Joined on Sep 17, 2012


Total: 47, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

catlyn: Finally... a seemingly great marketing strategy for Google Pixel, making a competitive midrange phone (and not just flagships).

But it comes in such a crowded market... and in the time when the flagship Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL are already kind of obsolete -- think Huawei P30 Pro, offering an ultra wide angle, a wide angle, and a telephoto camera; plus, a sensibly better night mode than the Pixel 3 has.

Mid-range phones have crap cameras. The Pixel 3a doesn't have a crap camera but rather it has an excellent camera. That's a big breakthrough for the category.

Sure, the P30 Pro is the latest and greatest but it is a high-end and expensive phone not in the same category as a Pixel 3a. We'll have to wait for the Pixel 4 to see how it compares to something like the P30 Pro.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2019 at 20:49 UTC

Interesting how people complain about the cameras in the MOBILE sections of websites!
Just try to think for a moment about how remarkable it is to even have a pretty decent camera built in to a phone.
And if you want a higher quality camera just get one. Stop bitching (and reading about) MOBILE device cameras which are OF COURSE going to be worse than a dedicated camera. Even a total moron knows that.
What's YOUR excuse?

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 23:22 UTC as 90th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

scoobysnapstories: people have been warned so many times about this problem, and still they don't listen, morons.

And that's why you see warning labels on almost everything for the most obvious things.
Well, that and the fact that there a zillion attorneys who will sue in an instant.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 22:38 UTC
In reply to:

trungtran: Better the equipment than the eyes.

It's actually possible to do both at the same time. Ouch.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 22:34 UTC
In reply to:

RJeffB: As stated by Lensrentals-- an entertaining post; though perhaps not especially instructive. Clearly, net radiant energy from the sun is substantially reduced during a solar eclipse, and I know of various webcams whose field-of-view captures direct sun for an hour or more daily, without evidence of acute damage. Thus, I suspect that instances of acute camera (and eye) damage during eclipse viewing arise NOT during totality; and arguably could better be described simply as photographing the sun, likely with a telephoto lens.

Sure. All it really is is sun damage.
People were pointing their cameras at the sun for X amount of time, frequently with telephoto lenses. That can destroy a camera.
The only time it was really safe to do that, other than with a solar filter which blocks all harmful light, is during totality - when the sun is not actually visible (except for the corona) since the moon is completely blocking it.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 22:31 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: I can tell you this - It's true that a partial eclipse is no comparison to a total. It's like comparing a toy tricycle to an 800hp Ferrari. And those eclipse glasses only show you a simple, silly, featureless, boring crescent of a sun. The real deal is a total ... there's no substitute. I never thought anything could blow my socks off again, but my socks were blown so far off I still can't find them.

A total solar eclipse and a partial solar eclipse are essentially two different events entirely.
It's all about the sun completely disappearing, the appearance of the corona (spectacular) and all the other related phenomena that make a total solar eclipse a practically life-changing event.
Plus, you get the added bonus of seeing a partial solar eclipse in the process of seeing a total solar eclipse!

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 21:09 UTC

Looks like he didn't use a digital camera, he probably should have. The IQ on that shot is very poor. Interesting filter too with all those dots. I think I've seen something like that on SnapChat.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2017 at 17:31 UTC as 37th comment

And that is why you fly private.
Step it up, man. Sheesh.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2017 at 17:25 UTC as 215th comment | 1 reply

Fact: Americans are ignorant morons.
Proof: They elected Trump.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 01:50 UTC as 19th comment | 5 replies
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (499 comments in total)

The most important thing about interchangeable lens cameras are the... lenses.
If you're into fast sports shooting Canikon have a huge advantage there.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 18:42 UTC as 75th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Schwingi MD: The Sony guys are the worst. Sure their tech is awesome but a little more then 6 months after the 6300 release another upgrade?! Come on! I would be pi**ed if I had just bought a A6300...

Sure, because even though Sony will continue to sell the A6300 it will STOP WORKING as soon the A6500 is released.
Never understood this kind of retard logic where people think they cannot continue to use an already terrific camera simply because another version is released.
It's a DIGITAL camera. All of them will become obsolete sooner rather than later. Deal with it.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 19:33 UTC
On article Google Pixel tops DxOMark's Mobile rankings (116 comments in total)

Still f/2.0. Interesting.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2016 at 19:07 UTC as 30th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

akaloith: where is the tele lens?

Pulldown menu: 25 > Telephoto

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2016 at 07:25 UTC
In reply to:

fatdeeman: Eye watering price but people need to realise this is not the same thing as a small sensor super zoom, it's much more than that.

Can't wait to see how that lens performs, that's a lot of ed glass!

Well, it's pretty much like the FZ-1000 but at nearly 3x the price. Gulp.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 18:17 UTC

Look like kit lens images.
And that's what you would think if you didn't know what lens was used.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 23:36 UTC as 26th comment | 2 replies
On article Hands-on with the Nikon D5 (396 comments in total)

My arms hurt just looking at the pictures.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 21:15 UTC as 93rd comment | 5 replies
On article Nikon fills in the blanks on professional grade D5 DSLR (533 comments in total)

Includes five free visits to a physical therapist.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 00:34 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
On Article:4584121353 (26 comments in total)
In reply to:

wetsleet: is this the same camera as in the ordinary Galaxy S6 (the flat one)?


Posted on Dec 29, 2015 at 18:05 UTC
On Article:4584121353 (26 comments in total)
In reply to:

D200_4me: Smartphones have come a long way with regard to camera quality, but for now, they're still just very poor point and shoot cameras. You still need a proper camera.

No, smartphones nowadays are actually pretty good point and shoot cameras but not as good as a 'proper' camera.

Posted on Dec 29, 2015 at 18:05 UTC
On article Go big: Leica SL studio and real-world sample gallery (111 comments in total)

What is this, some kind of sick joke?
Those studio shots are embarrassing. And that's not even considering the price tag.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 16:42 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
Total: 47, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »