trekkeruss

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 26, 2010

Comments

Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

My dog was cute. ;)
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9996694881/photos/3647558/dim-sum

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 18:46 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

bolt2014: Please don't use the term "from the edge of the earth" unless you want "flat earthers" all over us!

Nice posting history there, BinHereBe4.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

bolt2014: Please don't use the term "from the edge of the earth" unless you want "flat earthers" all over us!

@ davev8 That's easy. Flat Earthers would say that there are no stars; they are just lights in the dome. They also say satellites (and the Int Space Station) don't exist. According to those believers, all forms of communication is terrestrial, either through towers, or cables going under the ocean.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 15:09 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: 2008 might have marked the beginning of the end for small sensored Superzoom Bridge Cameras. At least until Sony figured out how to put larger sensors in them in 2013. Then Panasonic and Canon followed suit, and they had a renaissance.

Back in 2008 you could buy a DSLR two lens kit for around $500, and that seriously killed the market for superzoom cameras with tiny sensors that cost the same, and were almost as large, or sometimes even larger than a DSLR.

It doesn't matter to most people that a smartphone doesn't have a lot of telephoto. For the majority, the best camera is the one they have with them, and that is the camera in their phone. Carrying a dedicated camera is a hassle. Of course some people still buy superzooms and other cameras, but the market is never going to be like how it was pre-2007.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 03:51 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: 2008 might have marked the beginning of the end for small sensored Superzoom Bridge Cameras. At least until Sony figured out how to put larger sensors in them in 2013. Then Panasonic and Canon followed suit, and they had a renaissance.

Back in 2008 you could buy a DSLR two lens kit for around $500, and that seriously killed the market for superzoom cameras with tiny sensors that cost the same, and were almost as large, or sometimes even larger than a DSLR.

I suspect the dip in sales of superzoom (and all compact cameras) had and has more to do with the insurgence of the smartphone than DSLR's being relatively inexpensive. Even today there is not so much a revival but a shift by camera manufacturers who are aware that most people are satisfied enough with smartphone images, and the only way to offset that is to offer higher quality i.e. larger sensor cameras.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 19:26 UTC
In reply to:

piratejabez: Beware of anyone that says, "Here is the BEST way to shoot this scene (because that's how most people have done it in the past)."

Nothing against AI, but having something choose settings for you without knowing WHY it's choosing those settings is basically worthless (or, at best, redundant to other modern Auto modes, as many have said).

There's great value in knowing how to expose for a good photograph; and photographic skill is in large part defined by our use of this knowledge—knowing how to apply it, and when to "break the rules" and do something a little different.

Humans have been gifted with pretty awesome brains, as well as a knack for creativity. Let's make use of both.

Okay, so it's a robot photographer. ;)

Anyway, while people here may find joy in crafting an image, others (presumably those who are funding the Kickstarter) find it frustrating. Of course, how is this gadget is better than the already built-in Auto or Auto remains to be seen (or scene mode).

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 00:08 UTC
In reply to:

piratejabez: Beware of anyone that says, "Here is the BEST way to shoot this scene (because that's how most people have done it in the past)."

Nothing against AI, but having something choose settings for you without knowing WHY it's choosing those settings is basically worthless (or, at best, redundant to other modern Auto modes, as many have said).

There's great value in knowing how to expose for a good photograph; and photographic skill is in large part defined by our use of this knowledge—knowing how to apply it, and when to "break the rules" and do something a little different.

Humans have been gifted with pretty awesome brains, as well as a knack for creativity. Let's make use of both.

Some people want to create art, and others want to buy art. This is those that want to buy art...and there is nothing wrong with that. It's really no different than anything else. For example, do you work on your car, or do you get it worked on?

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 23:30 UTC
In reply to:

NickHT: D5500's, really? Couldn't they at least give out D7200's or D7100's for the lowest prizes? The lack of AF micro adjust in the D5500 is a non-starter for many, I bet. And the D7100 retails for only $50 more at the moment. I'm sure most people entering the competition would much, much prefer the D7100 over the D5500. I know I would.

1.) Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
2.) Most people, certainly the ones who enter that do not own a DSLR, do not even know what is AF micro adjust.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 06:29 UTC
In reply to:

SRHEdD: Really nice, but I can put a 35 or a 50 on my A6000 and save enough to pay for the trip to go someplace spectacular and shoot. I have an A7ii, and even it gets left home sometimes in favor of the A6000. I do appreciate the exercise, and hope some of this trickles down to the A7000(?) though...

As the OP has an A7II, I'm sure he realizes his A6000 is not FF. There are other reasons to choose a "lesser" camera than sensor size alone, one of which the OP cited.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2015 at 18:04 UTC
In reply to:

Smeggypants: " NASA funding issues may prevent the space agency from providing additional moon mission scans in the foreseeable future."

Oh please!!! The single most important historical event in history and "funding issues" *may* prevent release of most images. What a load of boll-ocks!!!

****Failed to post new comment because it contains swear words****

FWIW, some (many, actually) people don't believe the moon landings happened, and to them it certainly is not the most important historical event in history. I watched the television transmission at the time, and I do believe man walked on the moon, but I'm not sure I would say it is _the_ most important event either. But it was definitely a leap for mankind.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 19:23 UTC
In reply to:

Rooru S: quick question no.1
is it an APS-C only lens or has the ability to cover a fullframe circle?
quick question no.2
how was the AF speed?

Well, Samsung doesn't make a full frame camera, so it's unlikely.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2015 at 00:52 UTC
In reply to:

RedFox88: Iso 16000 looks like a water painting.

Well duh, it's ISO 16000.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2014 at 00:48 UTC
On article Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial (279 comments in total)

What the layman will hear is "shot with a Sony A7s," and he will think that just by purchasing an A7s, they will get pro video...not realizing that quite often there's a whole lot more involved than just the camera body.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 17:52 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
On article Travel tripods: Comparing 5 aluminum kits (111 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Piziak: Those 5 tripods look very similar - almost as though they were made by the same company.

They're tripods with ball heads...how different can they look?

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2014 at 14:33 UTC
On article Sony drops list price of Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gonini: What a coward and cheap move by Sony! So all of their cameras are overpriced? Proof that the company does not stand behind their products. Those defending the price cut (and sony) probably did not buy this camera at its overpriced original price!

Cowardly and cheap? Sony is a business. They name the price and people decide if it is worth it or not. All camera get cheaper as you own them; in five years you be able to buy an RX10 for even less. The point is, if you buy a new-to-the-market camera, you will pay more. Almost no one absolutely needs a camera, so don't chase after the state of the art, because you will always pay the "overpriced" price.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 16:15 UTC
On article Fujifilm UK X Signature service officially launched (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Franiec: I was about to order the X-T1 but now I rather wait for the porcupine foreskin covered version. Leica's paper edition does not appeal to me anymore.

I guess that it is about time to create new segment of cameras clearly dedicated for fashion freaks, not photographers. DPR - be the first, surely, others will follow.

Not only does he drive a grey car, wears grey clothes, lives in a grey house with grey furniture, he only shoots B&W photos. :P

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 00:56 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II: a quick summary (533 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarkByland: Still no legitimate, justifiable reason why camera companies are dropping the optical viewfinder. It all just sounds like cheaper, faster, more production units mojo to me.

I think camera companies could stand a few minutes behind the counter listening to customers complain for a day. Perhaps they'd see things differently. Not every one enjoys holding a camera at an obtuse parallax in relation to what the eye is seeing. People also can't stand not being able to use LCD in bright sunlight, yet another reason a finder was essential.

Don't make it sound like Canon is the only manufacturer not include a viewfinder on a compact camera. Viewfinders are NOT the norm, and most people don't care about one. If they did, they would all stop using the cell phone and buy a 'real" camera with a supposedly necessary viewfinder.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 16:18 UTC
In reply to:

photofan1986: Impressive quality, I must say!

The photos are flat and lifeless because the lighting itself is flat and lifeless.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 03:07 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4: a quick summary (471 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrr_hhh: "and a minimum shutter speed of 1/8000 sec "

Isn't that the maximum shutter speed, being the fastest one ?

Depends on how you look at it. Shutter speed is a time value (hence Canon marking their shutter speed as Tv instead of S), and 1/8000 is less time than 1/4000, 1/2000, etc. So in that respect, it is the minimum speed.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2014 at 06:39 UTC
In reply to:

BrianK: One of the appeals of this class of camera is the ability to shoot in crappy weather conditions, which one would think might also be associated with less than ideal lighting. Nevertheless, and as far as I know, none of these cameras offer the option to save in uncompressed RAW format which would give one the most flexibility to make corrections to color balance, etc., i.e., the kinds of corrections one might want to be able to make when shooting in less than ideal conditions.

Makes no sense to me.

I hope that when DPReview gets around to its next round-up review of this class of camera that they raise at least a bit of a stink about this omission.

The manufacturers probably figure the target market doesn't even know what RAW is.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 16:27 UTC
Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »