NormSchultze

Joined on Jan 9, 2011

Comments

Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Ilford Fujifilm: Somehow they always manage to find a terrible old camera that looks like it fell down a cliff for the product showcase. :-)

Sony users are spoiled, with so many AF lenses available even from 3rd party brands. And having tried old MF lenses with adapters, no way I will consider buying either of those in the future. The sony la-ea4 was the only one that makes sense.

For APS-c there are several autofocus lenses much smaller, lighter and cheaper (from 150 euro on Amazon prime).

I dont get the RF mount. Why no get the Canon 16mm. Same price.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2022 at 21:18 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 G2 review (84 comments in total)

Take that lens down to the railroad and see how the flare works with the ditch lights. Critical issue for RR photographers.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2021 at 19:20 UTC as 17th comment
On article Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM sample gallery (471 comments in total)
In reply to:

Weia: I had a 600 mirror on Olympus OM-2, it did not make great pictures, but I used it for picturing birds or dragonflies at a distance. You often have atmospheric circumstances that spoil the picture more or less, but sometimes weather is OK. And you have pictures anyway. Most negative comments compare this f/11 lens with lenses and circumstances that would not give you any picture of those birds and dragonflies.

When I was a teen, I recall a Nikon piece that spoke of degradation of images due to atmospherics. I'm almost 80 and nothing has changed. heat waves are still heat waves and screw things up.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2020 at 19:22 UTC
On a photo in the Canon EOS R6 sample gallery (DPReview TV) sample gallery (18 comments in total)
In reply to:

NormSchultze: The locomotive isn't sharp. Either there is a problem with the camera lens combo or the shutter speed is too low.

According to my old Canadian Rail Guide, the speed limit on that subdivision is 45mph, prolly lower on that bridge as I recall. It's a disaster.
I haven't shot that bridge since the film days !

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2020 at 20:57 UTC
On a photo in the Canon EOS R6 sample gallery (DPReview TV) sample gallery (18 comments in total)

The locomotive isn't sharp. Either there is a problem with the camera lens combo or the shutter speed is too low.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2020 at 13:57 UTC as 4th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

User4286416121: While their recommendation may step on toes, it is correct. The fewer people out the better. It was the correct call. They hold a little bit of sway. The official position could not go the other way. This will keep some people off the streets, and others from being outraged. Limit how many peolke arepeeing in the pool.

Glad these folks weren't in the first wave at Juno Beach.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2020 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

TiltShiftR: big brother strikes again.

No big deal. Every Aircraft I've ever seen or flown in had it's N Number clearly visible. This is just another class of aircraft.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2019 at 20:19 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50R Review (1744 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mac McCreery: Lovely. But can you hand hold a shot with so many mp?

Of course. A buddy hand holds his 5DSr and zeiss 50mm all the time. Stunninly sharp.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2018 at 16:18 UTC

Another entitled smart a$$ that doesn't accept that the rules of engagement apply to them. The punishment is appropriate.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 20:45 UTC as 41st comment
In reply to:

(unknown member): It is interesting how people are asking what the brand of the battery is. A lot of third party batteries have no brand name on them for this very reason.

Also, did the battery carry the Underwriters seal? Many batteries sold on E-Bay are knockoffs w/o the internals of OEM batteries. That's why OEM are more expensive -among other reasons.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 23:32 UTC
In reply to:

Hello123: I don't even want to fly anymore... It has become such a hassle and now they're talking about in some states that a drivers license may not be compliant with TSA requirements. Between going through x-ray machines, being felt up by TSA agents, to a whole host of banned items, to now exploding batteries.... I just don't want to put up with it. This all reminds me of East Germany and the Stasi police. Papers please.

That's is because some states have failed to comply with 'real id' licenses. Blame your state pols. It's federal Law, passed by Congress and signed by Pres Bush.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 21:47 UTC
In reply to:

rened: I wonder what is the real risk involved. Its good to be pro-active regarding risks but I have the strong impression the FAA is having a bad case of a heavy meal. I also think that the real risk involved are the inflammable fluids gases in the baggage. If we are talking about risks I think Lap top and cell phone batteries are a much bigger risk maybe not in the final catastrophical outcome but the amount of real life victims.

Damian5000. Please enlighten the rest of us with your credentials to make such an absolute statement.

Or are you just a guy with a battery and an enlightened chip on his shoulder?

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

Scottelly: Ridiculousness . . . It's as if the FAA is on a power trip and wants to act like some sort of overbearing big brother, not allowing anything, because of fear and being a control freak. Next we'll be forced to submit to body cavity searches as part of the security checks. Do you want your wife to have to pull down her panties and bend over to have an "agent" look up her twot and rectum? How about your daughter?

"After conducting tests involving these batteries, the FAA found that if one were heated to the point where it caught fire near an aerosol can (think: hairspray), it could result in an explosion so quick and powerful that it would render a plane's fire suppression system useless." REALLY? It COULD, or it is likely? I've seen aerosol cans explode. That sort of thing is not going to "disable" a fire suppression system made of anything but balsa wood, and they don't make fire suppression systems out of wood.

We've done this to ourselves by accepting such treatment.

How silly can you get ! L-ion batteries aren't benign. And they have caused fires. So, a fire in a cargo hold is especially difficult, if not impossible to contain. And that is why they are unacceptable.

Here's a thought. When TSA finds a L-ion in your checked baggage, you will be summoned to remove it. It will take a while, and you'll miss your flight.
And then, since you are a danger to other passengers, your favorite airline will bar you from flying.

Because YOU are one of those entitled people for whom the rules do not apply.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 18:24 UTC
In reply to:

TimBamBam: With the newest rules by the airlines that will required you to removed your camera and other electronics they aree going to make travel photographers jobs a nightmare.

Nonsense. Just get pre Check/Global Entry and be done.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

EskeRahn: And WHO is going to believe that they stay offline, if afraid of DJI transmitting data in the first place??

Never underestimate the criminality of any corporation. Never.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 23:35 UTC
In reply to:

arhmatic: What if the drone kills someone on the ground while free falling? Who is responsible?

I'm sure of it. Own a Pit Bull? You may get an exclusion for liability if the dog bites. Or not get insurance at all.

Or you will have to buy a drone rider policy.

It will take a while, and prolly several years before case law is well settled, but it's coming to an insurance agent near you. Just like your Piper Cub.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2017 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

Satyaa: It is a valid action based on real concerns, as long as they address the grey areas. It will take its time.

Now I also want courts to rule that civilians can confiscate drones flying into their property, for privacy concerns.

The United States Government controls the air space over the United states. Period. That's why the EMS helo can transit over your back yard.

Doubtful that a drone/operator can be trespassing unless you tell them to leave your property - that they were standing on. That's why it isn't a crime for religious prostelizers to knock on your door. If you tell them to leave they must do so, but no crime has been committed.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2017 at 21:38 UTC
In reply to:

ncsakany: Both sides took ridiculous positions.

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are persons....So maybe...
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes the first one.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2017 at 21:29 UTC
In reply to:

Impulses: What are the odds they pay out the damages? I'm surprised the trial only took a week after they spent so long trashing the photog (or maybe because they did?), you would've thought they'd have an attorney ready to drag it out.

Not necessarily. 2 1/2 years isn't excessive in civil court, depending on the jurisdiction of the court. It's all about the docket and the number of trial judges, and whether parties settle enough to move the docket forward.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 16:17 UTC
In reply to:

stefpix: The terrorists now will all apply for the TSA precheck. The others will wait in line, while some cameras will be "lost" or accidentally fall off the tray.

What are the TSA provisions if expensive electronics are stolen or damaged while the owner is being body scanned at a security checkpoint?

You aren
't SOL if TSA damages your equipment. You simply file a claim. Just like you would if the taxi driver dropped your case. Geez.

Here's a thought: Just get PreCheck/Global Entry, get the chip off your shoulder and act like a normal person. Works every time.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 18:46 UTC
Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »