Alex Permit

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Sep 12, 2002

Comments

Total: 350, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Leica M10 real-world sample gallery (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

JakeB: There's just a certain 'something' about those shots. An aura. A 'feeling.'

It would be ridiculous to suggest that any other manufacturer's camera/lens combinations costing a tenth of the price could create this 'look.'

It's almost like Leica sprinkled a little, well, let's call it 'pixie dust' into their cameras and lenses and that magic travels along the lens to the sensor and is captured along with the rays of light.

Or perhaps the sensor itself contains this pixie dust and thus imbues the image with the 'aura.'

No matter how it works, one can immediately spot this 'Leica look' that no other camera is capable of creating. It positively glows from each image.

Money well spent, I'd say.

Good joke, Jake. Pixie dust was the punchline.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 14:04 UTC

Throwback Thursday: H.J. Lewis 4x5 Field Camera

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 05:21 UTC as 12th comment
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (356 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: Looking at the viewfinder in photo nr 4 tells you why I cant be satisfied with the design, its a a vaccuum for dust. Why Fuji does not fix that problem is beyond me.

Same here The OUTSIDE of the viewfinder is a "dust magnet" but I have no dust on the inside. I'm not particularly careful with my camera. For example I don't keep it in a case when I'm outside with it. I do keep it in a bag when I'm at home and not using it.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 21:58 UTC
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (356 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: Looking at the viewfinder in photo nr 4 tells you why I cant be satisfied with the design, its a a vaccuum for dust. Why Fuji does not fix that problem is beyond me.

My x100 has no dust on the sensor, and I've had it for nearly 6 years. Nor does my x100s.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 12:42 UTC

They're late. Isn't christmas the season for gag gifts?

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 00:54 UTC as 56th comment
In reply to:

junk1: If only batteries from certain supplier(s) failed, that would point towards the batteries. But if all of them failed, then it's likely something else.

Samsung asked too much of its battery suppliers. Tried to squeeze ten pounds of s**t in a five pound bag.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 01:17 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: Maybe a problem with the specification for the battery, rather than the batteries themselves. That would explain why batteries from multiple suppliers were 'at fault'.

The Note 7's manufacturing defect affects less than 0.01 percent of all Note 7 handsets sold. Some quick back-of-the-envelope math, and you're potentially looking at fewer than 1,000 defective phones. Not acceptable, but it points to an issue of agressive tolerances.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 01:13 UTC
In reply to:

Jude 101: I never knew that the Bento Sushi Downtown on Broadway and Cortland was such a tourist Mecca...

Bit of an integration problem with google maps I'd guess. Hopefully the misled will discover the 9/11 memorial a couple of blocks west.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 10:26 UTC

For $500 or even $1000, there was no way this would have worked as advertised. At least the preorders don't end of holding the bag, like the typical Kickstarter/Indiegogo startups. The VC's get burned, but preorders get their money back.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 10:07 UTC as 19th comment

While she may be due an award the amount she's claiming is, prima facie, ridiculous. Judges should be able to dismiss, with prejudice, lawsuits with claims so high that they mock the legal system.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 07:45 UTC as 61st comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Yveske: No H.265? This thing will eat memory chips for breakfast

Yeah, HEVC has become the standard even for 4k.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 18:17 UTC

Wow, this is a great article, thanks for posting. At first I laughed at the idea of DPR doing a "hands on" review of a new finish on a camera. Come on, what could you possibly show us? Then I saw it. On the front and the back, scratches galore. As other posters have remakarked, the xt2 finish is a scratch magnet.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 06:23 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

Alex Permit: "You press the button, we do the rest". This sounds like a 21st century digital version of Eastman's 19th century invention, "The Kodak Camera".

Yes, that was the gist of my message. This is a 19th century idea whose time is gone.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 06:00 UTC
In reply to:

Timbukto: Isn't it a huge omission to not mention the original source including smartphone/cellphone camera's as *inclusive* to this analysis. And because its included this market research says *nothing* shocking whatsoever?

How could smartphones be inclusive?? They valued the digital photography market at $77.66B USD in 2015, but worldwide smartphone sales in 2015 were roughly $400 billion.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 05:57 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Conte: Electronic, not "Electric" parts.

If you've been building electrical circuits since you were a kid, you know what I'm talking about.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2016 at 04:22 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Conte: Electronic, not "Electric" parts.

"The counterfeit EF 50mm lenses are made using electric circuits and parts on the interior, Canon warns, which fail to meet safety standards in multiple countries."

Maybe canon really did mean ELECTRIC circuits. Specifically, they could be using lead solder which is not RoHS compliant. Legal for home projects, but illegal for sale in consumer products.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 22:43 UTC
In reply to:

Scruffy Bob: Dammit, DPReview! You just told the counterfeiters how to fix their mistakes.

But canon didn't mention looking at the exterior for a "misspelling" of its logo. Makes me suspect these counterfeiters used the real logo on the outside.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

thubten: Why fake a $200 lens when they make a $2000 lens?

Maybe counterfeiting a cheap lens is easier to get away with. Notice that canon DIDN'T say the counterfeit is of lower optical quality. They only mentioned safety standards.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 22:22 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Conte: Electronic, not "Electric" parts.

The difference is electrical circuits have no processing capability, while electronic circuits do. An electric circuit simply powers machines, like a motor, with electricity.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 22:18 UTC

Marissa, you've lost another billion accounts?

https://vine.co/v/OOtieEFzpFU

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 07:06 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
Total: 350, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »