optimized.

Have never seen one that works to my satisfaction.

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2016 at 10:56 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1644 comments in total)
In reply to:

GiovanniB: What do you mean by "JPEG colors are still second-to-none"? IMO Canon's green hues still miss the richness of any of their competitors, resulting in almost uniform green areas with brownish shadows. Skin colors are quite good but for landscapers, Canon means trouble - lots of effort in post-processing and some irrecoverably spoiled shots, particularly in challenging high-contrast lighting conditions. Of course my observations are based more on RAW files than JPEGs but in the JPEGs I've shot and seen so far I found nothing yet to support any claim of a particularly good color fidelity, again except for skin tones for which Canon equipment seems to be primarily optimized.

Been burned by Fujifilm. Never again.

Find their raws a bit troublesome too.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 03:20 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1644 comments in total)
In reply to:

Asarhaddon: it will sell because name is canon
Because there is a klan that thinks canon will do the best
A6300,6500, xt2, Em1 ii better than M5
But name is Canon
No matter what you say to them, their ideas do not change :)

Wrong. I only shoot in raw and the Sony colours are not in the ballpark. Despite what some claim, NO ONE has matched Canon or Nikon's colour science, and that includes Sony's own engineers. If they could, they would. I still shoot an A7RII for video, but traded in the ASRII for a 5D MkIV and don't look back. Zombie faces and greens that vary from mud brown to fluorescent are not my thing. In the end the "specifications" war is useless.

As for "Canon is the Apple of the photography world. " Nope. My reasons for going BACK to Canon, after the not cheap switch to Sony include ergonomics, menu system, ruggedness, reliability, weatherproofing. after sales service, native lens selection, speed of response, and - yes - colours. I have shot Sony video, where i am willing to put up with their idiosyncrasies - for years. But their stills don't do it for me. That's not to say other people don't get good results . But the fanboy brand bashing on every Canon announcement gets pathetic.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 02:29 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1644 comments in total)
In reply to:

GiovanniB: What do you mean by "JPEG colors are still second-to-none"? IMO Canon's green hues still miss the richness of any of their competitors, resulting in almost uniform green areas with brownish shadows. Skin colors are quite good but for landscapers, Canon means trouble - lots of effort in post-processing and some irrecoverably spoiled shots, particularly in challenging high-contrast lighting conditions. Of course my observations are based more on RAW files than JPEGs but in the JPEGs I've shot and seen so far I found nothing yet to support any claim of a particularly good color fidelity, again except for skin tones for which Canon equipment seems to be primarily optimized.

Personally I returned to Canon partly because I disliked both Sony's skin colour and its greens. Nor am I the only one. Just had a lot of very disappointing landscape shots from Spain shot on a A7RII. In film days I used to like Fuji (not the hated Provia) and Agfa for greens but that's a dream now.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 01:01 UTC
Total: 1192, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »