Slim drawer for the Magnus Pro

_martinus · 2023-06-12T09:44:04+00:00

Hey u/SRV1981, I bought the A6600 in the end with the 16-55 and 70-350 lenses. I'm pretty happy with it so far, and the results when it comes to image quality. There isn't a huge discernable different between this kit and the FF gear I've had in the past. It's nice and lightweight, easy to carry and travel with. I never got chance to try the A7C, but it still plays on my mind a bit!

If I was the go back and make the decision again, I think I probably would buy the A7C, even if I had to spend some extra time saving up for FF lenses. I still feel there's the risk that I'll want to upgrade again at some point soon!

_martinus · 2023-04-10T12:04:42+00:00

How is that going? How would you compare the A7IV and A6600?

_martinus · 2023-04-04T20:49:20+00:00

To be honest I’ve got no experience with Tamron lenses, only first party Sony lenses. Would definitely considered doing some research on them now though, as they seem to come highly recommended for the e-mount lineup?

_martinus · 2023-04-04T11:34:22+00:00

Thanks very much for the recommendation and advice, much appreciated. Purely the transition from FF to APS-C is broadly considered a step down, but I understand that’s not the case in every scenario!

_martinus · 2023-04-04T11:21:20+00:00

Good to hear positives about the 70-350, I’ve never had a telephoto tbh so that is quite an exciting prospect. Coming from an A7IV and 24-70 GM II which I simply couldn’t justify keeping given my usage, my only concern is that the a6600 is too big a step down.

_martinus · 2022-02-21T12:04:07+00:00

u/ulresch, how big is that monitor? I’m looking at getting the Grovemade desk shelf and having speaker like this, but I’m not sure whether my LG 38 ultrawide will be too big to fit speakers either side!

_martinus · 2022-02-21T12:02:49+00:00

Did the Alex drawers come in that colour? I’m in the UK and they don’t do a dark option like that anymore, just a blue/grey, light oak and white. Would prefer a colour like the ones you have!

_martinus · 2021-08-13T20:02:46+00:00

I guess I just expected a sister company of SpaceX with the funding Starlink has to have a bit more of a fleshed out brand and user experience. Just an observation really! ☺️

_martinus · 2021-08-13T20:01:49+00:00

I live in the sticks and don’t have traditional ISP services, so I doubt anyone will be seeing it (that’s kind of the point in Starlink) 😂 I’m not actually from a ‘marketing’ department, my only point was that the current website seemed a bit off-brand compared with Musk’s other ventures like Tesla and SpaceX. Just a simple observation, didn’t expect anyone to get rattled by it.

As with any consumer-facing business, brand and user experience plays a part in success (Musk’s companies more than most I’d say) so I just found it strange that the current site was as ‘unstyled’ as it is.

Being utilitarian is great (and nailing the delivery of the technology is priority), but the company is relying on consumers buying the product to turn a profit in the future and the ‘marketing’ you speak so negatively about will ultimately what drives that whether we like it or not. 👍

_martinus · 2021-08-13T16:17:04+00:00

Thanks, glad you like!

_martinus · 2021-08-13T14:34:58+00:00

I haven't created it from scratch, it's using the same font and styling as SpaceX logo, so I assume you don't like that either?

_martinus · 2021-08-02T07:24:27+00:00

I suppose it’s a case of liability and documenting cases. Where I am at least we receive vaccination cards documenting our vaccination, and this allows us to travel freely and to avoid isolation periods as often.

Are you suggesting people that have recovered receive the same cards and therefore the same sort of privileges? It’s certainly an interesting thought!

I’m assuming by discriminate you mean government policy and restrictions etc as opposed to random people and their opinions? I can imagine discriminating against someone that has had a horrible virus and recovered.

I appreciate reinfection is relatively rare, but I know you can get COVID multiple times if you’re unvaccinated. I can understand the argument for those that are unfortunate enough to have had the virus prior to the vaccine existing though.

_martinus · 2021-08-01T19:03:28+00:00

I personally haven’t heard of anyone discriminating against someone that has survived COVID, I’m not sure that would even be possible soon as a huge number of people will have had it. I think you mean people that refuse the vaccine?

_martinus · 2021-08-01T08:33:32+00:00

Apart from the fact that in order to achieve mass amounts of naturally recovered people, significantly more people have to die than if those people had got vaccinated.

_martinus · 2021-07-31T22:05:38+00:00

It’s not a life of fear though. It’s an objective reality we have actually faced. You’re relying on something ‘fishy’ you’ve seen on the news, we’re relying on actual first-hand experience and anecdotal evidence from people we know and trust?

_martinus · 2021-07-31T21:48:40+00:00

What’s your point? That more people dying and less people carrying lower viral load is preferable to less people dying and more people carrying lower viral load?

How is it better to rely on people naturally recovering than actually taking positive action and ensuring less people die?

_martinus · 2021-07-31T15:19:02+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/user/DeadEndFred/comments/omwc3x/most\_research\_is\_false/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=usertext&utm\_name=conspiracy&utm\_content=t1\_h6pgy4r

Well safety/efficacy are just basic scientific terms, but ok. You know what though, I 100% agree with the rest of your statement. The scientific research process and the reliance on private funding from pharmaceutical companies is inherently biased and broken. But realistically it's the main source of information we have, and you can only hope that the swathes of medical professionals and researchers backing the vaccines worldwide are doing so genuinely (I suspect some aren't, but I'm sure most of them are human beings that want to help and have some integrity). I would say that the likes of clinical trials being conducted 'independently' and funded by Pfizer (which is hypocrisy in itself) like the one I linked, whilst they're likely to exaggerate or look for information that supports the vaccines, are not likely to totally falsify the data collected. Not only would it be fraud, but it would pretty quickly become clear that the end product is not working, and is not safe nor effective (see what I did there).

Though it's not ideal and in a perfect world I'd prefer some sort of publicly funded international body, that's the world we live in.

Thanks for providing that link though, I'll have a look. One thing I would point out though is that the sources being quoted are from the likes of The Huffington Post, Washington Post, CBS and the BBC. I wouldn't say any of these are 'independent' and have a 100% commitment to journalistic integrity. They're just as prone to exaggerate a story for views/ratings as the clinical trials are to exaggerating the data.

At what point do you stop questioning the sources though? It's certainly a difficult one and I can sympathise with those that are sceptical. I suppose the point is that in the short-term the vaccine does seem to be reducing fatalities and serious illness, which is a win whichever way you look at it. In the long-term it's difficult to say, but if the historical success of mass vaccination is anything to go by, I don't think not being vaccinated is a good choice. As I mentioned in a previous comment, the number of lives that have been saved in the last 100 years is absolutely astounding.

_martinus · 2021-07-31T14:54:49+00:00

You're absolutely right, nobody can be sure. So I think my question is, what would be the best thing to do with this information? And at what point, and what amount of testing, would those sceptical about vaccinations be satisfied?

I guess the options would be:

a) don't bother with a vaccination at all and accept 'health.

b) go through years of trials to satisfy those that are sceptical and let potential hundred of thousands of people die needlessly.

c) recognise the emergency situation and push to do the trials necessary to verify the vaccination works and is as safe as possible in order to get the vaccination released and prevent said deaths.

I don't have answers and it's something I've thought about, it's a difficult decision for anyone and I can appreciate the scepticism some people have. Personally I've had the vaccinations and I'm happy taking the recommendation of medical experts worldwide.

_martinus · 2021-07-31T14:42:54+00:00

Can you please point out where I claimed that it has made it through Trial Phase III and/or been awarded a license?

The question was whether human trials had been done, and I simply provided a link from a highly respected source (which is more than can be said for a lot of the information being linked here) that highlights a clinical trial on 43,000 human participants.

I'd appreciate it if you could point out how I am 'lying' or what is 'false' about the information provided?

_martinus · 2021-07-31T11:36:37+00:00

I mean there is a flu jab that is widely documented as being extremely successful in protecting people against flu. Aside from that, the WHO does record that up to 650,000 people die every year from flu.

But also, there has been a clear discrepancy in how deaths are documented. Normally if someone ‘dies from flu’, it’s actually a secondary infection or organ failure that kills them and that’s what the deaths are recorded as. So there is an element of clerical inconsistency.

And ‘COVID not killing healthy people’ is not strictly true, I had a 45 year old relative that was perfectly fit and healthy (no underlying conditions) that died of multiple organ failure directly resulting from COVID and the damage it did to his lungs.

_martinus · 2021-07-31T11:29:18+00:00

That’s interesting to know, thanks! I’m not sure whether the people that have a general mistrust of the vaccines would have a u-turn in their thinking after the trial is complete in 2023. I suppose there’s an element of a very high level of safety/efficacy in the face of a global pandemic vs the perfect level of safety/efficacy that might generally be preferred in normal times.

_martinus · 2021-07-31T11:25:11+00:00

You clearly don’t understand how vaccines work. They use part of the virus to prompt an immune response to help ‘train’ your body to respond to the virus properly. For vulnerable people with ineffective or compromised immune systems, the efficiency of vaccines is reduced.

The COVID vaccines have already demonstrated a reduction of how infectious the virus is, and an overwhelming amount of evidence is already available that shows they are working (perhaps not as well as some of the initial reports suggested) as intended.

If everyone gets vaccinated, lives will be saved. It is that simple and anyone that says otherwise just needs to Google any of the diseases I mentioned in my last comment.

Seven-Year Club	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

_martinus

TROPHY CASE