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

wetsleet

Joined on May 4, 2004

Comments

Total: 535, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Canon warns about dangers of counterfeit camera gear article (107 comments in total)

"When buying from the big sellers like Amazon ... things are a bit more clear"

I disagree. At least with eBay you go in with your eyes open. On Amazon it's easy to be lulled into a false sense of security, trusting the Amazon name. Trouble is, often the same listing has multiple sellers, yet the review listing does not distinguish. You have to read between the lines to work out which reviews relate to seller A (selling the real thing) and which relate to seller Z.

For example, look at the Galaxy Note 4 (for which as well as multiple sellers per product listing, there are also multiple product listings - confused?). Some of the reviews give it one-star, lambasting it as a fake, others sing its praises. How are you supposed to know what you are buying - the reviews are not linked to the sellers. And don't get me started on replacement phone/camera batteries - it's just a lottery.

Amazon, which must know which review went with which supplier, does sweet FA to put its house in order.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 13:32 UTC as 19th comment
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1043 comments in total)
In reply to:

steelhead3: Nice piece Rishi...Do you think with the BSI sensors, fast lenses will be able to use 1.4 or 1.8 light gathering? Right now there is no advantage in using fast lenses over 2.0 or 2.8 except for DOF purposes.

Rishi, is it fair to say the "light fall-off of fast lenses at corners" issue is exacerbated by exploiting the shorter flange distance available to mirrorless lens designers? And that unless the shorter flange distance is exploited by lens designers the lenses won't have any size/weight advantage over SLR lens designs?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 21:44 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (566 comments in total)
In reply to:

wetsleet: Lots of comments about no EVF, and I'd tend to agree that a 'proper' viewfinder (i.e. not a display screen) is an essential part of any camera. However, every time I look through one in the shops, it is like looking down a tunnel with a little window at the far end.
Are there any decent ones out there? By which I mean, about what I used to get in the days of film SLRs, say >70% magnification in 35mm SLR terms.

Slightly off topic, but every once in a while I pick up my old Nikon FE2 and hold it to one eye, hold my DSLR to the other and get the two images to overlap in my brain. It still shocks me how much more the FE2 "fills the eye" even than a D800.

Given that "seeing" the photo is fundamental to taking the photo, I'm upset by how easily we have given ground on this aspect of cameras.

Huge strides have been made since film photography, but we have sadly gone backwards in this fundamental area. I guess I'm amazed at how little lamented it is.

PS thanks for the replies on EVF sizes.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 12:02 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (566 comments in total)
In reply to:

wetsleet: "pitch and yaw are corrected digitally"
Are you sure? I'd have thought pitch and yaw were always corrected in the lens, with roll and orthogonal x and y shifts all done either by sensor shift or digitally.
If Canon are doing pitch and yaw correction on the sensor, at 600mm, how do they do it?

Pitch and yaw are rotations, and at 600mm you will not need much rotation for the error to be of the order of the entire field of view. Think of hand holding a telescope, just keeping an object in the view is a challenge. So I don't see how that can be corrected other than by compensatory movements of lenses within the optical path.

The error generated by linear x and y movement will depend on the magnification ratio. Think how large one pixel would be painted onto the actual scene - you'd need to move the camera by that amount in the x or y direction before you saw a one pixel displacement on the sensor. So these can be more readily compensated in software (or sensor shift).
Roll can not be corrected in the lens.

I'm sticking to stills photos here (like Eleson says).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 11:52 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (566 comments in total)

Lots of comments about no EVF, and I'd tend to agree that a 'proper' viewfinder (i.e. not a display screen) is an essential part of any camera. However, every time I look through one in the shops, it is like looking down a tunnel with a little window at the far end.
Are there any decent ones out there? By which I mean, about what I used to get in the days of film SLRs, say >70% magnification in 35mm SLR terms.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 07:08 UTC as 124th comment | 11 replies
On Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know article (566 comments in total)

"pitch and yaw are corrected digitally"
Are you sure? I'd have thought pitch and yaw were always corrected in the lens, with roll and orthogonal x and y shifts all done either by sensor shift or digitally.
If Canon are doing pitch and yaw correction on the sensor, at 600mm, how do they do it?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 06:31 UTC as 135th comment | 5 replies

Schuks, they already do this kind of resolution everyday on regular webcams over on CSI: Enhance that image, enhance, enhance, there - in the reflection, enhance - I know that face!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 21:46 UTC as 65th comment
In reply to:

Pandimonium: Like selling Ferrari's with a Peugeot engine

Show me a car manufacturer that does not source the same component from different suppliers, or any major manufacturing enterprise for that matter. So long as they are produced to the same specification, who cares?

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 06:26 UTC
In reply to:

Archiver: This is actually pretty funny, and a good commentary on the evolving narcissism of the selfie.

Just today, I was talking to someone who leads winery tours. She said that a few people have been on her tours and said, 'Oh, we haven't taken photos and uploaded to Facebook, it's like it hasn't happened!' They were actually questioning the value of doing something without the validation of Facebook. Now that is scary.

Is that so different to getting married and not having photographs taken and loaded into an album, to show to yourself and friends? We all love to share memories, always have.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 06:15 UTC

An arm and a leg for just an arm, that's poor value.

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 17:12 UTC as 23rd comment
On Nikon D7200 First Impressions Review preview (1114 comments in total)
In reply to:

Miike Dougherty: Just got back from shooting Avocets at Joachim marsh with my new D7200 and legacy 300-800. This combo works really well. The Avocets were quite active with yearlings constantly jousting with each other. My camera was going clunk, clunk, clunk (6 FPS) while the new 7DII nearby sounded like a machine gun (10 FPS). I got a few, frozen action images that I really like but the guy next to me I suspect got a lot more.

Gotta love these one-dimensional analyses.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 21:02 UTC
On Nikon D7200 First Impressions Review preview (1114 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: I'm trying to figure out why the old Sony A77 can shoot at 12 fps, but this "new" camera can only shoot at half that speed, even though both cameras are 24 MP. Anyone got any ideas what's up there? They're about the same price, right?

A77 is an SLT, fixed pellicle mirror.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 20:56 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (813 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 (813 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 31st comment | 3 replies
Total: 535, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
About us
Sitemap
Connect