Steve Balcombe

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Jun 16, 2004


Total: 186, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Suntan: If this did make it to a commercial production, I wonder if people will reject the "fake" looking video, similar to some people's rejection of high frame rate, on the grounds of "knowing" what a proper film should look like.

Put simply, if a director starts dinking with extreme aperture differences across the screen, people could be quite turned off.

It all depends on the skills (and budget) of those creating the film doesn't it? You could make exactly the same comment about all CGI, but done well it can be totally believable - just watch the latest Star Wars film for a great example. Some scenes are obviously CGI, often simply because we know they couldn't be created any other way, but there are some which I only know are CGI because I've seen the 'making of' extras.

The same is going to apply to light field, and it will be possible to use it badly, no question.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2016 at 14:10 UTC
In reply to:

solarider: Just in case things go downhill and I need a backup to what I have on flickr... I'd appreciate very much knowing if there is an easy way to copy everything I have on flickr to say google+/former picasa or another free service? Thanks in advance.

Your backup should be either local, or on a general purpose cloud storage service that you can rely on. Any photo gallery service might potentially change in some way you don't like, or disappear altogether. Everything I have ever uploaded to Flickr is still on a local drive in my office, and is also backed up from there. It's not much in storage terms, and it's as easy to keep as to delete.

And btw don't rely on Google to support legacy services - they have just 'deprecated' MyTracks and provided nothing to replace it.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 14:52 UTC

Yahoo's ownership doesn't seem to have been good for Flickr but I do like the way the Flickr community works, with the emphasis remaining on the photographs.

The Flickr web sites and apps are an inconsistent mess, so hopefully fixing them would be a priority for a new owner.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 11:10 UTC as 44th comment
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: While this is slightly surprising at first glance, I think what it actually shows is that you can't optimise for everything at once.

@sandy b - no doubt there will soon be lots of D5 vs 1D X II shoot-outs to answer that question for us :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 15:10 UTC

While this is slightly surprising at first glance, I think what it actually shows is that you can't optimise for everything at once.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 11:09 UTC as 92nd comment | 3 replies

Being as charitable as I can, I think the people who are dismissing this because "nobody ever needs to push 5 stops" must never do any technically challenging photography. Many times I've needed to draw detail out of shadows in a "correctly exposed" shot, and of course there are the times when I choose to underexpose to preserve detail in highlights, or simply make a cockup and end up with a poor exposure in a shot I want to keep. Five stops would be extreme of course, but two or three stops is not that uncommon and it's great to know that I will have at least another stop of latitude in this area.

My 80D is due to arrive at the end of the week. The 7D2 will still be my choice when I need maximum speed and better handling, and the 80D will take over for much of my natural light macro photography for example. Anybody who doesn't understand why this will be good needn't reply.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 08:20 UTC as 110th comment | 4 replies

Great to read that the 80D is supported (as well as the 1300D and 1D X II) as I have one on pre-order. I remember having to use DPP for ages when I got my 7D2.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 13:24 UTC as 16th comment
On article Polaroid-branded BrightSaber Pro wand packs 298 LEDs (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidVogt: Products like this are contributing to the death of the Polaroid brand. Yikes.

I'm afraid I now associate the Polaroid name with paying extra for a licence I don't need. There seems to be absolutely nothing behind it.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 00:13 UTC
On article Polaroid-branded BrightSaber Pro wand packs 298 LEDs (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kamox: Isn't a powerful LED flashlight (like Fenix, for example) with a clip-on diffuser more convenient for that price?

Light falloff from a point source (such a conventional undiffused flash) is 1/x^2 - the inverse square law. Falloff from an infinitely long linear source is 1/x so much less. From a finite linear source like this it's somewhere between the two but in this case it's pretty short so closer to 1/x^2. It would be similar to a flash with a small diffuser.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 00:06 UTC
On article Polaroid launches Eyeball panoramic tripod head (19 comments in total)

Looks like a fun idea, and for once not overpriced.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2016 at 20:22 UTC as 7th comment

Congratulations to Sigma for producing another unique lens. I do think, though, that if you think you need this lens you should seriously consider switching to full frame instead.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 23:52 UTC as 68th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

CopCarSS: There are times when I read DPR that I think the "lens equivalency" discussion causes more chaos and controversy than a Republican Party debate...

Sure, but that's not the fault of equivalency, which is a real physical phenomenon, nor is it DPR's fault for mentioning it. Unfortunately whenever there is a discussion about equivalency, the people who are most eager to pile in are the ones who don't understand it (and are the least likely to accept that there is *anything* they don't understand).

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 23:46 UTC
On article Newly enthused: hands on with the Canon EOS 80D (680 comments in total)

@dpreviewer - if you've had a hands-on with this camera and lens hopefully you can answer a question for me: is the new lens focus-by-wire like the STM? I'm hoping MF is mechanical but I fear it might not be...

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 10:31 UTC as 121st comment | 1 reply

I 100% agree with everything said in this video. So often wide angle is dismissed with some comment about big noses as if that's the inevitable and only consideration. Of course it helps having attractive models but it often works for 'character' models too. And the point about intimacy is one I've made many times in forum posts.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 17:03 UTC as 44th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Jimmy2thou: I've been using a very similar wrist strap for about 5 years now. £1.99 and Free postage. The leather is nice and soft. Many sellers have them on ebay, for example:

Hmmm they don't list Leica in their compatibility list. I'm worried.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2016 at 16:25 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: Do many street photographers get run over? If not why not?


Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2016 at 16:15 UTC
In reply to:

jaiyenyen: Most of you guys would rings around me with technically deep knowledge regarding photography but I see so many misguided and incorrect statements regarding LEDs. Even in the review DP state outputs measured in Lux, output is measured in lumens. Lux is a unit of measurement on an object and is subject to distance from the source. There are so many variables in LEDs all important to consistency and quality. Simple claims about CRI and colour temp are meaningless without further information

I was just about to post something similar - "650 lux" is only meaningful if we know the area being lit, and therefore, indirectly, the distance.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2016 at 09:25 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: Free with every Sigma lens?

Or use the coating on the front elements of their lenses, similar to Canon's fluorine coating. Then we wouldn't need to add another piece of glass (etc. etc. usual arguments).

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2015 at 15:43 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: It's great to see advances in this area, but for me this announcement only serves to underline how much further the technology has to go to compete with an optical viewfinder. It's not even HD TV resolution.

@Karroly. If pixels are visible then the EVF has a lower resolution than an OVF. Simple as that.

And on your other point. You had opened with "The OVF of an FF SLR fitted with a 50mm lens gives a picture with about 1x magnification" - that was false. Film or digital makes absolutely zero difference, you can't use that as an excuse. Autofocus does make a difference because of the beam splitting mirror it requires, but only to the brightness, not directly to the magnification. Your old Olympus film SLRs had superb viewfinders, as good as (or better than?) anything available today, but even they didn't achieve 1.0x.

It would be perfectly possible to create a viewfinder to match your OM-2 in size today. My assumption would be that the smaller magnification of the 1D X, and all modern FF DSLRs, is actually chosen by design. It makes it easier to take in the whole image, and it makes the image brighter which has become an issue with autofocus cameras and relatively slow zoom lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 23:47 UTC
In reply to:

eno2: And now the Leica SL viewfinder undergone a huge resolution downgrade to only 4.4 million dots from pixels: "The highlight of the SL is undoubted its 4.4 megapixel 'EyeRes' EVF".

You should change the viewfinder description of that camera, it has only 1,41 Mp not 4,4 MP as most of the internet folks (including you) wrongly advertised it. :)

@pictureAngst - they should be, but the term 'dots' has sometimes been used to mean sub-pixels.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 13:29 UTC
Total: 186, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »