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

wetsleet

Joined on May 4, 2004

Comments

Total: 528, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 (1108 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 (1108 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 (810 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 (810 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
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 (493 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
Total: 528, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
About us
Sitemap
Connect