Lives in Sweden Sweden
Joined on May 11, 2004


Total: 169, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

matthew saville: Wow, this is downright embarrassing. Manfrotto profits must really be tanking, if they've decided to just throw in the towel and concede victory to the cheap junk market.

Not that I'm surprised, with the sheer volume of "I bought an XYZ for only $$ and it's great!" ...that I've seen in recent years.

I don't know what you people consider "heavy use" or "smooth operation" WRT tripods, but I've lost count of all the knock-off brand tripods I've destroyed over the years. The center column starts wobbling. The leg angles start flapping incessantly and constantly need to be tightened. The legs start jamming because the cheap plastic shims inside the leg locks get all sloppy after a while. The rubber on the leg locks starts melting off and/or spinning freely, making a catastrophic failure increasingly likely. The rubber on the ballhead knobs dries and cracks and falls off. The ballhead itself gets hopelessly prone to either jamming or sloppiness.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

@matthew saville:
1999 I bought a Manfrotto 190 (exact name of the version unknown, the taped on badge is now unreadable...) with a 141RC NAT head.

Both have withstood not careful use well; they are both working as when new. That´s the good!

The bad:
The head is a nuisance, since its adjustment "knobs" (wrong word maybe, forgot the exact word for them) never can be adjusted in a remotely smooth way. Either loose, or too hard, never smooth.
Leg locks can each be adjusted by a allen key, but once hard enough to not let the leg slide, the lever gets SO hard to (un)lock, really annoying.

I still use it, it works even if showing this kind of "rough" quality, and I paid like 170-180$ for it. I would likely not get a good return if I sold it...

Someday maybe I´ll get a cheap (or, say, not highly expensive) variant of a tripod with both light weight and smooth functioning... (m4/3 user)

´til then, my green painted 190 will serve, even if I am not totally friends with its "personality"

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 10:22 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Canon PowerShot G1 (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ranger Danger: also known as a Casio QV 1000 and Cybershot DSC-S75 lol

Same cameras? I don´t think so. But they did use the same lens, apparently some standard unit made by a supplier company. A lens unit also used in Epson PhotoPC 3000Z and Sony DSC-S70 by the way.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 18:42 UTC
In reply to:

revio: Launched (well, officially presented) now!
This is from the sSedish site "fotosidan" (photo page)

Google may help, but most specs (or all?) seem to be like in the dpreview article above.

sSedish? I should have written "Swedish", of course! Sorry ;-)

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 16:24 UTC

Launched (well, officially presented) now!
This is from the sSedish site "fotosidan" (photo page)

Google may help, but most specs (or all?) seem to be like in the dpreview article above.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 10:08 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply

Couldn´t get the "google translated" link to show. But the suggested price may hold me off a purchase IRL anyway.. ;-)

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 09:43 UTC as 16th comment
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III Review (583 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Can somebody answer, why recent Olympus cameras are so horribly ugly? Where did the style and elegance of PEN P1 or P5 gone?
Did they ditch proper designers and employed Southamerican rainforest headhunters? Olympus cameras of the last 2-3 years look either like miniature shrunken boxy rangefinders from 1950s packed up to teeth with wheels and knobs, or shrunked DSLRs from early 1980s. All squeezed in, disproportionate, ugly, like those shrunken heads cooked by headhunting tribes in South America.
When will Olympus wake up from this hypnotic, delirious dream caused by the mangement who practise random aiming with curare arrows?

@Triplet Perar:
I am not blind, and do find the whole olympus OMD line to be...VERY attractive, even if that would only refer to their aesthetics. Now, fwiw in my book that doesn´t only refer to aesthetics: I like them a lot as tools, too! ;-)

(own the EM-5 mk1 and the E-M1 mk1)

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 12:00 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III Review (583 comments in total)
In reply to:

vinrouge0: Great upgrade but just wish they had put the 20mp sensor inside. I can understand why they didn't - but still wish they had!

Nice that at least somebody know this "fact", (Oly not selling any of this mk3..."until..")
We can only hope Olympus read it so they quickly get to know they are way out wrong with this launch. I understand the thing regarding 20mp vs 16, but it´s *almost* no visible difference in 95% of uses in real life.
Others may wait for the E-M5 mk3.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 10:25 UTC
On photo _1070294 in revio's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Wrong lens noted, it was shot with the 50mm/2 Zuiko Macro.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 10:15 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Will1355: Please stop this competition between camera brands. There are no bad cameras only bad photographers. Best pro, best compact etc is all BS in my opinion.

Will1355: YOU may not need any other source than DPR for you advice needs. What about others, are all others also to conform to your very private need (or lack of need)?
I know you didn´t say that explicitly, but why on earth post such a commenbt as "stop this competition" etc? If no competition was there, you would not have the nice opportunity to get the kit you may need (or want). And DPR would not have to exist, offering reviews of the competing(!) camera models out there...
Strange, isn´t it?

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 10:02 UTC
In reply to:

Duckie: There was choking hazard involved. Was the beast alive after the filming?

READ the text:
"The tiger was A-okay and the km360 still works as it should. So if any one is interested in how tough that action cam is, well check out the footage for yourself."

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 15:17 UTC
In reply to:

fedway: Upgrade? Why stick to one - get both. If you have a camera body, it's not like you made a marital vow of loyalty. The 6dmii for wide angle, dof and high iso; the 80d for the 1.6x reach on your tele lenses, video and ironically DR at base ISO.

And you will pay for the mk2? ;-)
Some people can´t throw out money in just any direction, even if they would benefit from, for example, the use of two bodies.

And some people just would not carry around two bodies for their outings. Their reasons may differ, weight, bulk, or any combination of those and/or other factors.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 08:18 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff Peterman: What about for 6D users? Many of us with the older model who don't shoot video are struggling to determine if the upgrade is worth it.

@Jeff Peterman:
Read the 6D mk2 reviews, there are a few out there. Then determine if the improvements are worth the cost, and if they are things that would benefit YOUR "photography style". Simple as that.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 08:14 UTC
In reply to:

ChickenBalls: "That said, we're aware that a great many people primarily shoot JPEG."

Really?? people buy DSLRs just to shoot JPEG? Why not save some money and get a good smartphone instead?

So, to you the main differentiating factor betw. a smartphone and (any?) DSLR is the RAW-mode on the DSLR? Note for you: some smartphones DO allow for use of shooting in RAW, if not that many...

I´d think there are many, many differences, among which RAW isn´t even the "top one", between a DSLR and any smartphone out there!!

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 08:10 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: Sigma is kicking ass! If Only they would make Olympus quality lenses for micro four thirds I'd never buy another overpriced Olympus lens again πŸ˜‰πŸ‘πŸ»

Optically Sigma has been good, (with variations among the line, of course) since many years. I had the tiny little 24mm/2,8 super wide, for my then Nikon system. Sharp as a tack, sturdily built and 18 cm(!) closest focusing distance. A FUN lens! Cost some 1000SEK at the time, since then prices have goon up "a bit" ;-)

Now, I too find Oly lenses a bit expensive. Still, which other company give THAT quality at the same or cheaper prices, overall? Tell me..
I have the 12-40/2,8, the 40-150/2,8, the 50/2, the 75/1,8, the 14-54 mk2, the old 40-150/3,5-4,5, and the 12-50/3,5-6,3. Only the two last mentioned can be seen as less than REALLY good lenses. SO sharp, and liftable vs what most other can deliver at the same IQ. WEll built all of them, too. That has to cost "something"...I guess ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2017 at 07:35 UTC
In reply to:

akjos: I tested this abomination on my D4 together with 4 other sigmas in the camera store expo with bunch of teps from different companies. All but 1 had serious focus issues. One would figure that at least the samples to show off to ppl would be cherry picked no??! No... thank you.

What perform "cherry picking" if the company would like to be seen as honest and serious??? That would also point to potentially bad QC..
And what use, if it shows, as it often does, that the camera in question needs to be calibrated? Any DSLR, regardless of make or price level, will have this potential problem/issue. If not using its Live View focusing, that is.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2017 at 07:28 UTC
In reply to:

Bambi24: I don't care how cheap these Sigma and Tamron lenses are, all of them have focus issues. And if they don't have focus issues when you buy them, they eventually develop them or focus completely breaks after the camera gets a firmware update.

And I'm not blaming this on Sigma or Tamron, Japanese companies are incredibly protective, Japan and China are the most protectionist countries in the world. Canon and Nikon refuse to disclose or share their AF tech. But as a result, I refuse to buy Tamron or Sigma, it just is what it is.

Are you sure that Tamron and Tokina (and more) don´t pay licences to Ca/Ni/Pe for use of the AF tech? It´s been a rather well known fact that Sigma do NOT pay any licenses, since long, and therefore Sigma have had more troble with AF function during the years. Which doesn´t prevent many Sigma lenses to work perfectly well, as fex Toni Salmonelli just witnessed.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2017 at 07:22 UTC
In reply to:

Jun2: Not very sharp. May be, it need to be tested through MC-11 to Sony mirrorless cameras to eliminate focus misbehaviors.

@Henry McA: First part of your short rant was fine, true and all. The second, just a totally unnecessary piece of BS. "crap" at the level of cameras the Sony mirrorless system represents, is just not a word to use, At all. Regardless of if you may not like them, or just find them too expensive or so. But "crap"? No way. Says I, an Oly shooter. Is Oly "crap" too?

(If you just wanted to be funny or ironic, I´m fine! ;-) I didn´t read it that way)

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2017 at 07:13 UTC
In reply to:

Frank_BR: Illuminated controls? Hmmm... A virtuoso pianist would consider ridiculous a Steinway & Sons piano with illuminated keys. He does not need to see the keys to play the piano perfectly. Likewise, a real professional photographer does not need to see the controls of a camera; he knows them by touch.

So one must be a professional photog, also with a perfect working "body memory", in order to be interested of a Nikon D850??? So silly, just so silly an idea!!

I did use the Olympus E-620 for a couple of years. One of the nicer things it featured was, you believe me, its illuminated buttons!! SOO good to have. And NO negative thing to be had from the possibility of illumination, either.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 15:13 UTC
On article Ten things we're hoping for from the Nikon D850 (481 comments in total)
In reply to:

cgarrard: Illuminated controls... Olympus did that so long ago on a couple of its DSLR's. Loved that feature! (E620 anyone!)

Had it,(the E-620), liked it, and the illuminated buttons really were a treat!!

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 09:35 UTC

On top of that, a 10 minutes(!) lunch break. Give me a break, that´s just not ok!

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 04:36 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
Total: 169, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »