guyfawkes

guyfawkes

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

Comments

Total: 375, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Ming Thein joins Hasselblad as Chief of Strategy (346 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: Curious why Ming Thein decided to go with Hasselblad over Fuji & Pentax who especially make better & transparent medium format cameras in my analysis & survey research after talking to famous camera reviewers like Steve Huff who have used literally every piece of expensive new gear that comes out.

Reading Ming's blog for a while, you would come to understand. Ming's reviews had to be based on cameras and lenses he purchased with his own money. He was thus able to honestly review, without bias or fear. "Loaners" for reviews came with editorial control by the camera makers and which he said he found totally unacceptable. Also some of the big names have a prejudice for reviewers to come from certain geographic areas and Malaysia wasn't deemed important enough.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 12:45 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)
In reply to:

pandionutv: In 1961 I inherited my father's for many years unused Ihagee 6 x 9 bellows camera from around 1925. It had a Tessar lens f=6.3 and a fastest shutter speed of 1/125. It also had a removable back where you could attach a roll film magazine, a sheet film magazine or a matte screen! Just lika a Hasselblad ... For macro photos you could unscrew the front lens. With such a start, I could claim that "When God said "Let there be light", I was ready with my camera"!

When my father saw that I could handle this he bought me a used Zeiss Contax IIa, probably of pre WW2-vintage. From then on it's been Pentax, Contax 137 and Canons for film, until I transitioned in 2005 to digital with a trial Canon S95, followed by a 350D.

Nice cameras, those Pentaxes. I sort of went the same way re Contax when I added the 139, but I didn't really warm to it.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 14:04 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)
In reply to:

pandionutv: In 1961 I inherited my father's for many years unused Ihagee 6 x 9 bellows camera from around 1925. It had a Tessar lens f=6.3 and a fastest shutter speed of 1/125. It also had a removable back where you could attach a roll film magazine, a sheet film magazine or a matte screen! Just lika a Hasselblad ... For macro photos you could unscrew the front lens. With such a start, I could claim that "When God said "Let there be light", I was ready with my camera"!

When my father saw that I could handle this he bought me a used Zeiss Contax IIa, probably of pre WW2-vintage. From then on it's been Pentax, Contax 137 and Canons for film, until I transitioned in 2005 to digital with a trial Canon S95, followed by a 350D.

The "Black Dial" IIa and IIIa cameras were the ones fitted with the non-standard flash synch connector. One needed the synch chord, one each for bulbs and electronic flash. Part no. 1361 is needed for bulbs and can still be found, with a little bit of luck, but the electronic flash version, part no. 1366, is arguably far more useful and is very rare indeed to find today. I found 1361 relatively easy on ebay, but 1366 took a while to track down. I only need them for my IIIa, as my IIa has a colour dial, see below.

Users who want to use flash would be better off to seek out the colour dial versions, so called because the 1/50 speed is in yellow, and the faster speeds are in red, as these cameras have a standard PC socket. Still, the black dial Contax IIa and IIIa are better in this respect than my Contax II and III as these have no flash synch at all!

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 11:49 UTC
In reply to:

GiovanniB: I love Swiss German! This language is so cute.

Long live local accents, or dialects, of any nationality. Variety is the spice of life. Wouldn't it be boring if we all spoke the same!

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 14:47 UTC
In reply to:

guyfawkes: When saving an image to jpeg after editing the original my software gives me the option to select a quality setting where 100 equals best quality jpeg, but having just saved a jpeg of 450KB from a 16MB RAW image, with the image dimensions remaining the same, on screen I can't see any difference. This represents a reduction to roughly 1/32nd of the original. So what am I missing here with google announcing just 35% saving?

@meanwhile. Understood. My image editing software has allowed me to reduce the original file down to roughly 3% of its original, so I was somewhat confused by the claim to reducing a file by "just" 35%. In fact it is going in the opposite direction to the .jxr file. Incidentally, I did try reducing the file even further, but then started to get colour artefacts.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 14:21 UTC

When saving an image to jpeg after editing the original my software gives me the option to select a quality setting where 100 equals best quality jpeg, but having just saved a jpeg of 450KB from a 16MB RAW image, with the image dimensions remaining the same, on screen I can't see any difference. This represents a reduction to roughly 1/32nd of the original. So what am I missing here with google announcing just 35% saving?

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 19:46 UTC as 14th comment | 3 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)
In reply to:

ScarletKnight: Never mind the old cameras, Dan Bracaglia's reference to the Daily Targum, the Rutgers University student paper, was the throwback comment for me. Decades ago when I attended Rutgers, all the students read the Targum regularly. This was, of course, when the printed page was all we had available to keep us abreast of what was happening on campus. The ad section of the paper was the most amusing, usually a guy placing an ad hoping to get date with a co-ed he met at the campus pub: "Hi, I'm looking for the cute blond girl wearing the blue fair isle sweater I met at the College Avenue pub on Thursday. I'd love to continue my conversation with you. If you're interested, contact me at (campus post office box)." I have no idea if those ads ever succeeded.

Thank you so much for pointing me to the YouTube footage. Seeing it again now, after all these years, I appreciare even more their skill, as I am able to take more in than was possible at the time. It also shows how the intervening years have shown my memory to be defective with regard to the rifle throwing sequence. I would have sworn that the Guards were in single file, but I suppose this could be down to my focused vision and not being able to take in the scene as a whole. Or it could even be down to the fact that the movement blew my mind! Once again, thank you.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 13:54 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)
In reply to:

pandionutv: In 1961 I inherited my father's for many years unused Ihagee 6 x 9 bellows camera from around 1925. It had a Tessar lens f=6.3 and a fastest shutter speed of 1/125. It also had a removable back where you could attach a roll film magazine, a sheet film magazine or a matte screen! Just lika a Hasselblad ... For macro photos you could unscrew the front lens. With such a start, I could claim that "When God said "Let there be light", I was ready with my camera"!

When my father saw that I could handle this he bought me a used Zeiss Contax IIa, probably of pre WW2-vintage. From then on it's been Pentax, Contax 137 and Canons for film, until I transitioned in 2005 to digital with a trial Canon S95, followed by a 350D.

If it was a Contax IIa, then it would be post WW2. Lovely cameras, these Contaxes. I have models II, III, IIa and IIIa in my collection, and all work faultlessly, even the meter in my 1942 III.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 23:05 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)
In reply to:

geepondy: First film camera as a kid was a Kodak Instamatic that took 120 film and used "magic cubes". As an adult I eventually made my way up to a Minolta XD-11 SLR. First digital was a Nikon CP900 in 1998, 1megpixel, $1000 and I sure was the envy of my friends. I later moved up to a CP990 and many since. I think Nikon ruled in the early days of relatively affordable digital cameras, say from 1998-2000 or so.

@geepondy. Some hi-spec 126 cameras were made by the likes of Rollei and Zeiss, but the film format was not up to their capability. The problem, actually, was not with the film, but the cheap and nasty plastic molding used by Kodak to house the film. I can't remember who it was, but when I read about this, there was another manufacturer that used high precision molds, but more expensive. The results using this film could be every bit as good as conventional 35mm film.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 22:59 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)
In reply to:

ScarletKnight: Never mind the old cameras, Dan Bracaglia's reference to the Daily Targum, the Rutgers University student paper, was the throwback comment for me. Decades ago when I attended Rutgers, all the students read the Targum regularly. This was, of course, when the printed page was all we had available to keep us abreast of what was happening on campus. The ad section of the paper was the most amusing, usually a guy placing an ad hoping to get date with a co-ed he met at the campus pub: "Hi, I'm looking for the cute blond girl wearing the blue fair isle sweater I met at the College Avenue pub on Thursday. I'd love to continue my conversation with you. If you're interested, contact me at (campus post office box)." I have no idea if those ads ever succeeded.

Your mentioning Rutgers brought back a memory. In 1972 or 73 I popped up to Edinburgh for the Tattoo and one of the guest participants was the Queens Guard Precision Rifle Drill Team. Their display was both staggering and somewhat frightening for we onlookers, especially when they marched in single file and threw their rifles in the air to do a single somersault and be caught by the Guard behind. I should add they had fixed bayonets, too, it was very windy that evening, and anyone who has visited Edinburgh castle can't help but spot that the parade ground slopes. The whole display was carried out impeccably, and it is my one abiding memory of my visit that year.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 22:33 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)

1960, a 6x4.5 folding 120, "Monte Carlo" by a French company, DeMaria LaPierre. My first quality camera was a YashicMat, bought new in 1963. My first slr, a re-badged Mamiya Prismat, "Reflexa" which had an Exakta bayonet and Canon f1.9/50mm lens. Within the past two years I've managed to source both the exact Monte Carlo and Reflexa cameras from ebay.

My first digital camera was a Canon G2 acquired in early 2003.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 21:57 UTC as 65th comment
In reply to:

justmeMN: Comparing stand-alone camera sales to smartphone sales strikes me as less than perfect. With a smartphone, a camera is just an add-on to a product that is usually purchased for other purposes.

Those compiling the data can't know what was the main feature of the phone that prompted buyers to get it. IMO, the smartphone comparison would be valid if buyers had indicated that the camera feature was THE main reason for their purchase AND that this was the feature for which the phone was mostly used. The truth of the matter is no one will ever know, for the smartphone is a multi-purpose device with features way beyond the simple ability to make a telephone call. This is why owners are prepared to pay, what to me, are eye-boggling prices for top of the range smartphones and which no where near approach the photographic capabilities of a little enthusiast compact, such as the LX3, at 1/5th of the price.

Now I am not about to bash Apple devotees, but might not the main reason many get the latest iPhone is simply because it is the latest and "must have" irrespective of the fact that it does have an excellent camera feature?

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 12:16 UTC
In reply to:

Camera5: Guys, in future, please use logarithmic scales and make the use of colour more contrasty on your charts.

Exactly what went through my mind when I was viewing the graph. When scrolling to the top, I'd lost sight of the data at the bottom and with which I was supposed to be comparing. "Clumsy silly design" is spot on!

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 11:56 UTC
In reply to:

Leonp: It would be fun to know how many camera's are working. Smartphones tend to die at the age of two so sale must be high.
My Kodak Box-like camera (Six-20 Target Hawk Eye) is still o.k., bet then, the shutter count is not quite at 25.000 :-)

I believe also that smartphone owners, especially Apple devotees, change their phones annually and this must significantly inflate the graph. Recent history has shown us that smartphones are more popular than cameras as basic point and shoots for the majority. The worry has to be for photographers who need more than what a smartphone can offer, or ever will be capable of offering, and manufacturers then deem it not economic to make a "proper" camera for them.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 11:00 UTC
In reply to:

captura: I still have a TZ4 and will take it out of the drawer and try it again, for a few days.
I hope DPR will re-run the Lumix LX3, now that was a real trail-blazer. I still use mine for B&W photos. Something about that sensor...

@captura. The pull for me with the LX3, and my favouring wide angle lenses, was its ability to provide a true 24mm equivalent FoV for each of its aspect ratios. 3:2 and 16:9 ratios, have to be crops from M4/3 and APS-C sensors, not so with the LX3 (and later iterations of the theme). This meant I could change format at will if I needed more along the horizontal axis, but could forego height say, with the 16:9 ratio, or select M4/3 if I needed more height with just a smidgen of loss of horizontal data. As you know, the pixel count varied very slightly, but not to the extent of the crops needed with other fixed formats.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 19:14 UTC
In reply to:

captura: I still have a TZ4 and will take it out of the drawer and try it again, for a few days.
I hope DPR will re-run the Lumix LX3, now that was a real trail-blazer. I still use mine for B&W photos. Something about that sensor...

Too true. The LX3 had superb IQ for its time. I sold mine last year when I decided to upgrade to the LX7. Big mistake. As far as IQ and sharpness was concerned, my LX7 was a retrograde step.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 19:14 UTC
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
Total: 375, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »