camcom12

Joined on Feb 21, 2012

Comments

Total: 133, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

LWanTeD: People arguing here are arguing about 2 different points.

One camp is saying it's expensive for what it is, while the other camp is saying it's a great travel lens, which won't make you swap lenses on the go.

I thinks both opinions are correct. The fact that it's one lens solution for the m43 system doesn't mean it's not expensive for what it is.

Absolutely.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 02:00 UTC
In reply to:

panther fan: Would be interesting to see this against a RX10 II

1 Inch 24-200 "F2.8"
vs
M43 24-200 "F4"

Absolutely. Echoes my comment made in last week's DPR product introduction articles. $1300 + body or ~$1300 for the whole kit?
It's a fair comparison for a limited set of enthusiasts.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 01:42 UTC
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: I have spent a fair amount of time visiting US National Parks. The one constant is a complete lack of awareness and common sense of visitors. They simply ignore or disregard signs and warnings (don't swim, don't walk here, don't feed the animals) It is a though they believe the signs were left for someone else and not them.

Indeed, but in recent years (2003-2013 apx) national park attendance has been way down compared to previous decades. Visitors demographics were become older and fewer. However in the past few years, the parks have been aggressively promoting themselves, with no-entrance-fee days, 100-year anniversary events & more, trying to attract more visitors, 1st time & younger folks. Google just released a new online video series (see DPR article, a few weeks back).
Well guess what - it's working !!

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2016 at 00:57 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: Sign of the times. The current political climate developed over the last few years dictates that it's okay to do what you want and that "big government" is always wrong about everything. So if "big government" says no motor vehicles, then someone is going to passively-aggressively rebel. Just like the coal rollers (guys who purposely emit extra amounts of smoke from their big pickup trucks in order to make a political statement).

Some people would love nothing more than to see rapid, uninhibited development and destruction of the National Parks and other preserved areas.

Where we see beautiful greenery, others just see green. $

It's doubtful these violators were "...being pushed by powerful energy extraction interests who want all public lands opened for business...". It's more likely a hideous form of graffiti or tagging - backlash against extreme enviro-elitism and/or the perceived heavy hand of government rules & regs. Some people are simply hell bent on making a mockery of signs that say "No XXX Allowed", where XXX is smoking, hunting, shooting, vehicles, bikes, dogs, campfires, dumping, trespassing, fishing, swimming, diving, etc --- you name it. Have you ever seen a "No Shooting" sign on rural roads that's not riddled with bullet holes?
The "Rolling Coal" theory is a good analogy here too.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 09:37 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (663 comments in total)
In reply to:

sknai16: I tried the EM1 and have come back to Nikon at great cost. The sensor size is too small for large prints and the AF system is far from equivalent to the D500 or any Nikon DSLR for that sake. I did good tracking with the D300S and the D700 and never felt I had to go to the D4 or D5.
Anther issue for me is pricing. The new Olympus pro lenses are all more than a 1000 dollars. I can buy Sigma ART lenses opening at f1.4 for much less.
The lenses are also getting heavier and larger and all in all, I feel that Nikon or Canon are still the best bet for anyone who prints large, shoots wildlife or needs AF tracking for some reason..
It is a lovely camera, but so are all modern cameras and I'll carry the extra pound.

Generally agree. I'd rather invest in a mid range APSC kit than a big pricey u4/3 setup, and get superior results. But an EM 10 with a 12-32 f/3.5-4.5 is a sweet little rig.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 00:03 UTC
On article Video: First look at the Panasonic G85/G80 (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

garyknrd: That looks to be a very nice travel camera.

'graybalanced' has it right. Indeed, we don't need GPS for the Eiffel Tower, Golden Gate Bridge, you brother's wedding, etc. But for the 1000's of unique places we may go to, in the backcountry, foot trails, etc, I'd rather not carry and/or leave my smartphone powered on all day, especially when there's no cell service there anyway. Yes GPS is a niche feature, but I use it alot. I also put together online exhibitions for an outdoor recreation group, so on-camera GPS is just very handy.

That said the G85 looks like a great unit, despite no on-board GPS.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 20:28 UTC
In reply to:

Photo_AK: A 24-200/8 equivalent lens .... ideal for taking pictures, that look like being taken with a compact camera ...
Tamron 28-300 takes 4 mm on the wide end and gives 100 mm more on the tele end; is a full frame compatible lens, weighs less, is smaller, cheaper, takes smaller filters and offers lesser DOF - all while being equaly "fast" or "faster" in the 28-200 mm range.

So, what's the point, really ...?

@ptox : Fair enough. Since we don't have lab tests yet that would provide a direct comparison, the new conjecture is "...should perform NEARLY as well in the travel & events role".
I'd love to have the 12-100mm for my u4/3, but $1300 is up there for casual users as I. Certainly it will be an excellent unit.
If I were in the big leagues with a full frame, then $1300 is about right for a 24-200mm/f4. Nikon's 24-120 f/4 is $1000; Sony's FE 24-240/f3.5-6.3 is $900, (and not including all the 28-2xx models for similar money). Hopefully the price will drop in 2017 and everyone will be happy. Of course all of this has little bearing for pros or fully-budgeted enthusiasts.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 18:43 UTC

Actually more stunned by the few commenters who wish inhumane and vile punishments upon these mis-guided violators. Yeah this is the 'internet', but wow. A stiff fine and community service is what will occur, should they be located & convicted. Fortunately, after a few good rains the damage probably won't be visible.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 02:34 UTC as 52nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

geekyrocketguy: Being angry on the internet is unlikely to make a difference. However, if we contact Death Valley, things might actually change. DVNP's contact information can be found at https://www.nps.gov/deva/contacts.htm.

I emailed them and suggested that they allow Racetrack Road to degrade (which would reduce the traffic out there) and fence the playa to further discourage people from driving onto it.

Why do you want to prevent 99.9% of the rest of the law-abiding public from visiting there? The solution is education, not more fences.
And a fence would look horrible there. The tire tracks, as awful as they are will be gone after the first good rain.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 02:11 UTC
In reply to:

Photo_AK: A 24-200/8 equivalent lens .... ideal for taking pictures, that look like being taken with a compact camera ...
Tamron 28-300 takes 4 mm on the wide end and gives 100 mm more on the tele end; is a full frame compatible lens, weighs less, is smaller, cheaper, takes smaller filters and offers lesser DOF - all while being equaly "fast" or "faster" in the 28-200 mm range.

So, what's the point, really ...?

Indeed. The 12-100mm looks nice, but if its used as the lens users "keep-on-the-camera"...heck, get a long zoom 1" model and barely lose a stop for less money & less weight: RX10-II/III @ f/2.4+ or FZ1000/2000 @f/2.8+ for example. The RXs, FZs & DLs(?) should perform equally well in the travel & events role.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 20:55 UTC

The new 12-100mm looks very handy. But if one has it as their 'go-to' / 'keep-it-on-the-camera' lens, for the same or less money get a long zoom camera, and hardly even lose a stop overall: RX10-III @ f/2.4+, or new FZ2000 @f/2.8+, for example. Of course lens interchangeability provides more options, but for the average/casual shooter RXs, FZs & DLs(?) look really good.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 20:33 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

SharkManEXR: What a very confusing contest... When i think weather channel photography contest, i think weather...

Point taken, however "... finalists were recognized for their photos celebrating fantastic weather, wildlife and adventure."

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2016 at 06:41 UTC

Wow gorgeous images. Brings home the adage that being at the right place at the right time, and a measure of skill, makes all the difference. Even if it was partly staged, I'm good with that.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2016 at 19:01 UTC as 14th comment
On article Canon EOS M5: What you need to know (548 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: This is absolutely goofy looking camera. Wonder who their target market is.

Perhaps - but have you seen Nikon's eventual DL24-500?? OMG !

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2016 at 03:01 UTC
On article Canon EOS M5: What you need to know (548 comments in total)
In reply to:

otto k: Regarding native lenses - I seriously doubt that there will be a bunch of native glass, especially at the long end.

See it from this perspective - anything longer than 50mm will be actually the same lens with added tube so you might as well use EF and adapter. This covers everything starting with 50mm or similar (primes and zooms).

On the wide end there is a real opportunity (as demonstrated by other manufacturers) for either small wide lens (see NX 10mm fish or 16/20/30mm primes, EFM 22, E 28, etc) or larger lens but with excellent performance due to simpler construction (Fuji and the like).

TLDR - I think a couple of wide-ish primes and perhaps 16-50/2.8 zoom are everything that's missing on the lens front.

Good observations but it's pretty certain we'll see some 300mm f/6.3 zooms eventually. Same was said about u4/3rd and they now have a handful of native xx to 200 or 300mm offerings.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2016 at 02:56 UTC

DPR: In the specs section could Viewfinder eye-relief/eye-point be added?
The M5 looks promising, thanks for the F I review.
Battery Life, minor gripe: Love mirrorless cameras, but unfortunately many have less than 350 shutter releases. But what's almost worst for the occasional user is the slow drain that occurs when the camera is stored, and a statistical tendency to lose charge in the middle of live events (shooting landscapes? - no problem). Fresh batteries tend to go flat after just a week or two. For some reason, this is not usually the case with DLSRs. I can store my old DLSR for months, and it's always ready to go.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 00:00 UTC as 49th comment
In reply to:

camcom12: For many reasons publishing video of national parks is a good thing, especially for those who may never get the opportunity to visit a particular park(s) in their lifetime. It's a great way to showcase the park system, the wonders of our world, with educational, social & environmental benefits.
Negatives are two-fold:
1) If one plans to visit a particular park, I might refrain from watching the videos, as it may 'spoil' the rewards of personal discovery, being a new place, & the awe that one experiences of actually being there. The downside risk being "...wow, it looked a lot better in the videos!...."
2) Speculation: As more public lands are being closed to human travel and activity, in part due to zealots who believe humans should not visit wild & open areas, high-res videos serve as a precursor to limiting visitation in virtual reality only. This could be exploited as a step in that direction. Yes this sound like science fiction, but in limited instances is already taking place.

Perhaps this is how our national parks should be promoted: https://www.yahoo.com/news/forgotten-history-those-iconic-national-140116362.html

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 06:25 UTC

For many reasons publishing video of national parks is a good thing, especially for those who may never get the opportunity to visit a particular park(s) in their lifetime. It's a great way to showcase the park system, the wonders of our world, with educational, social & environmental benefits.
Negatives are two-fold:
1) If one plans to visit a particular park, I might refrain from watching the videos, as it may 'spoil' the rewards of personal discovery, being a new place, & the awe that one experiences of actually being there. The downside risk being "...wow, it looked a lot better in the videos!...."
2) Speculation: As more public lands are being closed to human travel and activity, in part due to zealots who believe humans should not visit wild & open areas, high-res videos serve as a precursor to limiting visitation in virtual reality only. This could be exploited as a step in that direction. Yes this sound like science fiction, but in limited instances is already taking place.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 00:19 UTC as 4th comment | 3 replies

Writing, storing and retrieving all the 2 to 8 Mbyte jpegs in the world cloud uses significant energy, especially that 90% are viewed at less than ~600x400, or maybe 1920x1080. So this could be a good thing, moreso if it can be applied to video too. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/25/server-data-centre-emissions-air-travel-web-google-facebook-greenhouse-gas
(there's a good reason that some of Amazon's & Google's server farms are located along the Columbia River: cheap, minimal GHG hydro-power)

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 19:54 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply

All very good images, with a few standouts. The marque photo being one, and 6, 10, 11, 18 & 29 personal favorites from a topical viewpoint. So called "Photo contest winners", per se, would likely include a few different choices. Nice.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2016 at 19:39 UTC as 15th comment
Total: 133, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »