guyfawkes

guyfawkes

Lives in Birmingham, UK
Works as a Retired.
Joined on Feb 20, 2012

Comments

Total: 322, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

benalys: I am over 50 years old and kind of person more keen to the traditional values.
I have enjoyed the sample photos taken by Phil Askey, that was the major reason to draw me to the DPreview. Now I missed his new photos a lot and tend not to look at the samples taken now.

The DPreview is not the one it was when it was drawing more people in.

Here is the photos taken by Phil for Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Review
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/28

It was this review that prompted me to sell my Olympus E500/Pro 15-54mm combo and get the R1, and which I still have. Dated spec by today's standards, but that lens is still stunning.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 10:50 UTC
In reply to:

rfsIII: I feel bad for the car dealers in Seattle; judging from the galleries, no one has bought a new car up there since 1975. It's like Havana except with Volvos and Volkswagen instead of Fords and Chevies.

You wouldn't want to drive one if you've come across the French joke about the MR2 and why it wasn't sold with this badge in France. "MR2" is pronounced the same as "emmerdeur", and is also close to "merde".

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 10:40 UTC
In reply to:

Mal69: The only question I have is this, how does the new model compare to the old and does the FZ1000 at half the price have as good a lens as the newer model?

@HowaboutRAW,

Generally speaking, we do pay more but in most cases this is down to our tax regime in which VAT (Value Added Tax @ 20%) is added. But in the case of the FZ1000 we could be doing quite well. It can presently be purchased for around £600 and which, when we factor out the VAT, the base price becomes £500. At the present $/£ exchange rate of roughly 1.25 would equate to $625 base price.

I am not familiar with the US tax structure for goods, although I am aware Sales Tax can vary from State to State. How would you break down the US price of $800? This would make for an interesting comparison.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 10:29 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: All these nice lenses for the E-mount annoy me because I seriously dislike Sony cameras. I wish someone like Olympus would get off their m43 horse and make good cameras for the E-mount as well.

The problem I see with Fuji and Olympus and FF is that neither of them will have any modern AF lenses. And then one will get the same argument that was aimed at Sony when they launched their E mount - nearly everyone slated Sony because there were exceedingly few lenses. People weren't prepared to wait for the road map to be completed. The main option for Fuji and Olympus initially would be using their legacy lenses with adapters. But, to be honest, even though I can do this on all my Sony E mounts, the performance of these older lenses leaves much to be desired. They were designed for film not digital.

At least Canon and Nikon will start out with an advantages should they bring out a FF MILC. They already have a plethora of digital based lenses for FF and a vast catalogue of legacy lenses.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2016 at 18:42 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: All these nice lenses for the E-mount annoy me because I seriously dislike Sony cameras. I wish someone like Olympus would get off their m43 horse and make good cameras for the E-mount as well.

Re your second paragraph. I can understand the feeling, especially when you see a particular lens that is getting rave comments but it isn't for your camera! We don't see Canon making Nikon mount lenses, and vice versa. They want you to buy their own, not support a competing manufacturer. And the word "competing" is the crux. This is the field of the independents, and even here they have to be selective in which mounts they make available and, again, you can find a well received lens that is still not available in your mount.

Regarding Fuji, I don't believe it is stupid for them not to have a FF camera. Why try and compete in the FF arena when it is already populated by the likes of Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax? I use Fuji (X-Pro 1 and X-E1) and for my needs they surpass my Sony A7. But what has Fuji done? They've jumped the lot of them and gone medium format. Bravo Fuji.

If photography isn't fun, give it up. Fully support you here. :D)

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2016 at 08:15 UTC
In reply to:

Zdman: You can't say something is almost symetrical if it has 5 elements. Thats like saying 5 is almost even. No amount of design will make 5 elements symetrical.

@FrancoD. No need to invent a word. There are many palindromes, even sentences. In this case, how about Laval, French WWII politician, or madam?

And if one really wants to stretch matters, how about "Able was I ere I saw Elba"?

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 14:02 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: All these nice lenses for the E-mount annoy me because I seriously dislike Sony cameras. I wish someone like Olympus would get off their m43 horse and make good cameras for the E-mount as well.

@samfan, are you suggesting that Olympus should make a M4/3 camera with an E-mount, or simply an Olympus lens in E-mount? Or both?

I doubt you will get your wish. There is something called "saving face". Olympus nailed their flag to 4/3 and have ploughed so much into it.

By the way, which Sony camera(s) do you seriously dislike, and why?

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 13:56 UTC
In reply to:

ybizzle: The only new Leica that matters or has ever mattered is the M. Once it gets announced, millions and millions of photographers will be selling their organs to be able to afford one. The Leica M. There is no substitute.

Nikonandmore. I do know what you mean. The largest screen I could accommodate was a 60"x 60" and I used two projectors, a basic Rollei but kitted out with the Isco Projar-S 90mm lens which cost more than the complete projector with standard lens. The Projar-S was on a par with the Super Colorplan, although in a shoot out with a friend's Pradolux the Colorplan won out, but only just, and we needed a very sharp K25 slide to show this up.

The second projector is a Rollei P11, a 6x6 unit, and this of course completely filled the screen. Now THAT is something to behold!

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2016 at 22:35 UTC
In reply to:

ybizzle: The only new Leica that matters or has ever mattered is the M. Once it gets announced, millions and millions of photographers will be selling their organs to be able to afford one. The Leica M. There is no substitute.

@Nikonandmore,
Whilst not entirely in agreement with some of your quite strong objections to Leica digital products, I find myself in total agreement with this post. Like you, I have over the years shot with a number of Leica film cameras - IIIf, M3, M6, Leicaflex, SL2, R3 and R7 - and used slide film, primarily K25 and K64, as these were the only films, IMO, that could demonstrate the superiority of Leica optics. I never felt any desire to move to a digital M as there was too much "getting in the way" of showing what their lenses were capable of by way of the sensor and the image processing software. If one liked what it did, fine, but unlike film, one was stuck with it. At least with film, at the time, the world was one's oyster, so to speak, with all the different types. This may explain why I prefer Fuji, with their film simulation. Not exactly Kodachrome, but they do seem more film-like to my eyes.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 10:29 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: So this Leica will make "Fujifilm Instax mini 90" becoming most current Poor man's Leica on top of the older Poor man's Leica Fuji X100.

"I do not think Leica M re-badge the X-Pro 1, rather than FUJI copies M style. NO?"
Of course, Mike, but I had my tongue firmly in my cheek and know full well the the X-Pro 1 post dates the M series digitals.
Not sure about your reference to Sony in the context of this thread. Leica has not cloned any Sony.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 10:02 UTC
In reply to:

sethmarshall: Oh the bokeh wars.. 10 years ago most people didn't know what bokeh was..

So true. Its akin to paying more attention to what a photographic print has been mounted on than the photograph itself.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 09:50 UTC
In reply to:

dr.noise: I see just a regular bokeh

Yes, that Nikon has great coma. How about promoting this natural lens aberration and asking $$$$'s for it? Some mug will buy it.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 09:47 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: So this Leica will make "Fujifilm Instax mini 90" becoming most current Poor man's Leica on top of the older Poor man's Leica Fuji X100.

At the time of Leica's early foray into digital cameras they re-badged some Fuji compacts. They've come full circle and are now re-badging a Fuji instant camera. I'm surprised they didn't re-badge the X-Pro 1. Wait, they did, it's an M digital. :D)

Whilst Leica has always charged a hefty premium for its re-badged offerings, at least a buyer still got a good camera. But this instant camera is virtually double the price of the Fuji for no difference in image quality, but it is still eminently affordable. So one would need to really question why anyone would buy it over the quite nice looking Fuji. Snob value? "I've got a SOFORT" sounds more interesting than "I've got an Instant" (sofort in German)

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2016 at 08:43 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F707 (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digimat: looking at the samples i would say they had better color rendition back then than they have today ;)

Actually, you could be right. Although lenses can be warm or cool in their renditions, by far the cleanest looking images I have were taken with Sony's CDR-500 that recorded to miniature 8cm discs. Nothing from my Nex 5N, Nex 7, or A7 can quite match it.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 11:27 UTC
In reply to:

TheClueless: Fuji at their most shameless, lol

https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/leica-x-23mm-f-1-7--typ-113--review-26875/images/highres-Leica-X-Typ113-4_1422625470.jpg

So the Leica is really a Fuji after all? :D)

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 08:50 UTC
In reply to:

guyfawkes: At Legacy GT.

The Canon Selphy 1200. It prints using dye-sub and can print to standard 6x4 inches. The battery pack is optional. I'm not into this sort of thing, and I haven't been able to find out if it will wirelessly connect to a wireless enabled camera, although it will with a smartphone or tablet. Given that the majority of smartphones now have quite good cameras on board, the results using the Selphy are likely to be much better.

Miki, I awaiting your next post when you tell me you've bought the INSTAX as well. :D)

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2016 at 10:52 UTC
In reply to:

guyfawkes: At Legacy GT.

The Canon Selphy 1200. It prints using dye-sub and can print to standard 6x4 inches. The battery pack is optional. I'm not into this sort of thing, and I haven't been able to find out if it will wirelessly connect to a wireless enabled camera, although it will with a smartphone or tablet. Given that the majority of smartphones now have quite good cameras on board, the results using the Selphy are likely to be much better.

Miki, I'm pleased I was able to assist in your choice.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2016 at 10:13 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: I worked at a computer shop in 1997-1998 and the Floppy-based Mavicas sold like crazy. Although at that time, most people bought the more compact and cheaper versions that just had a prime lens (I think it was a 35mm eq. f2 lens)

There were a lot of drawbacks with floppies, but you have to remember that memory cards were crazy expensive. Even an 8 MB (yes Megabytes) card was $50 or more. So packing a few $1 floppies in the bag seemed like a nice alternative. Not to mention, you could just pop the disk in your computer without hooking up cables. And in the late 90s, transferring images wasn't as easy as just Autoplay on plugging in USB. Some of the cameras and card readers used Serial ports and a TWAIN driver like a scanner. So the simplicity of using a drive everyone was familiar with was very appealing to many.

Anyway, fun to bring back those memories.

You hit the nail on the head. We need to look beyond the, now, obvious imaging capabilities to how user friendly these dinosaurs were. And they were quite clearly fit for certain purposes demanded of them. Times move on and now we find people using multi megapixel cameras simply to post images on the net. Talk about overkill.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

OzarkAggie: I passed on the Sony and bought a Canon Pro70 which came with PhotoShop LE. It was very cool in 99 but a year or so later it went swimming in the Meramec River. One of the first to offer raw capture if I remember correctly.

I suspect it was even cooler after its swim. :D)

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 13:42 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: I also started the digital camera age with a Sony: The V1 in 2003. It had a feature set which is impressive even by today's standards, like an infrared mode for shooting in total darkness, and laser focusing. It's 5 megapixels and quality lens mean that it's pictures will probably still be adequate for many uses today. It's tiny 1.5 inch screen was really too small, however.

I have one in my camera collection. But I find it too small and fiddly and the CD-500 beats it for IQ. They were contemporaneous and as I assume they used the same CCD 5 meg sensor this is odd.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 13:33 UTC
Total: 322, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »