mobile photography technology, culture and community
www.dpreview.com
wetsleet

wetsleet

Joined on May 4, 2004

Comments

Total: 523, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (800 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: “The Canon XC10 may be the first true 'convergence' camera.”

If you have your head buried in the sand and don’t realize that the FZ1000 came out last year for 1/3 the price.

@Barney "How many times are you going to leave some variation on this comment?"

How many times are you going to write up the same piece of kit? ;)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 16:37 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (800 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: This reads like it was written by a fanboy not an analyst.

If you need 4k, then the lack of stabilization would seem to be a deal killer on this. Particularly when combined with the slow lens. The Gh4 simply seems a better solution. It too has all-in-one solutions which cover the same range but don't give up stabilized 4k video. Sealed lenses too, if you want that. Plus you have the option of using f/1.4 or even f/0.95 lenses and high end add-ons. Ultimately the gh4 seems to be a better solution and while you can add many $1000s in add-ons to it, to achieve the modest specs of the xc10 you could do so at a lower price point.

If you don't need 4k video (and very few really do) then the Sony rx10 seems a better solution. The lens takes in 4x as much light at the long end. It is wider and about as long. The rx10 has the same DR & bit rate, stabilized zoom, sealed lens.

I fail to see how this is worth considering by anyone not just in love with it because of the brand.

you can't do 5-axis stabilisation via the lens, since no amount of shifting the lens will counteract roll. So the roll has to be stabilised either via sensor shift, or electronically (software).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 11:46 UTC
In reply to:

DStudio: The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.

However, we still have another problem, in that much of the media is more interested in a story then the truth. And much of the general public - as well as juries themselves - fail to view such video clips with common sense. The whole incident, situation and context must be taken into account. This problem goes back at least as far as the Rodney King incident, where people ignored the fact that King refused to pull over for 20-40 miles, driving at high speed under the influence, and was a big man who then charged officers just as a person under the influence of PCP would. The police had to use batons because their use of firearms (and even tazers now) is restricted. King's skin color and last name made it sound worse.

But the Texas law is an AWFUL response to the public's lack of discernment. There's no place for it!

Yes Jacques, I did read it. Moreover, I said nothing about the First Amendment nor the Supreme Court with regard to the protection of free speech, photography, and such. I was replying only to your barb about Catholics:

"Please quote me the line in the Constitution that says "You have the right to be a Catholic." Go ahead."

So I went ahead.

The First Amendment prohibits any law which impedes the free exercise of religion. As another has pointed out, that is not the same as guaranteeing a right to anything, it is a limitation on the power of government. But I think it adequately addresses your invitation to "go ahead" about Catholics.

On a point of style, I find your sarcasm unhelpful.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

B1ackhat: This shouldn't even be a question. The only reason any officer would not want to be record is because they are violating the law. Moreover, they are performing their job in public and as such, there is no reason why recording them should ever be prohibited.

You want to be there, what, in your car?! Most American 'cars' are never even going to fit inside a 15 ft circle, and you'd have run over the officer if you tried. I must have missed something?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 18:04 UTC
In reply to:

wetsleet: Great news. Glassholes will need to forever skirt 15 feet around any wandering police officers.

I know you are right. I was just dreaming, hoping!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 14:42 UTC
In reply to:

B1ackhat: This shouldn't even be a question. The only reason any officer would not want to be record is because they are violating the law. Moreover, they are performing their job in public and as such, there is no reason why recording them should ever be prohibited.

no, the criteria is "15 feet of the incident", not 15 feet of the officer. So the officer attends the incident, necessarily close to the action. The photographer stands 15 feet back from the incident, and gives the officer room to breathe. If the officer then chooses to stand next to the photographer instead of attending the incident that would be a dereliction of duty, but does not mean the photographer has to move any further than the 15 feet already from the incident.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 12:43 UTC
In reply to:

DStudio: The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.

However, we still have another problem, in that much of the media is more interested in a story then the truth. And much of the general public - as well as juries themselves - fail to view such video clips with common sense. The whole incident, situation and context must be taken into account. This problem goes back at least as far as the Rodney King incident, where people ignored the fact that King refused to pull over for 20-40 miles, driving at high speed under the influence, and was a big man who then charged officers just as a person under the influence of PCP would. The police had to use batons because their use of firearms (and even tazers now) is restricted. King's skin color and last name made it sound worse.

But the Texas law is an AWFUL response to the public's lack of discernment. There's no place for it!

Please quote me the line in the Constitution that says "You have the right to be a Catholic." Go ahead.

Did you read the First Amendment? That prohibits any law which impedes the free exercise of religion, or abridges the freedom of the press.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 11:07 UTC

Great news. Glassholes will need to forever skirt 15 feet around any wandering police officers.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 10:58 UTC as 30th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

B1ackhat: This shouldn't even be a question. The only reason any officer would not want to be record is because they are violating the law. Moreover, they are performing their job in public and as such, there is no reason why recording them should ever be prohibited.

but does that justify the photographer being in the officer's face? You can perfectly well "record" the events from 15 feet back.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 10:50 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5: What you need to know article (487 comments in total)
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: As a V1 user I say: NO THANKS!
If Nikon can't produce a 1 with EVF in the body (not as addon) Nikon 1 is dad for me!

I am your father...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 08:41 UTC
In reply to:

wetsleet: How come they don't just make the thing waterproof right off the bat, instead of faffing about with a separate rain-jacket?
And can we have it in a heat reflecting colour please? In a hot sunny country your gear fries in a black bag.

it's pretty grim out there! The camera bag market generally, I've never been too impressed. Lots of same-old products relaunched to get the column inches. Very much like inkjet printers, just the same menu served up again and again with a new model number.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 17, 2015 at 07:08 UTC
In reply to:

wetsleet: How come they don't just make the thing waterproof right off the bat, instead of faffing about with a separate rain-jacket?
And can we have it in a heat reflecting colour please? In a hot sunny country your gear fries in a black bag.

The challenge has been met, except by Lowepro. Waterproof jackets these days, they have waterproof zips.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2015 at 22:22 UTC

How come they don't just make the thing waterproof right off the bat, instead of faffing about with a separate rain-jacket?
And can we have it in a heat reflecting colour please? In a hot sunny country your gear fries in a black bag.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2015 at 21:52 UTC as 24th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

arrr: Very nice but is this just a HD version of a FRESNEL LENS?

no. A fresnel lens is a refractive glass lens, same as a normal lens, just folded in on itself in concentric rings like a bellows.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 07:38 UTC
In reply to:

LukeDuciel: As an illiterate in optics, my 1st reaction is "renamed Fresnel lens?"

But I feel this might be the break through we have all been waited for. We know from high school physics: when the dimension of things are reduced to be comparable to the wavelength of light, a lot of strange stuff start to happen.

A Fresnel lens is just a regular refractive lens concertinaed down. It has the same refractive curved surface of a normal lens, collapsed down in a series of concentric rings, so that the interior bulk of the lens is removed. The easiest example to understand is old lighthouse lenses, where you can clearly see what is going on.
Whatever these guys are doing, it is not normal refractive optics.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 07:24 UTC
On Nikon D7200 First Impressions Review preview (854 comments in total)
In reply to:

taktak91: Another spectacular product from Nikon that is incapable of replacing my D300, nor my K-5 II, which I ended up purchasing.
Is Nikon suggesting that I should eventually replace my K-5 II with K-3?
That's fine by me, but I don't know how Nikon can profit from it.

fair enough

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 07:14 UTC
On Nikon D7200 First Impressions Review preview (854 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aur: I'll never undererstand the argument some ppl use about weather sealing. Afaik, none of the DX lenses have weather sealing, only FX lenses have it. Are people really putting $2000 lenses on a crop sensor?

If you want weather sealing, you should be looking at Pentax, they have $200-$1000 lenses with weather sealing. Nikon only has weather sealing in their most expensive lenses, and even on those, Nikon seems very reluctant to tell users how much they can withstand, the info is really hard to find. Pentax has no problem telling it's users which lenses are fully weather proof and they even show it off in promotional videos.

Ppl take these cameras on safaris and then complain about dust on their pictures with Nikons, yes..because none of the DX lenses are weather sealed, so your body being weather sealed is completely irrelevant.

I'd love to know where you get info *from Nikon* about weather sealing on lenses. I've looked, they just don't mention it. Maybe I missed it?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2015 at 22:59 UTC
On Nikon D7200 First Impressions Review preview (854 comments in total)
In reply to:

taktak91: Another spectacular product from Nikon that is incapable of replacing my D300, nor my K-5 II, which I ended up purchasing.
Is Nikon suggesting that I should eventually replace my K-5 II with K-3?
That's fine by me, but I don't know how Nikon can profit from it.

"you probably favor the Pentax or you need the extra reach a crop camera gives you."
Um, that "extra reach" through cropping is equally available on FF bodies. In fact, I'm not sure why all the D400 die-hards don't just get a D750 [pro build quality, layout, features, image (no, that can't be it?)] and stick their stable of DX lenses on it.
After all, the D750 weighs less than the D300, and is near enough the identical size. What's to gripe about?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2015 at 22:52 UTC
In reply to:

tonywong: Not ripping into Mr. Burrard-Lucas but I guess everyone will want their share of the drone photos before it gets commonplace and/or regulated. Since he spent a year in the area he likely exercised due diligence and caution regarding the welfare of his subjects but other photographers may not.

I am conflicted about the use of drone photography in wildlife photos. In the crush to get the closest and newest photos and perspectives that no one else has gotten yet, will the animals now be surrounded by a cloud of flying drones and wheeled remote buggies during an animal encounter?

It is bad enough to see multiple rows of jeeps surrounding a lion hunt in eastern Africa, but now everyone will have to contend with photoshopping out the remote cameras popping in and out of their photos.

I think that there may have to be a policy once these devices become commonplace and common courtesy is forgotten, and the animals will be constantly harassed by these devices.

"It is bad enough to see multiple rows of jeeps surrounding a lion hunt in eastern Africa"

It's not pretty, but it keeps the lions alive.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2015 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

otto k: Regarding multiple shots without tripod: apparently samsung is able to read full 28MP sensor in NX1 240 times a second. It might be DR limited, we don't know yet, but if sensors are able to complete full scan in 1/1000s in few years time it would make multishot usable without tripod. For 8 exposures one would need to hold still for 1/125s which is quite manageable even on tele lens with OIS already. It could also bring CMOS sensors closer to dropping mechanical shutter altogether.

otto, I was asking is it possible smultaneously to engage OIS and 40MP mode? The sensor shift would have to add together the movements required for both functions. So at the same time as executing its 8-point circuit to achieve the 40MP image, the sensor would need to overlay the compensatory movements required for OIS. It might be possible but it is far from self-evident, and the issue is not addressed in the article.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 21:53 UTC
Total: 523, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
About us
Sitemap
Connect