Reviews Written By: A3DRT9IRH63ZHBprovided by Amazon.com |
 | ||
 | Kipor IG6000 6000 Watt Inverter Generator | |
 | "Honda Clone: Quiet, Reliable and Good Value for Money" | 2008-05-05 |
| Bought this for emergency use. It weighs about the same (240lbs) as the comparable 6000 watt Honda inverter but costs much less and provides the same quiet usable power. After mounting the small wheels, adding oil and gas (uses regular) and charging the battery (electric start only) it started right up. Unlike cheaper generators, it produces a pure sinewave at exactly 60Hz and powers even sensitive devices such as computers, audio-video electronics and even our forced-air furnace, which is very picky about clean power. The $700 Colman Powermate we had before would not power the forced-air furnace. The Powermate had a large muffler and was relatively quiet but the Kipor is much quieter, using an even bigger muffler and padded enclosure. In addition, the Powermate needed to run at 3600 RPM all the time to produce the needed 60Hz output. The Kipor, like the Honda, runs only as fast as needed to provide the electrical power demanded. One problem with the unit we received was that the neutral and hot outputs on the 120V sockets were reversed (240V socket was OK). Even with this reversal everything ran but the forced-air furnace (this is how we discovered the problem). It took about 20 minutes to take off the side cover, unscrew the wires to the sockets and screw them back correctly. Now it powers everything without a hiccup. | ||
 | Woodstock Percussion CTS Chimes of Tuscany Wind Chime | |
 | "Top-drawer quality and beautiful melody powered by the wind" | 2007-10-10 |
| All it takes is a gentle breeze and you will be rewarded with a soothing melody, forever changing. The tones are tuned to please. Quality of construction is outstanding. | ||
 | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras | |
| "Fast and Sharp But Comes Up Short on the Long End" | 2007-05-15 |
| Purchased last December to upgrade the Canon 17-85mm IS "kit lens" that came with my 20D. Careful testing showed this new lens to be about "one-stop sharper" over the 17-35mm range than the kit lens. What I mean by this is that the 17-55 matched the 17-85 sharpness with one stop faster aperture: same sharpness at f2.8 for 17mm as the 17-85 at f4.0. Beyond 35mm the sharpness of the 17-55 faded until both lenses were essentially equal in sharpness at 55mm. The 17-55 was noticibly softer at 55mm than at 17mm while the 17-85 was sharper at 55mm than at 17mm. So, the advantage of f2.8 and better sharpness at the wide end for the 17-55 is at least partially negated by diminished sharpness at the meager 55mm long end. The 17-85 has about the same build quality but is smaller, lighter, covers a longer focal length range and for me is a better deal at about half the price. | ||
 | Fuji WP-FXF30 Underwater Housing for Fuji F30 Digital Camera | |
| "Perfect Case for Scuba or Snorkeling - Also fits F31fd but not F20" | 2007-05-07 |
| I bought the case last year for my F30 and took it to Cozumel for a week. Case worked perfectly on several dives, some with max depth of about 100 feet. Very high quality and easy to use with all controls available. The only problem was light condensation that sometimes appeared on the camera lens when first submerged (due to rapid decrease in temperature of humid air inside of the case). After several minutes the lens would clear as the temperature of the camera and air inside the case equalize. Fuji supplies silicon packets to insert into the case with the camera. If the camera is put into the case with hot humid air it takes a while for the silicon to dry out the air inside and you still get lens condensation when first entering the water. To avoid this you can put the encased camera (with silicon packet) into cool water for 20-30 minutes prior to diving (or snorkeling). Another way to avoid lens condensation is to use a special clear defog. Canon provides this with their underwater cases. You carefully rub this onto the camera lens! The defog works without delay and easily wipes off later. | ||
 | LOREX CVC6990 Fully Submersible Waterproof Cameras with Sunshade | |
| "Ultra-Low Light Operation but Hot Pixels and Poor QC for Sensors Used" | 2007-05-07 |
| I bought two of these in March 2006 for a simple home security system. Both provide exceptional low-light amplification with very little noise. You can almost see in the dark with no need for IR or other illuminators. Both units appear to be very well made and come with power supply, video cable adaptors and a rugged adjustable mounting bracket and aluminum sunshade. They appear to be very high quality on the exterior.
However, one of the units has a very bright dot (actually a tight group of hot pixels) near the top center and a less bright group of pixels just left of center. The other unit has no hot pixels. Hot pixels would be unacceptable to me in a camera used to record precious memories. But for a security system, it is not a show stopper. Getting clear images in all light levels is what's most needed. I just recently purchased a third unit and found that it too has a couple of hot pixels in the image. Much worse, this third camera also has a very grainy unusable image under even moderately low-light. Poor low-light performance is unacceptable. So, it is on the way back to Amazon for an exchange. In summary, I've received one perfect sample out of three thus far. Two samples have hot pixels, which may or may not be a big issue, and one sample had much worse low-light image quality. It appears that Lorex has poor QC in checking image quality for these cameras. | ||
 | Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di Canon Lens (AF09C-700) | |
| "Superb Optics and Dead-on Autofocus for a Bargain Price" | 2006-07-10 |
| I was skeptical about the rave reviews and have had mixed luck in getting sharp copies of Canon and Sigma lenses but decided to give Tamron a try. I tested the lens on both a full-frame 5D (comparing to my Canon 24-105mm L lens) and on a cropped-frame XT (comparing to my Canon 17-85mm IS lens). I was very pleasantly surprised that once stopped down a little, this Tamron lens is ultra-sharp and the focusing is right on for both near and far objects. As carefully as I tried, I could not manually focus this lens any more accurately (even in the bright viewfinder of the 5D) than the autofocus and in most cases my best manual focus attempt was much softer than autofocus. Not only is the lens sharp, it has the same eye-popping contrast that is sometimes found on the best L-lenses. Details in the image have a 3D quality not usually seen in "cheap" lenses. Comparisons: 28mm: The Tamron has usable sharpness wide open at f2.8 but gets super sharp in one stop down to f4 and slightly better by f5.6. It is just as sharp in the middle as my excellent Canon 24-105 when wide-open at f4 but not as sharp near the edges on the 5D. At f5.6 both lenses are essentially equal over the whole full-frame on the 5D. At 28mm on the XT the Tamron sharpness greatly exceeds the Canon 17-85 lens at f4.5, 5.6 and f8 over the whole frame. The Canon lens is not soft, but the Tamron is just eye-popping sharp. 50mm: Sharpness of the Tamron at f2.8 is less than at 28mm but still usable on smaller prints (maybe 8x10). Sharpness increases greatly by f4 and is almost as sharp as the wide-open Canon 24-105. Again, at f5.6 both lenses are essentially equal over the whole full-frame of the 5D. Comparing to the Canon 17-85 on the XT, the Tamron is slightly sharper at f5.6 and gets sharper still at f8 over the whole cropped frame. 75mm: Here the f2.8 is quite soft in my opinion (maybe ok for a 4x6) but gets much sharper at f4. At f4 the Canon 24-104 is still definitely sharper but gets only slightly sharper at f5.6 while the Tamron gets significantly sharper, almost matching the Canon L-lens. At f8, the Tamron equals (maybe a tad better) the Canon sharpness. My copy of the 17-85 is strongest at the long end. At 75mm f5.6 it matches the Tamron sharpness and contrast but does not improve as much by f8 where the Tamron sharpness pulls away. Overall, the Tamron appears to be an outstanding lens for either full-frame or cropped-frame (if you don't need wide angle). It does not have IS but does have a usable and fast f2.8 at the wide end. It becomes very sharp by f4 for 28mm, by f5.6 for 50mm and by f8 for 75mm. I suspect that the Tamron is similar or better in performance to the Canon 24-70 L which weighs twice as much and costs 3 times as much. The Tamron matches the 24-105 across a full-frame when both are stopped down a little. The Tamron is about the same size as the Canon 17-85mm lens, costs about $200 less, but seems to have superior optical qualities, especially at 28-50mm. It also provides the f2.8 option for increasing shutter speed to freeze motion. The 17-85 is much slower (f4 to f5.6) but gets wider and slightly longer and has IS for static scenes in low light. It's a tough choice which depends on the camera and intended usage. | ||
 | Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 Lens for Canon | |
| "Unique Ultra-Wide Angle Lens But Poor Sigma Quality Control" | 2006-07-03 |
| There's nothing else this wide for use on a full-frame 35mm camera or digital such as the Canon 5D. It's so wide on a full-frame that you can almost see behind you (well not quite, but close to 180 degree field of view). It is not a fisheye, so straight lines stay straight. There is some minor vignetting at 12mm but less than the Canon 17-40 L-lens I had at 17mm. This lens is pushing the limits of physics so it is not as sharp as some lenses but it takes in so much more of the view and provides a crisp image all the way to the corners. For use on a cropped sensor camera, such as the XT, 20D or 30D a better choice may be the Canon 10-22mm which is uber-sharp in the middle of the frame. The Canon, however, gives fuzzy images on the sides when wide open but sharpens up when stopped down to f8 or more. My third copy of the Sigma lens is less sharp than the Canon in the center of the frame but is sharper starting about halfway to the edge when both lenses are wide open. Near the edges of the frame the Canon gives a dark and mushy image when wide open at 12mm while the Sigma is only slightly less sharp than at the center - truly amazing! Unfortunately, Sigma lenses are seemingly sold "as-is" with wide sample variations. The autofocus died on my first copy of the lens after less than 30 pictures. The second copy had poor optics with soft and fuzzy pictures even when manually focused. The third copy is sharp at 12mm, even wide open, all the way to the edges, but only if manually focused. At 12mm the lens autofocuses too far away when an object is close and too close for distant objects. At 24mm it autofocuses right on but is softer than at 12mm. I've decided to keep it since it is easy to manually focus. The depth of focus is large at 12mm. For objects further than a few meters away when using 12mm just set the lens to infinity and everything from a few feet to infinity is in focus even at the edges of the frame and in the corners. The lens has a 4-year warranty so I may send it in to Sigma for calibration later. Pros: (1) Unique ultra-wide angle perspective on a full-frame camera. (2) A good copy will be optically sharp all the way across a full frame, even wide open. Further, there's virtually no purple chromatic aberation near the edges of dark objects with bright backgrounds. (3) Nice build quality with good finish and large smooth focus ring. (4) Straight lines stay straight so no defishing needed (defishing uses interpolation which lowers resolution away from the center). (5) Lens comes with a case and has a small built-in hood (serves mainly to protect the front element). (6) 4-year USA warranty if purchased from an authorized dealer like Amazon or B&H. Otherwise you get a 1-year International Warranty. Cons: (1) Wide sample variation - getting a good copy takes luck or persistence while trying multiple copies. (2) The bulbous front element (this lens is nicknamed "Popeye") is exposed and no standard filter can be used for protection so be very careful. (3) Flares easily. The sun does not need to be in the picture just anywhere not behind you. This is a result of the ultra-wide design and not a fault of Sigma. (4) Photos sometimes come out too bright, giving the appearance of low contrast. Photoshop or other software easily fixes. | ||
 | Velbon Ultra LUXiSF Compact Tripod | |
| "High-Quality and Ultra-Small" | 2006-07-03 |
| Nice for traveling, this tripod is ultra-lightweight and takes up very little room (less than two pounds and a little over a foot long). It is very well constructed with smooth controls and comes with a custom carrying bag. No complaints, given the minimal size and weight it is designed for. Of course, it is not meant for use with a 15 pound camera-lens combination but works fine with my Canon 5D and 70-200 f4L lens 3-pound combo. | ||
 | Canon Powershot SD450 5MP Digital Elph Camera with 3x Optical Zoom | |
 | "Bright Red Stuck Pixel in the Middle of the Screen" | 2005-12-12 |
| Yes, Canon makes fine cameras and I own several along with many lenses. But it's a crap shoot on getting defective items (even very expensive lenses) from Canon apparently due to very sloppy quality control. Sure, they'll fix it for you if you pay to ship it to them and then wait. All someone at the factory had to do was just turn on the camera and look at the screen to see the problem - but that was too much to ask. Same for the new $1700 Canon lens that I found had fuzzy focus and sent back a few weeks ago. Amazon's exchange policy is fantastic. Lesson here is to very carefully check out any Canon product upon arrival and send it back pronto if all is not well. | ||
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Zoom Lens (2578A002) | |
| "High-Quality, Light-Weight and Produces Outstanding Images" | 2005-11-29 |
| What more can you ask for? Well, IS would be nice for those low-light 200mm hand-held shots. Otherwise, this lens is nearly perfect in build quality and most importantly, image quality. It is ultra sharp with eye-popping contrast and accurate colors wide open at f4.0 over the whole range from 70-200mm. Stopping down to 5.6 gives only a very slight improvement, just in contrast. I tested it against the new non-L Canon 70-300 IS lens and found the images of the f/4L to have noticibly higher sharpness and contrast at the same f-stops. It also the beat pants off the sharpness and contrast of the 3-times as heavy and 3-times as costly 70-200 f2.8 IS at the same f-stops (4 to 4, 5.6 to 5.6, etc) for all but 200mm, where the IS had virtually the same (but not better) image quality. It also works wonders using the 1.4X teleconverter, becoming a super-sharp 98-280mm f5.6 zoom with fast and accurate autofocus. This lens seems to get a very high percentage of rave reviews from owners and for a reason. You get the best quality images and build with the most portability (low weight) for the lowest cost. Yes, you can spend twice as much for the f2.8 non-IS version and haul 3-times the weight just to get one-stop. Or, you can spend 3-times as much and haul the 2.8 IS for a Gold's Gym workout to get low-light performance (but maybe lower image quality from my experience). There are many choices, but this lens seems to be a winner and a relative bargain for many reasons. | ||
 | Hickey and Boggs | |
 | "Unwatchable Video Quality - Don't Waste Your Money" | 2004-05-31 |
| This is one of my favorite movies and had anticipated getting a DVD to replace the old tape copy I have from TV. As it turns out my old tape copy has far superior picture quality to this DVD. It appears that A.I.P. Productions have transferred a third generation tape copy to DVD and then tried to sharpen the fuzzy image with a high-pass filter. The result is a fuzzy image covered with video noise - somewhat like speckled smoke covering each frame. It is unwatchable and the audio is pathetic too. A.I.P. must know this, but they want your money anyway. I'd give this negative 10 stars if possible. | ||
 | Elements of Electromagnetics | |
| "FULL OF ERRORS - MANY OTHER BETTER BOOKS" | 2003-04-09 |
| The solutions provided are chock full of errors (estimate at least 25% are dead wrong). Erroneous solutions are worse than no solutions for students trying to learn such difficult material. How this sorry saga can continue with the Third Edition can only be attributed to extreme incompetence and/or extreme indifference by the recipient of the $$$ royalties. | ||
 | Gwyneth Paltrow (NFSC/UK) | |
| "Could Have Been Better" | 2001-03-25 |
| As a long-time fan I had hope to find at least some new insight into Gwyneth's inner world that has not been published everywhere already. For the most part, this book is a collection of readily available information and photos gleaned from magazine articles and TV interviews. In spite of her youth, Gwyneth is in my opinion one of the most talented, versatile and naturally lovely actresses to appear in recent decades. She projects her characters with such reality and has incredible screen presence. I had hoped to learn more about her real-world off-screen character and motivations. | ||
| © 2009 GoSale.com (S1) |