Stephen McDonald

Stephen McDonald

Lives in United States Eugene, OR, United States
Works as a Videomaker-Writer
Has a website at None
Joined on Sep 21, 2006
About me:

Sony HX400V, HX200V, HX100V, HX1, TX100V, Webbie HD, Sony HC9, an HDV camcorder, Canon S5, Olympus C-2100UZ. Former Sony H5, H9 and Canon SX1 User. Raynox DCR-2020PRO, Raynox HD2200, Sony DH1758 & DH1774 telex lenses.

Comments

Total: 134, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (377 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Meissner: Ah yes, the C-2100UZ. I still have mine, though I didn't take any usable shots with it in 2016, but it sits in a place of honor on my shelf.

It was my second digital camera. My first was an Olympus D-510Z that I bought after a trip to Disney World where I somehow left mouse land with money in my pockets, and it was burning a hole itching to be spent, and I settled on the D-510Z.

However, the D-510Z was a pretty forgettable point & shoot, and I soon outgrew its limitations. I was looking around for something better. It was the time of the great CompUSA (remember them?) firesale, where Olympus was off-loading the UZI's for $500 (off of $1200). After doing some investigation, I settled on the UZI.

One of the things that helped me decide was the rather active Olympus forum (now Olympus Compact forum) at the time that was populated by UZI-lovers that were more interested in photos and techniques than spec-manship. I miss the forum of those days. I have 10,564 shots with the UZI.

Really pleasing shot, Michael. It shows a great range of light, with few sections that don't have their own best exposure. I really liked that Oly Forum then also. The people were very friendly, low-key and helpful. It made a nice entry into digital photography for me, with them and the Uzi.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 08:55 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (377 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Meissner: Ah yes, the C-2100UZ. I still have mine, though I didn't take any usable shots with it in 2016, but it sits in a place of honor on my shelf.

It was my second digital camera. My first was an Olympus D-510Z that I bought after a trip to Disney World where I somehow left mouse land with money in my pockets, and it was burning a hole itching to be spent, and I settled on the D-510Z.

However, the D-510Z was a pretty forgettable point & shoot, and I soon outgrew its limitations. I was looking around for something better. It was the time of the great CompUSA (remember them?) firesale, where Olympus was off-loading the UZI's for $500 (off of $1200). After doing some investigation, I settled on the UZI.

One of the things that helped me decide was the rather active Olympus forum (now Olympus Compact forum) at the time that was populated by UZI-lovers that were more interested in photos and techniques than spec-manship. I miss the forum of those days. I have 10,564 shots with the UZI.

The Olympus Uzi was my first digital camera and it was a gem. If they'd had bigger Smart Cards when it was released, they probably would have given it 3-MP, instead of just a 2-MP sensor. But some of those photos I took with it, I'm still pleased to show today. I could mount a 2X telextender on it and get more reach.

There were a couple of problems that seemed to affect most of them, a capacitor for the charge to retain memory, which gave out after about 3 years and a spindle that snapped in the mode-selection wheel assembly. Here's a link to a photo I took at sunset in the winter with it, at full zoom, using the telextender: https://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/3262748030/sizes/l/

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 04:10 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (377 comments in total)

A Kodak Baby Brownie Special, that cost $2.98. The only moving parts were the shutter and the film advancer. It took amazingly well-exposed shots, considering its limitations. Only a few years ago, did I discover, from a website, that it could shoot color pictures, as long as it was outdoors, in good light. It lasted for 9 years, which is longer than the typical camera of today will hold together.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 03:43 UTC as 87th comment

How much of that award will his lawyers allow him to keep? He probably lost quite a bit in photo-shooting time, over those years. I finally had to stop using my shoulder-mount rigs and now use a monopod, because police kept thinking it was some kind of assault weapon.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/324430494/in/photolist-DtTYSg-XiRs3-e9Rjpa-e9RjpM-z5XaL4-bA3khJ-bA3khE-bz2guY-btHGbW-a5q6q1-9RuUxr-9Rroua-9PyqiV-9M8qV9-9M8qV5-9M8qVf-9LuKT7-9oP4Qo-65iPXQ-4yx2FL-4yx2FN-4f2N3c-2jJsan-2drvgQ-WF6A4-GXT1S-uEMTd

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 07:36 UTC as 4th comment

Looking at several videos of the base that supported the arch, it looks like it's limestone below, with an overlay of shale. The layer of shale extended across the gap that developed when the more fragile limestone underneath eroded. I wonder if anyone knows the approximate dates these formations were laid down? Probably a few hundred-million years old at least. Maybe there was an era of global warmth that raised the seas high enough for those deposits to be made. Or the level of the land could have been upraised by tectonic forces. There might have been some of both.

The photos I found online from many dates in the past, were good for seeing the progressive thinning of the arch. The earliest was from 1880 and it was about twice as thick as it was recently, until yesterday.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 05:30 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Mike Evangelist: I can't believe there's not a single set of decent before/after shots taken from the same location/perspective/crop so you can actually compare them.

There will probably be many good before and after shots on display, before the day is over. I don't think that Stephanie knew what she was shooting, until she looked at her photos later and this was the best she had. Or maybe whiskey was involved.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 21:35 UTC

I'm wondering if this feature can be put to work to find similar images on other photo-hosting websites or any websites? And if so, maybe be useful for detecting copyright-infringement of your photos by unauthorized copying?

And now that most of us who use Flickr have gradually adjusted to the bad changes they've imposed in recent years, I hope they don't repeat this practice by changing again, to favor social-networking, at the expense of limiting the showcasing potential by serious photographers. If only they would bring back small thumbnail pages, for view by visitors to your photostream.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 20:54 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply

Has there ever been such a put-on by a camera company, in all history? The term, "vaporware", has taken on a new dimension. Will there be a new generic expression in the industry, "to pull a Nikon"?

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 06:32 UTC as 113th comment | 3 replies

A bit disappointing. Going by the title, I thought those in the boat were going to get swamped by the wave.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 01:04 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
On article DPReview and the TWiT Network team-up to talk cameras (24 comments in total)
In reply to:

ovatab: let's discuss if "analog" is proper term for photo-chemical process

No point in discussing the irregularities of the English language, as they are numerous and enduring. And by the way, who else but a bunch of tech-nerds would give themselves the name of "TWiT"?

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2017 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

Stephen McDonald: Looking at these puff-pieces for camera bags always gives me some amusement, looking at the pricetags. My main bag for extended camera expeditions, is a very nice, medium-size backpack, branded by Ralph Lauren. I've used it for a dozen years and it is very solid and nice-looking. Cost to me: $0. A friend found it in a ditch and gave it to me. My smaller bags came from St. V or Goodwill, at typically $1. to $3. and they are high-quality, as well. I paid $8. for a new, insulated lunchbag, that I fitted with a shoulder-strap, when I need extra protection for a camera.

My Ralph Lauren backpack has two full-size compartments, two medium-sized zipper pouches, two smaller side pouches and two more internal pouches. I can't imagine that I'd need more. I always carry my camera on a monopod, ready for instant action, when I'm out on a shoot. Collapsed, the monopod fits into the pack and the camera is in a very protective insulated lunchbag.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 23:44 UTC

Looking at these puff-pieces for camera bags always gives me some amusement, looking at the pricetags. My main bag for extended camera expeditions, is a very nice, medium-size backpack, branded by Ralph Lauren. I've used it for a dozen years and it is very solid and nice-looking. Cost to me: $0. A friend found it in a ditch and gave it to me. My smaller bags came from St. V or Goodwill, at typically $1. to $3. and they are high-quality, as well. I paid $8. for a new, insulated lunchbag, that I fitted with a shoulder-strap, when I need extra protection for a camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 05:37 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

peter zuehlke: did i miss it or did they leave out the history of making bomb sights during WWII, and also making lenses for Canon cameras early on, when Canon was making Leica inspired cameras. seems like important parts of their history.

When you write an autobiography, you tell the story as you like it the best.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 23:54 UTC

Sure, I'd hope that they are around another 100 years. Just hoping they will all be more rewarding for their customers, than they were for this past year.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 21:41 UTC as 124th comment
In reply to:

barrystet: must be a really hot looking lass to have generated that much in sales

She's so good-looking, it costs $2,200,000,000. per shot.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 00:12 UTC

Where's the photo? If there's no photo, it didn't happen.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 20:17 UTC as 121st comment | 1 reply
On article Happy Holidays from DPReview (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

Music Hands: Thanks for the humorous images and texts.

Scott, you _should_ be sorry for all the ads... They are taking way to much screen space (in PC) version, barely tolerable for handhelds. Please scale back a notch, so we can get to content quickly and without interruption or hassle.

If Simon or others think more ad revenue is needed, either raise rates or think again!

Thanks for listening.
Stew
PS Happy Holidays

Not a problem for me, as I totally ignore all commercials. If I ever did take notice of a product shown here, I'd be sure never to buy it. But thank you despite the ads that I never see.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2016 at 23:09 UTC
In reply to:

sierranvin: The tiny sensor and lack of raw make this offering a wheezy-breezy joke.
C'mon, Sony, give us something good, something that serious photographers can take everywhere as their superzoom backup camera in case any of their more elaborate kit breaks out in the field, days from any urban center!
How about a full-frame sensor in the RX-10 III?

A full-frame sensor in a camera like the RX10 III, would deliver a reach of about 100mm, or the lens would need to weigh about 10 lbs. to deliver 600mm. Imagine the cost of such a contraption.

Having a multi-sensor prism configuration, as many video cameras do, might improve resolution and color, but would not increase focal-length.

If you had a fixed lens that produced 50X, with an APS-C sized sensor, it would be large enough to equal a whole bag full of regular, removable lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 21:52 UTC
In reply to:

Aroart: Wow... hate complaining but why no 4K... even Nikon put 4K in there latest supper zoom..

Mariuz, 4K may not be an issue with you, but it is for many of us. Acquisition in 4K can produce much better results when it's edited into 1080, than if it were shot in 1080. What's the point in trying to tell others what features they should want in a camera?

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 21:44 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Krawitz: They need to go wider, not longer. 20-1000 (or even better, 16-800) would be a lot more useful than 24-1200.

It doesn't seem that the others previously replying to me, understand at all, what the purpose of this type of camera is. I invite anyone to click on my name, then on Forums and call up any regular post I've made on a forum and go to the link at the bottom, for my Flickr account, to see how I use a camera of this series.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 08:43 UTC
Total: 134, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »