guyfawkes

guyfawkes

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

Comments

Total: 359, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Archos to make Kodak-branded Android tablets (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: The tablet market is so mature now that any new entrants would have so little market share. Apple owns a decent amount and so does Sony and Microsoft. It will be hard to beat those three competitors IMO. Besides, there are so many Android tablet brands on the market now it almost seems pointless to even care what brand it is (although I'm a fan of Samsung so I'd go Samsung). Unless Kodak has anything new to bring to the table, like attachable lenses for its tablet camera, I really don't see this making any big dent in the market. I think it's more just Kodak is struggling since its core business died off years ago (film) and it's trying to adapt itself to survive. It's line of Digital cameras are on the "Bargain" side of things (I don't think they make any professional level digital cameras/DSLRs). Maybe they should look into creating a mirrorless camera than working on an Android tablet.

@sirhawkeye64. You are not paying atttention, Sir. :D) How about Ilford, Harman, Adox and Foma for starters, and soon to be joined by a re-emergent Ferrania. Things are looking up for film users. Is this heretical to say on a digital platform site?

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 10:13 UTC
On article Archos to make Kodak-branded Android tablets (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

aramgrg: What about Kodak branded burgers?

That's a load of bull, surely? :D)

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 10:05 UTC
On article Archos to make Kodak-branded Android tablets (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

djohnfot: Yeah, the world really needs yet another cheap tablet that no one wants, especially if its quality is as poor as that of other recent Kodak products.

@entoman. "stupidity of Brexit and Trumpism" Actually, it is called democracy, like it or lump it. It is only stupid because you seem not to agree with the majority decision of the people. And, pray tell me, what is democratic about the machinations of the unelected and ruling EU political elite?

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 10:00 UTC
On article Archos to make Kodak-branded Android tablets (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stacey_K: What is sad, Kodak used to manufacture world class optics in the US back in the first half of the 20th century, as well as their film products. They actually made some good CCD sensors at the start of the digital revolution. Then at some point a few CEO's types wanted to become super rich milking the company dry, thousands of people lost their jobs so these few could afford a bigger yacht. And now they are trying to milk the last dime out of the brand name.

@gesture. What a fabulous lens that f7.7/203mm was, and still is. I'm not familiar with Kodak's reputation as a lens designer, but this lens sits at the top of the tree with the best of them, and I still have mine, although I no longer shoot 5x4.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 09:37 UTC
On article Archos to make Kodak-branded Android tablets (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ocolon: Why would Archos brand their tablets as Kodak? Likely because it gets them more attention by customers (who didn’t realize what happened to Kodak) and media as demonstrated by dpreview’s coverage.

Why does dpreview play that game though? This tablet has nothing to do with the once renowned company named Kodak and this tablet won’t be any more relevant to photography than other tablets usually not covered here.

I suspect many don't even know what Archos was doing with HDD media players before the iPod and Android. They produced some nifty numbers in their early AV range of products, being able to be used as PVR's for TV playback and as they used conventional hard disk drives had far more storage than the miserly offerings of the competition that came later.

The early models didn't have what is the norm today for a tablet, a camera, but you could buy a little camera module add-on, as well as a Sat-nav module, and TV tuner. And shock horror, batteries were replaceable. In their early years, they were leaders in their field. To this day, I still have working AV500, and Archos 5 and 7 models (pre- the later models with the same number, but which were then re-branded as media tablets and ran a version of Android).

Sadly, after the first models 5 and 7, I think Archos lost its way somewhat and their later reputation has suffered as a result.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 21:55 UTC
In reply to:

expressivecanvas: I'm actually surprised that so many comments below mention predictions of Nikon being bought by another camera manufacturer. What does Nikon have to offer that would interest any camera manufacturer?

Nikon seems to have backed themselves into a corner, precariously close to positioning themselves out of competition. It seems to me that Nikon is following more closely in Kodak's footsteps of terribly poor management resulting in products nobody really needs including other camera manufacturers rather than continuing to build a portfolio which could be desirable to other camera manufacturers as well as consumers.

I've never owned a Nikon digital camera, but still think it would be sad if they did disappear from the market. But, could their present position indeed be the result of poor management when they buried their head in the sand and poo-pooed the idea of compact mirrorless cameras for so long and entered the market too late?

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 13:06 UTC
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

coralnut: There was a time when PKR and PKM ruled the world...

Unfortunately were never going to see Kodachrome again because Kodak Alaris doesn't place any value on it. They either don't understand it's value, or they're just too cheap and risk-averse to re-create the processing infrastructure.

That's sad, because PKR & PKM were the only emulsions that kept me shooting film during the transition to digital photography. I rushed to have my last case of Kodachrome developed in the final week of K-14 processing. There's been a big hole in the photography world ever since.

Following the death of Kodachrome things were pretty bad -- we could choose between Velvia with it's image impermanence, or noisy low-res digital sensors. Today we're finally at the point where IQ and resolution on digital sensors is acceptable, so going back to film is no longer the necessity to cure the deficiencies of digital that it used to be. A reintroduction now would be too little too late.

I used a lot of slide film from the mid-1960's onwards with the big plus that I could view on a 60"x60" screen. This is where K25 outshone all the other films for sharpness. There were no such things as digital projectors then, and I don't own one today. What I'd really like to see is one of my K25's in direct comparison with a digital image from a digital projector. Would the digital image compare favourably, or not?

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 10:12 UTC
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

copyrightimageltd: Modern films can look a little bland, Kodachrome would be fun to try but I would love to use Orwochrome UT18 and UT21 again, this old communist film had fantastically large grain and a colour palette like no other, wonderful stuff to use in the 1970s.

I used the Orwo films back then because it was cheap. The slides have lasted well to this day without any fading. But, as you say, its colour palette was like no other. Distinctly odd would be my verdict on it. :D) It seemed to add an autumnal glow to everything which could be very pleasing with the right subject.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 10:07 UTC
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

falcon123: Fujifilm try to reproduce its film color on its X series camera, although it will never 100% same as the chemical did, it come from the camera for free.
Pay at least 30 dollars for 36 photo?! Beside money,it is also difficult for sharing, storage and editing.
Simply selling the good old day idea is not really work. Kodak is not on a right direction for business, why don't they sell their Kodak color like PS plug in or inside their new m43 system as a selling point.

"And some people can post process with remarkable results, to the point that I'm willing to bet you couldn't tell if it was digital or film."

On the basis of this criteria, I would agree with you. But surely, what then is the point of shooting film if it is then mucked around with so much it looks digital? Doesn't this defeat the object of shooting film?

I until I decided to move to digital capture (for the convenience) I had been doing my own D&P since 1960, and still favour an original photographic print for its image qualities. Viewing a scanned image on a monitor is not the same experience and the process of going from a negative to a digital image, to my mind (this is all I can go on) robs the image of a lot of film's unique reproduction characteristics. If one takes the same subject in a complete analog chain of reproduction to a print, and compares this with the digital chain to a print, differences are obvious.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 10:01 UTC
In reply to:

Boeing skipper: I wonder how many of these people who care only about sharpness actually use super high resolution screens and print their picture in 40 x 60?
When it comes to portrait lenses, I personnally care a lot more about the overall look of the picture, the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas, the bokeh and the 3D pop.
I own the Canon 85 f1.8 and the 135 f2. My copy of the 135 isn't significantly sharper than my 85 but the overall look of the image is so much more pleasing to my eye. It has this dreamy look only a few lenses can create, and from this Sigma gallery I can't find any of that here.
I would much rather get the 85L than the Sigma Art because of this. Sure, it is slow, has lots of CA, isn't nearly as sharp. But it's almost twice as small and the images it creates have a lot more of character to them.

Also, in Christopher Frost Photography's review on Youtube, he mentions that 30% of his pictures are miss-focused with the new 85 Art. Good luck with that.

@rick decker. I once owned the Nikkor 43-86 and don't recall it being marketed as a soft focus lens, well not in the UK at least. I do recall reading an article about the design parameters Nikon followed favouring sharpness over optical distortions which were allowed to be slightly on the high side of average. As a result it wasn't really suitable for architecture, but it was sharp for a zoom of that era. And, no, it hadn't any soft focus attributes at all. Are you thinking of another lens?

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 09:18 UTC
In reply to:

Boeing skipper: I wonder how many of these people who care only about sharpness actually use super high resolution screens and print their picture in 40 x 60?
When it comes to portrait lenses, I personnally care a lot more about the overall look of the picture, the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas, the bokeh and the 3D pop.
I own the Canon 85 f1.8 and the 135 f2. My copy of the 135 isn't significantly sharper than my 85 but the overall look of the image is so much more pleasing to my eye. It has this dreamy look only a few lenses can create, and from this Sigma gallery I can't find any of that here.
I would much rather get the 85L than the Sigma Art because of this. Sure, it is slow, has lots of CA, isn't nearly as sharp. But it's almost twice as small and the images it creates have a lot more of character to them.

Also, in Christopher Frost Photography's review on Youtube, he mentions that 30% of his pictures are miss-focused with the new 85 Art. Good luck with that.

Other than "twice as small" (half the size) :D), I entirely agree with you. Today, people seem obsessed with sharpness as if this is the holy grail, and don't seem to appreciate the vastly more important imaging qualities of a lens and which makes different lenses, and which may be less sharp, so interesting.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 09:11 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

franzel: One of the best handling cameras I've ever owned, with perfect controls .
The lens was really good, at least for that sensor .

Eventually the file quality just didn't cut it anymore, but I'd buy one with a modern sensor and display in a heartbeat .

Looking back, I can't believe it was Sony who once designed such an ergonomic, intuitive and simple still camera ...

"Eventually the file quality just didn't cut it anymore". True, but with digital gear things move on. But of its era, it was fantastic to use and produced lovely images. You mentioned its handling, which I, too, have never bettered since, and especially with Sony's own flashgun mounted. As a platform, this made the camera far better to hold than those with accessory shoes mounted atop their pentaprism housings.

Reading the comments here from the many R1 users, it is amazing how much it was, and is still, liked. I can still take mine out without any reservations as to its imaging capabilities that could make me wish I'd gone out with something newer. Within its manageable limitations, it is still a joy to use. The only thing that I have to remember now is it doesn't have IS and I have been caught out once or twice trusting to luck, or not noticing the slow shutter speed!

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 12:03 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

Adrian Messenger: My first digital camera. Semi-retired after I bought my D800. On long photo trips, still use it as a backup, and occasionally for more informal outings. Took this on an Antarctic cruise, where it worked flawlessly. As well as cold windy winter outings to Mono Lake and Dante's View, where again it worked like a charm.

While I already was convinced it would be my first digital camera, Phil's review cemented my opinion and I totally agree, the lens is just plain awesome.

The camera had its flaws, but within its limits, it was great. It made a lot of great photos for me.

A couple of years ago I was at Fort Point in San Francisco, doing a spiral staircase photo on the roof, someone spotted my R1 and being a camera guy asked to take a photo of it with me holding it. He said he knew the camera well, but had never seen someone with it before.

Not long after I got my R1 and whilst out shooting with it, a guy came up and asked if it was the "big Sony". Eyeing the big Canon dslr and large zoom lens attached he had strung from his neck, I laughed. He'd heard of it, and read some reviews, possibly DPR Phil Askey's (which prompted my purchase) but this was the first he'd seen. And I wouldn't mind betting that if the R1 were displayed along with a smattering of dslr's today, it would still garner more interest than all the look-alike styling of the dslr's.

Unless one was around at the time of its launch, it is difficult now to experience the same interest the R1 generated back then. It wasn't a camera for everyone, its fixed zoom being being a problem for many, but with an effective 24-120mm it suited me down to the ground.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 11:51 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

GarysInSoCal: Sorry Sony-Balony fanboys... images from this tinker-toy were always off color and noiser than a rock concert in the front row at anything over 400ISO. I refuse to believe I'm the only one that remembers that... ;)

You may also be one of the few who have forgotten just how noisy digital cameras of that era were, and from any maker you'd care to name. Noise was something one just had to accept when using higher ISO settings. But used sensibly, it was never a real issue.

And colour issues? Not in my experience. To this day, I still marvel at the sheer quality I got from my R1. Much better than the Olympus E-500 with 18-54 Pro lens which it replaced. Yes, cameras have improved enormously in many areas, but my R1 is still a very compelling piece of kit. And being perfectly honest, if all my digital kit were ever to be stolen and the thieves left behind only my R1 because it was "old and out of date" I'd be perfectly happy.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 11:22 UTC
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

falcon123: Fujifilm try to reproduce its film color on its X series camera, although it will never 100% same as the chemical did, it come from the camera for free.
Pay at least 30 dollars for 36 photo?! Beside money,it is also difficult for sharing, storage and editing.
Simply selling the good old day idea is not really work. Kodak is not on a right direction for business, why don't they sell their Kodak color like PS plug in or inside their new m43 system as a selling point.

@ CortoPA, I don't see the purpose of shooting film and then getting it developed and scanned by a third party. By bypassing the wet printing process, one completely misses just how film renders in a silver based print, as opposed to it being scanned and viewed on a monitor.

Having said this, though, my best B/W medium format negs scanned (by me) and viewed on a monitor still have a completely different look (filmic?) than a digital B/W image can ever have, certainly in my experience.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 10:54 UTC
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

Silvex: Is there any reason to hang on to 35mm film?

Please reply here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59040094

@ Silvex. This assumes everyone prays at the altar that is digital photography. And film is more than 35mm. 35mm photography was popular but quality was third rate compared to MF and LF film.

No, the lure of film is that it is a more immersive experience than digital and photographers have to work harder to get results. This is what film users know, and decided to ignore for the sake of the pleasure it gives them.

But whether one is a digital or film photographer, just enjoy it. One isn't necessarily better then the other. And if shooting film gives a photographer more overall satisfaction than shooting digital, why not?

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 10:40 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Another fun project. The excitement of handing out an instant print!!!
I would gladly back this project if it wasn't for the cardboard material, even at bit higher price. Not much durability here at all.
I'm sure if they succeed, there will be durable iterations in the future.

I understand what you mean, but remember how many early film box cameras were also made of cardboard. Many of these have lasted and can be bought on ebay even to this day.

Where I believe this project differs is it doesn't rely on any fancy electronics or complex manufacturing, and given its quite simplistic construction there should be every possibility of backers getting one. It isn't my cup of tea, but I do find its retro styling appealing.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 10:20 UTC
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
Total: 359, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »