Claudio NC

Claudio NC

Lives in Italy Camporosso, Italy
Works as a Outdoor photographer
Has a website at www.alpinow.com
Joined on Feb 15, 2011

Comments

Total: 229, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Drone buying guide updated with a new top pick (32 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bruce702: Kudos to those (especially DJI owners) who have never had need for repairing their drone, either by obstacle damage or manufacturer defect. But, for those who have had problems, remember, a company/product is only as good as its support. DJI is known for its poor customer support.

Yes Bruce702, often it's so, but seem they want to improve this and actually there are no real alternative to DJI, unfortunately, if you want the best.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2018 at 15:34 UTC
In reply to:

camedia1: Translation:
* New generation interchangeable lens camera
* 1" CMOS
* In-lens shutter, built-in ND filter
* DL-M mount, lightweight design
* Self-developed super-compact lenses
* Multiple focal length options
* Higher SNR and color sensitivity than Phantom 4 Pro
* Flange focal distance is only 5mm
* Phantom 5-only high quality and high resolution lenses
* Super light magnesium aluminum alloy lens shell
* In-lens shutter to prevent ghost and jelly effect

No, his in lens shutter is like that one in Phantom 4 Pro, electronic and mechanical shutter

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 16:42 UTC
In reply to:

Jesse_Just_Him: In the future, we will witness products like:
AI powered Camera
AI powered Lenses
AI powered Tripod
AI powered Lens filter
AI powered Lens hood
AI powered screen protector
and AI powered AI

And AI powered People...

Particularly useful for the ones "without brain" or having a damaged one!

Link | Posted on May 15, 2018 at 14:06 UTC
In reply to:

NickyB66: 100% quieter, then that would be impressive.

The difference certainly is also in the ESC, (give the supply, the alternate current to the motors), sine wave instead of a square wave.
The same thing it is between Mavic Pro and Mavic Platinum.
Propellers and ESCs make the difference.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 13:29 UTC
In reply to:

Alphaville: 7 km range? I wouldnt dare to even lose a drone from eye sight

They has already wrote this many, many, many, many, many times!

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 13:18 UTC
In reply to:

IamJF: 60% quieter ... what an incredible nonsense. You publish that?
-10dB are HALF the PERCEIVED loudness (-6dB half the sound pressure level - but our brain receives different). We have here -4dB, that's noticeable, but not a lot.
So if -10 is 50%, -4 would be 20% less noise. (Noise is something we perceive - otherwise it's sound pressure level)

So many marketing people doesn't have even a little idea of what they talk about - it's a pain.

Sorry, had a bad day 🤓

Exactly, the difference is very minimal, you can perceive at most a slight difference in tone of the noise/sound ...
The difference in intensity/pressure of noise is almost indistinguishable in reality, small and certainly not of -60%!

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 13:15 UTC
On article Russian drone pilot pushes his tiny drone to 33,000ft (363 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Fun! 14 volt 20 ampere in half an hour. In mean 200W. 100 Watthours. Good batteries!

They were only very well covered with a sheet of light expanded material, probably 3 or 4 mm thick, the same whitish material often used to protect items to be shipped, such as those usually placed to protect the screen of a monitor, etc. and holding it all around together with a thin string.
Good enough to keep them not too cold, if not warm, during about 20 minutes of flight.
And the discharging process also generates heat in the batteries, so actually there were no problems.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2018 at 20:56 UTC
On article Russian drone pilot pushes his tiny drone to 33,000ft (363 comments in total)
In reply to:

sludge21017: obviously tiny planet effect from gopro

This is not a tiny planet effect.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2018 at 08:33 UTC
On article Russian drone pilot pushes his tiny drone to 33,000ft (363 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: The best comment ever from some Ukrainian guy:
"Плавень Горишнiй
1 week ago (edited)
всегда подозревал, что Земля плоская. она еще вогнутая внутрь, все верно, поэтому океаны не выливаются."

"I've always suspected that the Earth is flat. Yet, it is concave. True, that's why oceans do not spill over."

no. the Earth is sinusoidal.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2018 at 08:32 UTC
On article Russian drone pilot pushes his tiny drone to 33,000ft (363 comments in total)
In reply to:

mauricegold: Reckless and stupid, huh? In the middle of nowhere. Over-regulated, gun-totin' American cowboy wannabees can beeyatch and scream about the danger to aircraft where likely the drone-operators may just have done their homework. Beyond the miniscule danger that this tiny plastic and metal aircraft may just conceivably present to commercial and military flights, the flight-time was short, relatively speaking, and one wonders apart from that, what could be stupid and dangerous? Losing the drone? Crashing it? There seems to be much more hate for drones than for guns these days. I don't have any sympathy for shotgun-wielding hillbillies or redneckism, so luckily this flight was safe from them. Wonderful to see, and many thanks for the inspiration.

It weights 0.90 kg

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2018 at 08:27 UTC
On article Russian drone pilot pushes his tiny drone to 33,000ft (363 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Fun! 14 volt 20 ampere in half an hour. In mean 200W. 100 Watthours. Good batteries!

Li-ion

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2018 at 08:22 UTC

"This is not the new product but the customized drone for the enterprise. Thank you for your attention."

https://forum.dji.com/thread-140234-1-1.html

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2018 at 16:05 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Claudio NC: This is a very limited and old technique, partially useful in the times of the film, before digital.
I have a collection of various of these small and large size filters square and round, made by various famous and very expensive brands (of course LEE is one of these), made of plastic (very delicate) and glass.
They often produced bad results, if not disasters with all, small, medium and large formats.
Also later for few years with first digitals.
Later I have definitely abbandoned all of them forever, and use only polarizer filter, nothing else!
Unwanted sunlight lateral reflections, even with their wide square hood, lowering of the contrast: these unwanted adds are already near to the unacceptable.

Moreover the absurd and unnatural darkening (near to be dark black) also of all the elements that are covered by the dark filter and which should remain bright or not darkened.

Thanks for your suggestion, take note.
Of course I have bought also Marumi (very good) and NiSi polarizers.
NiSi appears super well made, but I remember of a shocking problem discovered with one of their polarizer.
Unbelievable to me when I have seen it the first time.
It was (it is) producing splitted details, as micro gosts, repeated patterns one near the other (so micro internal reflections) when on a tele lens!
I have let it unused ...

Someone say that this NiSi filter doesn't work well with Canon cameras.
I have stopped to use Canon cameras from about 6 or more years and I use almost all the other brands, however have you perhaps heard someone not so happy with this Natural Night Filter for some reason?

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 18:49 UTC
In reply to:

Claudio NC: This is a very limited and old technique, partially useful in the times of the film, before digital.
I have a collection of various of these small and large size filters square and round, made by various famous and very expensive brands (of course LEE is one of these), made of plastic (very delicate) and glass.
They often produced bad results, if not disasters with all, small, medium and large formats.
Also later for few years with first digitals.
Later I have definitely abbandoned all of them forever, and use only polarizer filter, nothing else!
Unwanted sunlight lateral reflections, even with their wide square hood, lowering of the contrast: these unwanted adds are already near to the unacceptable.

Moreover the absurd and unnatural darkening (near to be dark black) also of all the elements that are covered by the dark filter and which should remain bright or not darkened.

I shoot day and night, at all the chromatic phases of the day, always with the AEB, 3, 5 or even a lot more near luminous sky and sun, I do the rest of the work in PP.

In my site, very overlooked and not frequently updated, there is maybe 1/1000 of my production, probably less.
No more filters on my lenses, except polarizers applied at the most of those I use, dozens of different polarizers by many brands.

The various SinghRay, Lee, and all the others you've named (except for polarizer), are unused, there in a drawer, for the last 10 or 15 years!
Probably the Singh Ray filters I have more used is one of their polarizer and the Daryl Benson Strip, in the past.
Sometimes I use polarizers also in the dark evening and in the night if necessary and if possible.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 13:11 UTC
In reply to:

Claudio NC: This is a very limited and old technique, partially useful in the times of the film, before digital.
I have a collection of various of these small and large size filters square and round, made by various famous and very expensive brands (of course LEE is one of these), made of plastic (very delicate) and glass.
They often produced bad results, if not disasters with all, small, medium and large formats.
Also later for few years with first digitals.
Later I have definitely abbandoned all of them forever, and use only polarizer filter, nothing else!
Unwanted sunlight lateral reflections, even with their wide square hood, lowering of the contrast: these unwanted adds are already near to the unacceptable.

Moreover the absurd and unnatural darkening (near to be dark black) also of all the elements that are covered by the dark filter and which should remain bright or not darkened.

Yes, resin, plastic resin.
Bad results are forgotten, "trashed" inside many old media supports, in olds Mac computers and films that now I don't go to apply on my cilindrical scanner that sleeps for ever in his black tomb, certainly now I don't go to search for them.

I have dozens of big HD with millions of digital shots taken to produce panoramic pictures, and hundreds of almost completed panoramics, but a very, very small fraction of them are on my horrible site, www.alpinow.com
I don't want to teach, still not ready to do after 25+ of activity.
However I take note that the antireflection coating has improved more recently.

Next step might be the auto adaptive morfing of the darkening zone of the filter related to subject to shoot ... with a liquid solution or something more complex. Near to impossible.
Without this, the great limitations of the fixed form in a standard graduated filter remain all, obviously!

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 15:05 UTC
In reply to:

walker2000: Wow! What a fast-paced product release cycle!
Sony users may have mixed feeling for the fast release: Every new release brings great new features, but makes the camera in hand looks so old although it was bought not so long time ago.
Canon users may also have mixed feeling for their slow release cycle: Too little real features to be worth upgrading, but the old camera in hand can still do the work.
I'm both Canon and Sony user, so I got doubled mixed feelings. :)

Are 4 years, not 10 months for you, enzino!
Quattro anni dal 2013.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 17:44 UTC

The result?
Is ugly, gloomy, dark, terribly heavy!
Good only on the sea, on the plain, in the deserts with no natural or artificial elevations!
Good for sky and sea, sky and flat earth.
Digital era do not need anymore these pathetic techique, if not rarely and as last chance to do something by those photographers that don't have the necessary knowledge to do different and better and the patience or the time to do a little of work in PP with a computer.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2017 at 14:50 UTC as 2nd comment

This is a very limited and old technique, partially useful in the times of the film, before digital.
I have a collection of various of these small and large size filters square and round, made by various famous and very expensive brands (of course LEE is one of these), made of plastic (very delicate) and glass.
They often produced bad results, if not disasters with all, small, medium and large formats.
Also later for few years with first digitals.
Later I have definitely abbandoned all of them forever, and use only polarizer filter, nothing else!
Unwanted sunlight lateral reflections, even with their wide square hood, lowering of the contrast: these unwanted adds are already near to the unacceptable.

Moreover the absurd and unnatural darkening (near to be dark black) also of all the elements that are covered by the dark filter and which should remain bright or not darkened.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2017 at 14:48 UTC as 3rd comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Claudio NC: I bought three NX1, two NX500, all the fixed and zoom professional lenses (two 16-50) and two low cost zoom.
I absolutely do not regret having bought all this equipment, I bought it just when it was starting to be probable and then it was obvious that Samsung had come out of the camera market.
All I have are still as new, amazing for many aspects but the unbearable defect, I repeat once again, already said this years ago, is that the NX1 creates micro blurred images due to the vibration of the shutter blades, particularly with 50-150 mm, when T is between 1/125 and 1 s, (sometimes at 1/160) and well visible also with 16-50 mm, above 30 mm focal lenght.
This does not happen with the NX500.

Image processor different from NX500?

Ok, but I think it have nothing to do with this mechanical problem, however really cannot say the last sentence here, only that the electronic shutter, if really present in the NX1, seem to be not operative, 2 words present in the menu as cosmetic element only (that mean cheat).

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2017 at 15:37 UTC
In reply to:

Claudio NC: I bought three NX1, two NX500, all the fixed and zoom professional lenses (two 16-50) and two low cost zoom.
I absolutely do not regret having bought all this equipment, I bought it just when it was starting to be probable and then it was obvious that Samsung had come out of the camera market.
All I have are still as new, amazing for many aspects but the unbearable defect, I repeat once again, already said this years ago, is that the NX1 creates micro blurred images due to the vibration of the shutter blades, particularly with 50-150 mm, when T is between 1/125 and 1 s, (sometimes at 1/160) and well visible also with 16-50 mm, above 30 mm focal lenght.
This does not happen with the NX500.

Yes, yes, yes ... !

Hundreds of shots and test done only to explore a possible solution, with different big tripods, (with and without a panoramic heads, Really Right Stuff, Sunwayfoto and others) OIS switched ON and OFF, both the OIS modes tested, selectable in camera.
The tripod foot of 50-150 mm is ridiculous, a big part of the problem that amplifies vibrations due to his unstable structure with the body of the lens, very bad engineered, unbelievable.
I have removed it to reduce shakes.
But the defect is not resolvable.
It have the similar behaviour of Sony A7R (but stronger and wider as T exposures involved) and other cameras, FF, Aps, m4/3.
Both in portrait and landscape orientation, but particularly in portrait the problem is strong and absolutely unacceptable when the camera is on a panoramic head.
The same happens with Sony A7R, but not happens with A7 and A7S, having an electronic first curtain that work properly.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2017 at 15:36 UTC
Total: 229, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »