Grat

Lives in United States Gainesville, United States
Works as a Computers
Joined on Mar 2, 2002

Comments

Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Digiman69: The P900 is a nice improvement over the P800 but cartridges capacity from 80ml down to 50ml at same price is a consumer downsize.

But, if as mentioned in another response, the new printer is getting 25% more printing for the same amount of ink, then the 50ml is effectively 62.5ml.

Doing some number mangling, I get 80ml for €55 euro is €0.69 / ml. 50ml @ 45 is €0.90-- but at 62.5ml (effectively), the price drops back down to €0.72/ml, and if it's actually 28% as given above, then it's €0.70/ml-- Which is very, very close to the 80ml for €55.

So if it's genuinely that much more efficient, it's not complete robbery. If it's not that much more efficient, then, well, that sucks. :)

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2020 at 19:33 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Glad the rear wheel is still there but the way the screen articulates is a disappointment. A simple tilt up/down unit would make waist-level shooting so much better and more discreet. From the story about the R, it sounds like the AF and FPS of this camera should make it a sports champ.

Yeah, I mean, Canon's only been using the flip-out screen design for what, 10 years? A tilt-only screen would be a pain for me, because I like the additional flexibility.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2020 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

jaaboucher: Another bottleneck that will effect 8k video: my super old laptop.

Your current computer *is* obsolete. By the time it made it to market, the tech companies already have faster, enhanced versions of the CPU, memory, motherboard chipset, SSD, and networking in the pipeline.

And if Canon hadn't put full 8K support into the R5 like they did, everyone would complain about how Canon doesn't listen to their customers.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2020 at 20:42 UTC
In reply to:

joe_leads: The video specs sound very impressive. But at the same time I have to laugh. I have not a single device that could display 4K, let alone 8K. I experimented with the 4K of my camera, but it didn’t make any sense to me, for my family videos. It just slowed down everything and I went back to 1080p. For a proper 4K TV, I’d even have to replace our furniture, to fit it in. I can’t imagine any use case for 8K.

This camera is definitely not for me. I like new tech, but this seems so out of touch with my technical requirements, that my current, 3 yo camera will be good enough for many more years. Which isn’t a bad thing, it just works great.

I don't get people who show up to say "I have no interest in this camera". You're obviously not who Canon is targeting with it, so why even bother?

I have no interest in a Ford F150-- But I don't bombard their product announcements with comments about how I don't want one.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2020 at 20:39 UTC
In reply to:

Bob 1: I don't have the the M6/2... but I'm impressed that Canon listened to the release outcry from the initial buyers. Personally, I would purchase one today if it had the creature features of my M50... :( Everyone HAGD & Stay Safe !!

I would have said pitiful rather than worthless, but there's a ton of whining and whinging in these comments.

Mostly by people who apparently are only here to bash Canon.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2020 at 22:31 UTC
In reply to:

davev8: i think the M50 did well to say its age..the M50mkii will most probably have the 32mp sensor and the AF from the M6mkii with its improved tracking /eye af
i think this was a balanced review

I don't know who started the "lens being outresolved by the sensor" meme, but it's mostly mathematical masturbation, and only an issue if you're looking at 100% pixel crops and using a poor performing lens.

The same argument was made a decade ago when the 40D came out with it's 10 MP sensor-- "too many pixels for APS-C! Image quality will suffer!".

Those of us who actually use the camera, appreciate the 25% extra resolution, the additional latitude in cropping, and additional detail in our pictures.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2020 at 16:38 UTC
In reply to:

davev8: i think the M50 did well to say its age..the M50mkii will most probably have the 32mp sensor and the AF from the M6mkii with its improved tracking /eye af
i think this was a balanced review

Ah. So you haven't used one. More pixels, more detail, with no real penalty. The sensor in the M6 Mk II / 90D is very good, especially if you use DPP4 instead of ACR.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2020 at 14:34 UTC
In reply to:

davev8: i think the M50 did well to say its age..the M50mkii will most probably have the 32mp sensor and the AF from the M6mkii with its improved tracking /eye af
i think this was a balanced review

Right. More is worse. Up is down. We should go back to 8 megapixels, before this insane technology creep infested cameras.

How many 32 mp cameras have you used?

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2020 at 19:47 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2501 comments in total)
In reply to:

steveningfoto: The conception of equivalents is very misleading ... a certain lens, let´s take 35mm f2.0 is always a 35 mm lens with its DOF. It is not gathering more light when you use it with a 35 mm (FF) camera ... it transferres the light in the same way, whether you use a smaller or a bigger format. It needs a bigger image circle for a bigger format. But if you use a lens with bigger image circle on a smaller format, you give your light away ... that´s not happening, when you use a system, where the image circle is made for the lens (APC-camera and APC-lens or FT/MFT) ... so real fullframe systems (like mft ;-) don´t give light away ...
and noise/dynamic range not only has to do with pixelsize ... nowadays they technicaly differ too much ...

@richard butler: I didn't say pixel size. I said photosite size, and they are not the same thing, since there are usually 4 photosites (2 green, one red, one blue) per pixel (of the final image).

I'm not actually disagreeing, but I think this whole concept of "equivalent" or "not equivalent" is making some simplifications that confuse the issue.

It's easy enough to say that APS-C is a 1.6x crop and that you get effectively 60% of the FOV of a FF sensor. It's also fair to say that the DoF will be affected by a similar percentage, resulting in a (60%?) larger circle-of-confusion by the smaller sensor for a given f-stop.

But the whole point of f-stops and ISO was to abstract out the specific differences and let us get back to taking shots on ISO 400 film at f/64. ;)

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2020 at 23:33 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2501 comments in total)
In reply to:

steveningfoto: The conception of equivalents is very misleading ... a certain lens, let´s take 35mm f2.0 is always a 35 mm lens with its DOF. It is not gathering more light when you use it with a 35 mm (FF) camera ... it transferres the light in the same way, whether you use a smaller or a bigger format. It needs a bigger image circle for a bigger format. But if you use a lens with bigger image circle on a smaller format, you give your light away ... that´s not happening, when you use a system, where the image circle is made for the lens (APC-camera and APC-lens or FT/MFT) ... so real fullframe systems (like mft ;-) don´t give light away ...
and noise/dynamic range not only has to do with pixelsize ... nowadays they technicaly differ too much ...

I know this is old, but this statement:

"if you put a larger format lens on a smaller system, you are not capturing all the light the lens projects, which you would if you placed a larger sensor behind it"

Isn't quite right. You ARE capturing all the light you would with a bigger sensor-- but only in the areas where you are actually capturing light. Put a 1 cm square in the middle of both the APS-C and FF sensors, you'll capture the same amount of light in both of those 1 cm squares, because that's a function of the lens, the aperture and the exposure time.

What changes is the number of photons per photosite because of photosite density, so you can have larger photosites gathering more light-- a 24 megapixel image from a FF sensor will have used more photons in it's construction than the 24 megapixel image from an APS-C sensor, and should have reduced diffraction effects as well as a cleaner signal.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2020 at 19:15 UTC
In reply to:

Newbie4Life: I'm curios as to why you are putting 8K video in the title and in the article in quotes.

This makes it look like it's Fake 8K video (for example something upsampled).

The press release does not put the 8K in quotes and your other products such as the Samsung S20 get 8K without quotes.

@mosc: That's a lot of assumptions, and very little evidence.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2020 at 21:59 UTC
In reply to:

Newbie4Life: I'm curios as to why you are putting 8K video in the title and in the article in quotes.

This makes it look like it's Fake 8K video (for example something upsampled).

The press release does not put the 8K in quotes and your other products such as the Samsung S20 get 8K without quotes.

@Barney: Then where are the quotes on the Samsung Smartphone PR on Feb. 11th? You believe a Smartphone can record and display 8k video, but not a Canon FF mirrorless body?

Why not just put out a headline that says "Canon announces 8K capable mirrorless camera, but we don't believe them"?

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2020 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

Newbie4Life: I'm curios as to why you are putting 8K video in the title and in the article in quotes.

This makes it look like it's Fake 8K video (for example something upsampled).

The press release does not put the 8K in quotes and your other products such as the Samsung S20 get 8K without quotes.

@UncoyDP Oh, so you've used the R5?

Interestingly, other people didn't seem to have the same problems with the 5D III you did.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2020 at 18:24 UTC
In reply to:

Newbie4Life: Does "Full HD up to 24P" mean this is only capable of 1080p at 24 frames per second?

Isn't that kind of crazy in this day and age especially if it is capable of 4k 24p?
Thanks!

Full specs on Canon's site says 24 fps for 4k, and 60 fps for 1080p.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2020 at 18:16 UTC
In reply to:

MrHollywood: No IBIS??? Why can't anyone get this segment right??? Fuji continues to cripple this line of cameras in much the same way that Ricoh continues to cripple their GRIII (no finder and no flash and tiny buffer).
If Fuji had updated to IBIS, this would have been the king of prime-lens compacts.
Another "they blew it" entry from the shortsighted designers joins the heap along with Nikon's Z cameras (no vertical grips and single card slot) and the latest gripless D780.
Do these people sit down and say, "Well, we have a great camera here. Now how can we screw it up?"

Well, yes-- but I'd argue this is a still camera that does video, and it's still wide angle-- so a gimbal would probably produce better results than any IBIS system.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2020 at 18:38 UTC
In reply to:

MrHollywood: No IBIS??? Why can't anyone get this segment right??? Fuji continues to cripple this line of cameras in much the same way that Ricoh continues to cripple their GRIII (no finder and no flash and tiny buffer).
If Fuji had updated to IBIS, this would have been the king of prime-lens compacts.
Another "they blew it" entry from the shortsighted designers joins the heap along with Nikon's Z cameras (no vertical grips and single card slot) and the latest gripless D780.
Do these people sit down and say, "Well, we have a great camera here. Now how can we screw it up?"

Call me old-fashioned, but why does a fixed-focal length camera with a pretty wide angle, need IBIS?

It adds a good deal of complexity in terms of the sensor mount, either requires a larger sensor or cropping, makes sensor heat dissipation more difficult (and therefore noisier), and will never add more than 2-3 stops, so you very rapidly approach the point where a tripod is necessary anyway.

Then again, I'm confused about a camera in this cost bracket that doesn't include either interchangeable lenses, or a zoom, so what do I know?

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2020 at 18:01 UTC
On article Stellina: imaging the sky with a smart telescope (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Berg: So many haters here.

This is the equivalent of offering a 6MP fixed focus camera with a small buffer, a slow shutter speed, and can only produce 6MP images if you enable RAW-- otherwise, your 6MP sensor kicks out 1.3 MP images. And then putting a $2000 price tag on it.

Such an offering, no matter how stylish or automated, would not be popular, and the critics would not be "haters", they'd be disappointed.

A $200 telescope, a sky atlas (or stellarium), and some books/videos on "observing the night sky" will do more to encourage an interest in astronomy, the universe, and potentially, photography.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2020 at 13:19 UTC
In reply to:

SteveAnderson: Sounds great, affordable might not be the best word though.

Worth their weight in gold maybe.

Then they'd cost over $2,000 USD.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2020 at 01:38 UTC
On article Stellina: imaging the sky with a smart telescope (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Berg: So many haters here.

@gfrensen: If you're doing prime focus, yes-- but if you're doing eyepiece projection, then you're still getting different levels of magnification. Similarly, there's no reason you can't bolt a long zoom to the front of a DSLR and mount them both on a tracker.

I recently bought a pretty solid EQ mount with goto and periodic error correction, and it supports a guide scope. And was nowhere near $4,000 USD. I can use any combination of reflector, refractor, zoom lens, prime lens, DSLR, CCD or CMOS with it.

I can put a 24mm prime on my DSLR, put it on the mount, and take wide-angle landscapes... or I can put a 900mm f/5 scope on the mount, and image some DSO's.

The Stellina has one fixed FOV.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2020 at 15:09 UTC
On article Stellina: imaging the sky with a smart telescope (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

AstroStan: If anyone from the producer is monitoring, here is a suggestion:

incorporate a switchable laser pointer so that the user can see the actual sky location of the object. With such an addition the device would be useful even without the camera for individual use or groups, with or without binoculars.

I'm sure pilots all over the world will be thrilled by this suggestion. :)

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2020 at 02:09 UTC
Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »