Joined on Mar 18, 2014


Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12

The average smartphone picture taker is not going to care about burst speed or AF speed. Why? Because they won't know how to use it. They won't know how to track their kid or dog's face properly and they'll blame it on the phone rather than their own inability to use the functionality. Hell, they won't know what either FPS or AF stands for.

You are talking to people that just want to open their camera app, hit the button, and get a nice picture. All of this technical capability is meaningless and won't do a thing to change your sales #s.

Oh, and those of us that do want these things, already have them in our real cameras.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2020 at 19:23 UTC as 45th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

wolfloid: The rules sound good to me. These are potentially dangerous and privacy-invading toys, they are not necessary. On the odd occasion that a scientist or serious filmmaker needs to use one, they can apply for special permission. Otherwise keep them far, far away from airports, residences, wildlife and peaceful countryside, or shoot them down and fine the owners.

Seriously, I think the world is sleeping on how dangerous these things can be eventually. It's just like with social media 7 or 8 years ago. Right now it's all "what an innovation! Look at all these beautiful pictures and videos!"

But consider when there are drones flying all over the place delivering packages for Amazon, sounding like a swarm of angry bees, or when they've destroyed millions of transportation jobs in the name of innovation, or when they're advanced enough to become weapons.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2020 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

t6: I think this is all very likely. Check on page 13. (From their financials press conference today)

Very insightful. I'm surprised they provide such detailed commentary on their plans in a presentation like this.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2020 at 14:20 UTC

"offers shutter speeds of between 68 minutes and..."


Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2020 at 14:47 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII Review (994 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: Well, keeping "common sense" in mind, it should be noted that no one review should be considered as an absolute. The one common denominator that should always be considered is the "human subjective" factor - that is, no two folks will see the same issues in the same light. I too was surprised at the gold rating, but is what it is.

What would be interesting in the long run, however, is to check other reviews of this camera by other sites and if they all agree that it's a high recommended camera, then perhaps, there may be something to this logic.

In the end, I personally (subjective, I know...) cannot see dishing out this amount of money for such a small (and limited?) camera. Others will differ of course, and that is why we have a wealth of choices when it comes to cameras on the market.

Now watch, some one-brand die-hards will take offense at my previous paragraph and feel they must respond. Again, that's life on DPReview... Who loves ya....I do!!!!!

"common sense" is in short supply these days. Great comment.
I think one thing worth noting here about the price. Indeed, how high it is will likely exclude many people from considering it, certainly because you could get an extremely good quality mirrorless system for the same price.
The question is: do you consider a mirrorless system as an alternative to the RX100 series? I suspect the answer is yes, for some, but not everyone.

Not everyone wants to deal with multiple lenses, or they want a smaller form factor that can 'do it all' -- and they're willing to sacrifice some IQ, DR, and pay more to get it.

The way I look at it, this camera is for those in that 'not everyone' bucket.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2019 at 15:49 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VII Review (994 comments in total)
In reply to:

janist74: Just as a starter: It is too big for my pocket. My phone has similar size sensor. Who needs 20fps? I buy a 5dmkiii for this price. Why 85%? Why gold?


If you can't tell the difference between a 1/2.3" sensor and a 1" sensor, then a 5dmkiii won't help you. Just sayin'

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2019 at 15:35 UTC
In reply to:

cardboardbox: Carey, do you find the 35mm equivalent focal length on the 22mm f/2 to ever be limiting for landscape shots? Or do you find it sufficient to capture most scenes?

Thanks for the reply Carey. What 24 mm focal length are you referring to? I thought I read in the article that you only owned the 22mm f/2 as your sole ef-m lens? Or am i missing something here?

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2019 at 15:38 UTC

Carey, do you find the 35mm equivalent focal length on the 22mm f/2 to ever be limiting for landscape shots? Or do you find it sufficient to capture most scenes?

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2019 at 17:10 UTC as 102nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

RecklessCoding: Impressive tech specs! However, 61mpxl is a bit too much for everyday usage. Makes me anxiously await for the A7 MkIV.

And that's when i'll be purchasing the MkIII

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2019 at 14:33 UTC

So what happened to this announcement?

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2019 at 20:10 UTC as 5th comment | 3 replies
On article Canon G1 X Mark III pre-production sample gallery (113 comments in total)

I don't know if this dramatically outperforms my mark ii by any significant margin. I thought we'd get bigger DR gains from the larger sensor, but it seems to struggle to retain shadow detail in that last street picture just as my mark ii would -- granted those are tough conditions, but still...

I think the portraits look better though.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 13:26 UTC as 45th comment
In reply to:

Ben of the North: With taxes here in Quebec, it will cost 1,800$ ... OUCH! :-(

I'm thinking it'll be $1699 CAD which, including tax here in Ontario, equals $1920...

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 13:23 UTC
Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12