Samuel Dilworth

Samuel Dilworth

Lives in France Paris, France
Joined on Feb 20, 2011

Comments

Total: 756, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Come on Fuji: Neopan 400 please.

Yes please. And Provia 400X. Two Fujifilm films you would have expected to last until the end. Instead we have two versions of Velvia, neither of which I want. (I guess many people want them, but still.)

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 12:28 UTC
In reply to:

Brotherbill: Unless one plans to print optical rather than digital, I don't see the point.

Please elaborate.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 19:34 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (404 comments in total)

If Kodak is capable of making this, they’re capable of making a film scanner, and that would be far more useful.

The maths suggests it should be profitable, too:

• every year, slightly more people shoot film
• every year, slightly fewer Coolscans remain functional.

When you consider that, today, antique Coolscans sell for more than their new price, you have to wonder how long it will be before someone – and Kodak would be ideally placed for this – makes a competent film scanner.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 14:30 UTC as 63rd comment | 1 reply
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: Can anyone input into this, how does mechanical camcorders actually work??? I mean how does the shutter freeze frames when the film roll is constantly rolling? Had been wondering for years! And Google aint helping!

The film is not constantly rolling. Small rodents pull a frame into the gate, hold it there for a fraction of a second, open and close the shutter, and then drag another frame of film into the gate. The process continues until the user stops filming or the cheese runs out.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 08:08 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: Fine, IF you develop and print in a proper darkroom. For those who scan, a warning. I used to scan. I stopped. Why? I stopped because scanning records the emulsion in 3D: it records and registers as image the chemical lumps. The higher the scan resolution, the more clearly they are revealed, such that you get almost a contour map of the image, and, le pire!, is that as the scan moves across the image the light creates a record of the shadows cast by the chemicals in the emulsion. You might like this, but I much prefer to do it as the process intends: in a darkroom with chemical baths etc.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 19:28 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Evangelist: My first ever digital photo, shot with my QuickTake 150, in 1997.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeevangelist/31897897576/in/dateposted-public/

Is the dog still around?

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 12:50 UTC
On article Nikon D5600 DSLR announced, though not in the US (298 comments in total)

Still no built-in GPS. Even action-camera makers know the importance of this today.

Baffling.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 07:15 UTC as 78th comment | 4 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Nikon D40 (174 comments in total)

This camera (and the similar D60 I had and still have) did a lot of things right. Nikon had already solved all the big problems of digital photography with it. The camera responded immediately, playback and zoom worked perfectly, the battery lasted a long time, etc. It was simpler to use than any digital SLR I have tried since.

At the time, it took some bravery from Nikon to cut features to make this camera possible. Nikon would do well to repeat that manoeuvre today. Complexity is out of control.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 11:44 UTC as 89th comment | 1 reply

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-iv?comment=4261211362

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 15:09 UTC as 73rd comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 Review (393 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: I remember paying $599 for my Panasonic LX2 about ten years ago.

This camera looks ten times better, for around the same price.

At the time, the LX2 offered a set of features that no-one else could touch. It was packed with innovative features and first-to-market enthusiast features in a compact.

This new camera is obviously ‘better’ in some ways, but it is largely a me-too product. It may yet be incrementally better than the rest, but for these reasons I bet it won’t sell anywhere near as well as the LX2 or LX3.

Nonetheless, it’s interesting to me as someone who used the LX3 and LX5 for years.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 17:08 UTC
On article Sony offers E PZ 18-110mm F4 G OSS for Super 35mm/APS-C (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: Does this lens autofocus? I guess not, but it’s hard to tell from this info.

Thanks, both.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 08:29 UTC
On article Sony offers E PZ 18-110mm F4 G OSS for Super 35mm/APS-C (129 comments in total)

Does this lens autofocus? I guess not, but it’s hard to tell from this info.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 12:46 UTC as 21st comment | 3 replies
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

ShatteredSky: Well, just call it anthropoerosion and be done with it ;-) That's not because I condone vandalism, but as a geologist I would say it would have toppled in a few years anyway if they could have pushed it over as easily as that. Anyways, since all the people below me complain about stupid kids and so forth, maybe a little education may go some / or a long way? I can not shake the feeling that this is what you get when you cut down on eduction in a general sense (or having lazy parents, parents having not enough time, all that opens just the proverbial can of worms). Everybody is just so quick with heavy punishment these days ... and do not forget many of us did some stupid things at that most horrid of ages (if I got that correctly). It's not like they used explosives.

And maybe thinking about what gets destroyed every day due to building projects and the likes. Next time an ugly slug gets eradicated people also should probably think twice, since it was not a thing of perceived beauty?

An irony is that scads of people offended by this toppled rock (whose significance I don’t diminish) drive to these national parks in wildly inefficient SUVs while purporting to care about nature.

I think the future reckoning will judge driving an SUV – or anything, quite probably – as more damaging to the planet than toppling a rock before it fell.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 10:48 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: There must be a lot of idiots out there. Otherwise we would not see lenses from Cooke and other manufacturers as such ridiculous prices. I am sure they are nowhere near worth anything, even a lot less than the asking prices.

I would be a lot happier if people with more money than they know what to do with gave it to help those in the poverty trap get educated and motivated to better themselves. Some do of the own accord, but not that many can see how. The divide between the rich and poor has widened since the 2008 credit crunch, the wealthy mostly escaped the consequences but the mostly innocent less well off have faced the brunt of it.

If I thought there would be any chance of success, I'd like to see a worldwide boycott of Cooke, Meyer and other manufacturers behaving like this - not just in optics or photography, by the way.

Hey, I’ll boycott Cooke lenses if it means that much to you. My Tamrons can soldier on for another while.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 00:32 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (338 comments in total)

Is there a clear definition of what constitutes vandalism?

For example, if I pick up a flat pebble and skim it over a body of water for my own amusement, will someone call me a vandal?

What if I repeat the trick a hundred times?

I can see that toppling a large and famous rock formation may be widely considered vandalism (though it’s plausible the perpetrators didn’t see it as wanton destruction but play). But there must be a line below which most people view damage or change to inanimate objects as an acceptable cost of enjoying nature.

My young childhood was spent in the countryside, and there are a lot of things you can playfully and educationally ‘break’ in such an environment. No-one thought of it as vandalism. Vandalism was something you did to someone’s car window, and it didn’t exist in the countryside.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 00:19 UTC as 100th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

Androole: Now that copy stands are not really used anymore to reproduce documents, do people actually buy macros in this focal range?

I mean, I guess they're useful enough as walkaround lenses because of the shorter FL, but they're slower and more expensive than the ubiquitous fast normal lenses, and they have a very short working distance for doing actual macro work that can be challenging even for inanimate objects due to shading from the lens.

I have a 55/2.8 Macro that I quite enjoy using, but I'm using it on a 2x crop camera...

Short macros are useful for many small but not tiny subjects, such as food dishes, model cars or trains, items for auction, product photography generally, etc.

One benefit is that you can adjust your subject with one hand while looking through the viewfinder.

They often also have exceptionally high image quality – nowadays at infinity too.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 14:25 UTC
In reply to:

Daft Punk: If this had a flippy screen it would be perfect. It does not. So it isn't.

A shame. I don't get the luddites who don't like them. If you don't like them, don't use them, keep them folded in. The rest of us like them a lot.

A tilt screen is added cost, complexity, weight, damage risk, and – importantly – depth that prevents you getting as close to the viewfinder as you might want.

Leaving it folded in solves none of those downsides.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 14:23 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2092 comments in total)
In reply to:

LukeDuciel: On paper, 5D4 would be ideal for my plan of doing some serious video on travel, besides photos. Buuuuuut, why the fk sticking with MJPEG?

I can swallow the crop and marketing manager's idea of excluding C-log and XF codec and zebra . But com'on, MJPEG, really? And you call this hybrid production tool?

The dual-pixel AF is game changer. It enables pro-sumer to really get proper people video done with one-man band. Sony's A6300 and A7R2 video AF is far from smooth enough in practice. Canon insist on not getting their sh't together, not even giving a proper 1080p output.

I'd wait and see whether Panasonic can solve video AF equation as good as dual-pixel AF. If yes, GH5 would be my next buy.

Given a high enough bitrate, Motion JPEG presumably offers better image quality than an inter-frame codec like H.264.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 08:44 UTC

Great to see the built-in GPS receiver! A low-cost addition but so valuable.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 08:20 UTC as 34th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: The total cost of all camera gear and staff salaries are just a pittance compared to a one minute commercial video aired over a prime time broadcast.

This is a very well organized endeavor.

Pretty sure all major brands are having the same strategy, but yes, Canon leads the wolf pack...

.

There is nothing cheap about this advertising, and I bet it increasingly looks like wasted money to the Canon bigwigs. Barney’s question about how the 2020 Olympics will be different might have been answered like this: “We might not be there!”

The purpose of this enterprise is to keep sports photographers buying Canon, since that halo effect keeps the rest of us buying Canon. However, if the masses no longer care what pros use – and presumably they care less today than they did in 1980 or 2005 – then it may no longer make as much sense.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2016 at 12:31 UTC
Total: 756, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »