Richard Murdey

Richard Murdey

Lives in Japan Kyoto, Japan
Joined on Aug 21, 2002

Comments

Total: 1324, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Using stop-motion video for the demo amounts to false advertising.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 00:31 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
On article Pentax K-70 real-world sample gallery (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Isacas: Are they a bit under exposed or is it my eyes?

@Carey I also should have been more careful, sorry about that. Re-reading, the "you" in my post was ambiguous.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2016 at 23:09 UTC
On article Pentax K-70 real-world sample gallery (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Isacas: Are they a bit under exposed or is it my eyes?

@Carey Rose

I know. I was responding to MJSfoto1956 and Toselli, and others who implied that corrective negative exposure for highlight protection is something you should have done even though you were saving as JPEG files.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2016 at 05:25 UTC
In reply to:

rrccad: so even more sneaky..

remove the sensor cleaning to save battery power on CIPA #'s.. and at the same time dramatically drop the GN of the flash.

D3400: Approx. 7/22, 8/26 with manual flash (m/ft, ISO 100, 20°C/68°F)
D3300: Approx. 12/39, 12/39 with manual flash (m/ft, ISO 100, 20°C/68°F)

This is why dpreview you should publish the GN of the onboard flash with the side by side comparisons, to see when vendors pull that kind of sneaky crap and then brags about increased battery power.

this is deliberately doing nothing other then rigging the CIPA battery count.

Yeah, you can follow the action on that over at Nikonrumors.

I bet it was done to free up space for the Snapbridge antenna and circuit - there was no other option than to make the photo flash capacitor smaller. The better CIPA numbers were a windfall.

But just to sum up where we are...

The D3400 "upgrade" list:

Sensor cleaning removed
(Mirror lock up removed) (unconfirmed)
Mic jack removed
Flash strength reduced

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2016 at 09:29 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: Now at 400 gram same weight as A6300 , this is becoming more interesting to me

May I ask what great lens option exist for APS-C F mount?

I am interested in ultra wide angle and fast wide prime
Thanks

For the equivalent of the Nikkor 20/1.8G on APSC you'd have to hit up Fuji.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2016 at 09:21 UTC
On article Pentax K-70 real-world sample gallery (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: There's a couple without lens info, including one apparently taken at 35mm f/1.4 and another 36mm... The former is probably the K-mount Siggi Art, I guess, but the latter?

Thanks. I wondered because the rest of the kit lens photos show the full lens info (Pentax SMC DA 18-135 Al etc etc) but a couple towards the end just show "36mm".

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 23:45 UTC
On article Pentax K-70 real-world sample gallery (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Isacas: Are they a bit under exposed or is it my eyes?

Underexposing for highlight protection has nothing to do with the gallery images looking underexposed. You aren't supposed to *leave* them underexposed when converting to jpeg!

Many of the 18-135 shots do look a little dull, but this is likely the poor contrast of the lens as much as the exposure.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 23:23 UTC
On article Pentax K-70 real-world sample gallery (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

ahw82: I love the picture of the corgi. Clearly, the least artistic composition of all the photos in the gallery--you can tell the photographer was wandering Pike Place Market and took the shot on autopilot. "Look, a corgi!" And it was still good enough to include in the gallery. Proving that any photo with a corgi in it is a great photo.

The DA15 works well on "autopilot". No matter how sloppy the autofocus is, chances are you won't notice! :D

(Photo of the Corgi is the best of the gallery. Composition is far from poor. I'd say it's the best example present, even if it _was_ accidental. The brickwork is gave you a free assist as it were.)

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 23:18 UTC
On article Pentax K-70 real-world sample gallery (62 comments in total)

There's a couple without lens info, including one apparently taken at 35mm f/1.4 and another 36mm... The former is probably the K-mount Siggi Art, I guess, but the latter?

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 23:09 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

NoQuarter72388: I'd rather have the ultrasonic sensor cleaning instead of a slightly better battery life. In my opinion the D3300 is still the better camera. Canon and Nikon are so damn lazy when it comes to making bodies under 2 grand, and the sad part is that it doesn't even matter, they will still sell a ton of em. :(

Time to start supporting Pentax...at least they innovate and try to bring value to the consumer.

@nnickn

I don't think you have the cause/effect lined up. The sensor cleaning did not affect battery life.

(I learned after I wrote the post above that the D3400 has a flash GN about half that of the D3300. That would have a big influence on the CIPA shot count... which, yes, means the increase in rated battery life is not a "feature" at all.)

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 22:08 UTC
In reply to:

evogt500: i have the digital version of these cameras. Namely the Stylus D560z. I have to say, I don't like the clamshell design. Its clunky, loud, and slow. Everytime you want to turn it on, you have to pull the shell, then wait for the lens to extend. That's 3~4 seconds there. Oh, and when the sleep mode activates, guess what, when you wont to wake it up, you have to go through the whole motion of closing and reopening the cover.
Also, that camera used AA batteries. Using liveview without flash, I could get 4 or 5 pictures before the battery low warning indicator flashing. Without liveview and flash, maybe 15.
Don't bring that design back.

Most of the issues you describe were not the clamshell design per se but par for the course for 2000's era digital point-an-shoots.

Instead, imagine a ruggedized Ricoh GR with a pull-open design.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 01:09 UTC

The spiritual successor to these clamshell cameras is probably the Tough line today. If they made one with a bigger sensor and a fixed wide angle lens they might be on to something.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 01:05 UTC as 59th comment | 1 reply

18-55 $200 -> $150 retail
18-55 VR $250 -> $180 retail
70-300 $350 -> $250 retail
70-300 VR $400 -> $280 retail

The previous non-VR 70-300 is just $170 at b&h right now, the old 18-55 VR II just $120. These are not expensive lenses, but Nikon always sets the MSRP unrealistically high and discounts down. So there is little point going swivel-eyed at that $400 sticker. Just wait a bit or buy the older version.

I like that they've made VR and non VR versions. Choice is good. From my point of view these are sunny day, knockabout action lenses if I'd use them at all, so I'd happily pay a little less and ditch the VR since I'd never use the feature. The high ISO on modern cameras is so good that I can live without it.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 23:52 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

RedFox88: nikon is clueless on its pricing scheme.

Had the D3400 post open in the other window. My bad.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 23:31 UTC
In reply to:

RedFox88: nikon is clueless on its pricing scheme.

Because no viewfinder, no sale, and (hypothetically) I don't want to spend more than the cost of a D3x00 kit. ($550 for the D3300 at last check.) If APSc mirrorless models can't step up to the plate here then Nikon's pricing is far from clueless.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 07:37 UTC
In reply to:

NoQuarter72388: I'd rather have the ultrasonic sensor cleaning instead of a slightly better battery life. In my opinion the D3300 is still the better camera. Canon and Nikon are so damn lazy when it comes to making bodies under 2 grand, and the sad part is that it doesn't even matter, they will still sell a ton of em. :(

Time to start supporting Pentax...at least they innovate and try to bring value to the consumer.

The ultrasonic cleaning system was only ever good for large, non-sticky dust particles. You still had to clean the sensor manually from time to time if you were changing lenses often. And 90% of the people buying D3x00s never change lenses, so it was no use to them even if it did work.

70% increase in battery life, on the other hand, is a feature everyone can get behind.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 05:38 UTC
In reply to:

RedFox88: nikon is clueless on its pricing scheme.

Please find me a recent, APSc mirrorless with a decent kit lens and an EVF that competes on price with the Nikon D3x00.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 04:47 UTC
In reply to:

CaMeRa QuEsT: Admin, according to the specs, the D3400 is exactly the same size as the D3300. It does, however, weights .5 once less.

Comparing stock photos, the body is indeed identical. Which means the D5500 is still the slimmer camera.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#509,580

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 01:00 UTC
In reply to:

Stejo: So lemme get this straight... 650 for the 18-55 kit. 1k for the twin kit. Second lens of the twin kit costs 350 on its own. Wow. Good deal there.
Also. Even if the pricing made sense. What's the point of bundling the non vr telephoto for beginners? Who's making these kits and what is he smoking?

Hush now. No one pays full retail for these double zoom kits. No one. They are priced like that so as to seem a good deal when they are sold for $799 on Black Friday, pre X-mas, boxing day sale, etc etc.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 00:56 UTC
In reply to:

david vella: Why does Nikon even make this sort of low end DSLR anymore ?

The sensor maybe fine , but in this sort of handicapped basic body configuration ( tunnel viewfinder ) with such slow zooms to match? Mirrorless brands now offer far better options inc. fast/small lens choices, just carry a few spare batteries !

For the price of a couple of those fast, dedicated Fuji lenses you can buy a couple of slower, equivalent Nikon full frame lenses and a full frame dSLR to use them with.

For the $500~600 people typically end up paying for these entry level kits, the alternative option is an entry level mirrorless body (often with no EVF!) and some optically terrible, collapsing 3x zoom which is every bit as slow as the dSLR kit anyway. dSLRs are better value in this price point.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 00:31 UTC
Total: 1324, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »