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


Total: 379, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Fotograpo: If the monkey can't claim copyright, why is PETA suing for the monkey? Did the monkey sign a document granting PETA the right to sue for him/her?

And who did they get to talk to the monkey to determine what he wanted? Why, surprise, surprise, another monkey i.e. one belonging to PETA.

Just a thought, has the monkey sued PETA for lost royalties? Surely this is a missed opportunity for ambulance chasing US lawyers, is it not? (As Perry Mason would say.)

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 10:55 UTC
In reply to:

Tommi K1: Interesting claim that you need to press shutter to own the copyright. While in many european countries the copyright is owned by one who plans the photograph. Even if you give camera to someone random person, go front of the camera and get your photo taken with the background, you are the copyright owner and not the one who pressed the photo.

Did they ask the monkeys? They obviously did, liked what they were told, and then set about getting a lot of (adverse) publicity that won't have done them any good, and ruined Slater's life in the process. Is this what the monkey wanted to achieve, or was he coerced to say what he did with a couple of bananas?

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 10:37 UTC
On article Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM sample gallery (101 comments in total)

Look at #4 @ 100% or in lupe mode. An incredible performance for a zoom at 400mm.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 12:32 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

Kona Mike: I'm so tired of people touting the size of mirrorless cameras. Yes, with some lenses it can be a smaller system. But not as small and convenient as a phone.

One of main benefits of mirrorless is getting the glass closer to the sensor. The closer the glass is to the sensor, the better the image can be. Why do you think Canon came up with EF-S? At the time their EF-S 17-55 f2.8 was reviewed as one of the sharpest zooms. All from moving the glass a little closer to the sensor. A a crop sensor didn't need a mirror as big as a full frame lens, so they moved the lens' rear element into the body a little more.

Another benefit more important than size is the auto focus on the sensor. No need to worry about front focus, etc. or micro adjust.

I'm sure as the processor speeds improve and battery life improves the mirrorless experience will improve, but lets not kid ourselves about the size. They aren't going to beat the convenience or pocketability of the camera on your phone.


Getting the lens closer to the sensor is not primarily about reducing the size of the lens, albeit this may be a by-product of a particular design. Sensors work at their optimum with light rays which reach the sensor perpendicularly, with as little variation in the angle of incidence from 0 degrees as possible. These lenses are of telecentric design. Sony knew this full well when Zeiss designed the lens for the R1 and in which the rear element is a mere 2mm from the plane of the sensor. Olympus did something similar with their Pro 18-54 lens, although the distance between the rear element and the sensor was far less extreme.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 11:29 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dr Blackjack: But what film should I use??


We all had to learn somewhere, and advice is free, is it not? :D)

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 17:43 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wellington100: Canon AF35ML from 1981. Pro grade body, crazy sharp F2 lens, a built in motor that could power a food processor, AA batteries and a whole lot of retro cool. The ultimate pro's compact, the X100F of its times.

You must be joking. :D) I have one of these, and it is pitiful on most counts. Passive AF is hit and miss and it only has a few focusing points, but when it nails it, the lens isn't that bad, but not impressive, and it wasn't that hot on exposure either. Try shooting colour slide film with it and you'd see what I mean. Wide open, the f1.9 (sic) lens was very soft and about as useless as the bottom of a glass jar. If it has any plus point then all that I can add is that mine is still working, but no way will I waste any film using it.

The motor could not only power a food processor, as you put it, it sounds like one as well. And an all-plastic body = Pro grade? I don't know what photographic world you live in, but Pro grade it isn't. NZ is a lovely place, though.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 17:37 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)
In reply to:

GEONYC: I can buy Leica R-4s for under $300.

This is quite true, one can buy R bodies (except the mechanical R6 versions) relatively cheaply, but the problem is the lenses which remain stubbornly expensive because they are high quality and easily adapt for use with digital bodies.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 17:09 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)
In reply to:

chbde: "Sometimes these turn up in seemingly working order, but with a dead light meter (bad news for an aperture priority-only camera)"
The XA actually has two independent light meters, one for the viewfinder needle and one for the aperture priority circuit (yes, sounds strange). A non-working needle doesn't have to mean the camera is unusable, you just need to set an roughly appropriate f-stop not to exceed the shutter speed range. Just point it to different light levels, the length of the shutter click should tell you if it's working or not. Oh, and make sure you check and in case replace the light seals on the back; it's actually very easy to do.
Great little camera with a hyper-sensitive shutter button that gave me some nice abstract unintended pictures - especially with friends who fiddled around with it: "Is that red thing there the shutter bu-*Clack*". :)

chbde, I didn't know that about the XA dual metering. Thanks for the info; useful to know when, or if, mine fails!

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 16:56 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)

Nice to see some Minoltas listed, and feel their excellent XD7 is a worthy contender as well. Glad to see Canon's EOS 5, and if one wishes to get less expensive, the original EOS 650 which started it all.

These slr's are cheap and the beauty is savings can be made by fitting third party lenses and thus saving over the original lenses and which often cost more than the body.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 16:47 UTC as 182nd comment | 1 reply
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)
In reply to:

Franz Kerschbaum: The Contax RTS is a classic gem. It had the first electronic shutter and is legacy zeiss lenses still hold their value!

@Tical. I also believe that ebay has a lot to do with it. Prices are inflated because lots of sellers have no idea of what their kit is really worth, but assume it is worth far more than it is, and then hope for gullible buyers. BIN prices are the main culprit with sellers imitating high prices they've seen posted.

I'm not denigrating all sellers in like manner as there are those who sell at fair prices, but IMO if ebay remained an auction site only, then prices are likely to more reflect the going rate, rather than what optimistic sellers feel it should be.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 16:39 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)
In reply to:

dkirk7000: Nikon fm-2 was a great little camera as was the F2. I could afford the camera but not the film and processing. Besides I tore out my darkroom years ago. Much more joy in photoshop and Lightroom.

Perhaps HCB didn't do his own printing, but he could afford not to. The clue is in the "Cartier" part of his name.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 16:20 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom (101 comments in total)

Some cameras one always remembers. This is one of mine. Starting out with a Canon G2, a very brief affair with a G5 cut short when the 8080 came along. Wonderful ergonomics made it a joy to hold and to shoot with, ably assisted by its chunky body. I particularly liked the rounded left side of the body and the placing of the shutter release made hand-holding at low speeds easier; remember, no IS. Pretty quick startup for its day, but horrendously slow RAW write times and only five zoom settings were its downsides. But these could be forgiven because of its superb images, that stand up to scrutiny even today, appearing sharp, but not unnaturally so. I suppose today, we'd say less digitally looking. I still have it and just for fun it gets an airing from time to time.

Believe it or not, but the E-500 that I replaced it with, I didn't like anywhere near as much.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2017 at 14:25 UTC as 20th comment
On article FilmLab is a film negative scanning app for smartphones (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

PaddyC: No way I would opt for a sub. The subscription model is getting out of hand. I get why companies like it etc. but I'm getting close to my limit. I can only justify keeping so many subs going a month/year and after that, if you don't give me an outright purchase option, then I'm not buying.

An outright purchase should be possible. But then who pays for updates?

Link | Posted on May 14, 2017 at 11:50 UTC
On article FilmLab is a film negative scanning app for smartphones (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gregm61: Just what we need. A way to convert high quality 35mm film images into cheap quality iPhone pics. Last place this should be pushed is DPReview. I'd expect to see this in a cheap product magazine in the back of the airplane seat in front of me.


Whilst it is true that there are fewer companies making scanners today, this does not negate the usability of earlier, now defunct, scanners. Unlike the perceived need for advancements in digital camera technology, a scanner's function is fairly basic. Any reasonable flatbed scanner can outresolve a photographic print, such that scans in excess of 600dpi, or1200dpi at the most, are unnecessary and often only result in huge file sizes, not any increase in true resolution over the original print. And there is only so much resolution to extract from a 35mm negative or slide that dpi's in excess of 5000 simply aren't that necessary.

It is my opinion that the performance of domestic scanners peaked around 2004. Commercial scanners are a different kettle of fish but I have no experience of these.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2017 at 11:28 UTC
On article FilmLab is a film negative scanning app for smartphones (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

ms18: I don't really understand people still like / shoot film. Because an escalator can be used as steps as well. Shoot digital turn off auto preview. Do not see the images in back screen bring them home and see in computer only. If you need just take the camera to super market comeback then view it in your PC to simulate you went to studio to develop it. don't shoot more than 24/34 pictures. Now you get the feeling of shooting film. Fuji cameras are more like mechanical cameras.

If you can't control mind. Go to a meditation club. Do not shoot film to learn calmness.

In this video he says he has problem with negative scanners. No there is no problem with scanners. Problem is applying chemicals to the film before we could scan.


Two very valid observations. Top quality won't be the objective here, but convenience, and the cost certainly isn't outrageous.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2017 at 11:00 UTC
On article FilmLab is a film negative scanning app for smartphones (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edac2: I placed a slide on a small light box. I placed a loupe on top of the slide and took a photo with my iPhone thru the loupe. The result was comparable to the same slide scanned with an Epson flatbed scanner, which is — for better or worse — how most people are scanning slides and negatives these days (even printers).

Try asking your photo lab for 24MP scans of your next roll of film. You'll get a blank stare and "we scan film at 600 DPI," whatever that means. The problem is, all scanners and scanning software today measure scan resolution in DPI instead of megapixels. Is your lab's 600 DPI the same as 600 DPI on your slide scanner? Is 2400 DPI better, or just interpolated? Who knows. Could you imagine the chaos if DPI was used for camera sensors!

If you use Dr_Jon's method and mount a DSLR (with a 6000x4000 pixel sensor and a good macro lens) on a copy stand and get a good photo of a slide or negative illuminated on a lightbox, you know the resulting "scan" will be 24MP.


I'm not sure why you believe flatbed scanners don't have lenses, they most assuredly do. This is a quote from Canon's own site in respect of one of my scanners, the 9950F.

"The spherical lenses of conventional scanners introduce aberrations that cause a softening of the image towards the edges. The CanoScan 9950F aspherical Super Toric lens eliminates these aberrations to increase sharpness, contrast and colour stability, as well as transmitting more light for faster scanning."

Link | Posted on May 14, 2017 at 10:46 UTC
In reply to:

tonywong: Where is the multicard reader version? No SD card reader on new MacBook Pros so #donglelife continues.

Another me too product because Sandisk already has had one (USB-A) out there for a while now.

And so has Lexar with its Professional reader and which accepts both SD and CF cards. This is the model I've been using for quite a while now.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2017 at 10:16 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (464 comments in total)
In reply to:

Phily: No mention of my fixed lens setup: EOS M3 + 22mm

Oh well ...

@ peterpainter. Whilst I understand the remit of the article, I also agree with your sentiments. For my money, if there were cameras of roughly similar price/performance ratio why would one need to be restricted by a fixed lens model? I do like the look of the optical v/f equipped Fuji's though.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 09:04 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta DiMAGE X (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

AARonron: Ha! My first real digital camera was the DiMAGE x20 ( that came out the next year. It was basically the same layout, though minus the viewfinder and powered by a pair of AA batteries (which was very handy).

One feature I found amusing then and now see as ahead of its time was the small convex mirror on the front, right next to the lens. It was solely put there to aid in taking "selfies" long before that term even existed! It actually worked pretty well and resulted in some cherished photos me and my then-girlfriend (now wife).

It was also the catalyst for my real start into photography as a hobby, and I still have it sitting on a shelf. Two years later I upgraded to a Rebel XT, but this camera was the beginning.
It was also actually well reviewed on imaging-resource:

And heaven't I read somewhere recently that a mobile phone has emulated the idea of the mirror for selfies?

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 08:43 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta DiMAGE X (134 comments in total)

Reading this brought a smile to my face, and I went to get mine out to play with it again. Found the box in which were the charger, cables, software, manual, but no camera! it's around my home somewhere, but where?

I bought it for its compact dimensions as a "carry anytime" camera when I wasn't out with my heavy Sony R1 or Panasonic LC-10. My memories about its performance echo most of those here: its imaging properties were abysmal, but as I purchased it used, cheaply, it was no great loss. What surprised me most reading the original review was the price of small capacity SD cards in 2002.

So why have I kept it? Simple, I can't find where I put it after the last time I used it!

My last hands-on with this type of camera was the 8meg X-1. Beautifully crafted in, if I recall correctly, highly polished stainless steel. A design icon IMO, but too slippery to hold comfortably. But IQ had been improved considerably and was acceptable, if I didn't lose an image to camera shake.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 08:39 UTC as 6th comment
Total: 379, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »