Michael Long

Lives in United States Boulder, CO, United States
Joined on Oct 27, 2000
About me:

Canon 1D, 1Ds, SD10, G7, 16-35/2.8, 24/1.4, 28-70/2.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 IS,
300/2.8, 1.4EX, 550EX, 420EX, 220EX

Comments

Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

Wouldn't building Bluetooth into each and every panel design require FCC certification for each design?

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2015 at 15:58 UTC as 5th comment | 3 replies

Hey, I was all set to buy a new a6000 II this year with APS-C, ISO 200000+, and 5-axis stabilization... but they didn't make one.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 21:05 UTC as 35th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Gasman66: Personally, I don't really care whether there's a mirror or not. But I have no intention of re-learning photography to accommodate the micro 4/3 format. If Canon make a 5D mirrorless that has a full frame sensor and accepts full frame lenses, I'd certainly consider it.

I had no idea learning a slightly different DOF curve meant that one had to "relearn" photography. Aperture, exposure, ISO, shutter speed, composition... OMG, you're right. EVERYTHING needs to be tossed out the window!!!

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 22:25 UTC

As long as you're listening to your customer's voices...

a7000 = a6000 + 24mp high-ISO APS-C sensor. 5-axis in-body stabilization, silent-shutter mode.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 14:08 UTC as 106th comment | 2 replies

Was exited to see this, but then realized that it had a single focal length.

WTF? I mean, if you're going to address the major shortcomings of a smartphone's camera, then you need a zoom.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 17:44 UTC as 95th comment | 2 replies
On article Apple patent hints at super resolution camera mode (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mister Roboto: Lol anything they can think of regardless if it already exists or not must be patented. iPatent =D

Why make your life miserable Apple? Just create a phone camera with larger sensor, optical zoom, 16-24MP and call it a day.

"... it's [sic] likely to pat you because you defend it."

Nor will the great droid pat your little bottom for attacking the iSheep. (grin)

Now that that's out of the way, you're right that it's the same effect, but wrong in that it's accomplished by different mechanisms, and as such, patentable.

By your illogic, there'd be just one "plane" patent, since swapping out metal and jet engines for cloth, wood, and propellers doesn't matter. The thing is still, obviously, a plane...

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 18:29 UTC
On article Apple patent hints at super resolution camera mode (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

digiart: I may be wrong but it looks like Apple is yet again copying other companies technology...

"...and figured out a slightly different method to produce the same thing."

Slightly different, as in using the already moving OIS system instead of adding additional actuators to move the sensor itself?

Funny, that strikes me as being a little more than "slightly" different...

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 23:17 UTC
On article Apple patent hints at super resolution camera mode (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mister Roboto: Lol anything they can think of regardless if it already exists or not must be patented. iPatent =D

Why make your life miserable Apple? Just create a phone camera with larger sensor, optical zoom, 16-24MP and call it a day.

It's a different method of accomplishing the task, so no, it didn't "already exist". See below.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 23:09 UTC
On article Apple patent hints at super resolution camera mode (77 comments in total)

If one were to actually read the patent, you could would see that it claims to increase resolution by using the optical image stabilization system to move the image across a fixed sensor.

As opposed to similar systems on other cameras, which typically use additional actuators to move the sensor itself. And I see it as a typical Apple refinement, using the existing moving part (OIS) to accomplish the task instead of adding additional moving parts. Elegant.

So while the basic effect is the same, the mechanism by which that effect is accomplished is completely different. And as such, worthy of a patent.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 23:03 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
On article Sony FE 28mm F2 samples gallery posted (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tilted Plane: I own this. Huge (!) distortion, corrected well in jpgs. Focuses fast and quiet. Not especially small for an f/2, but light. No image stabilization. In all, very sharp and therefore competent but nothing to write home about for this price. I'm keeping it, but not with particular joy.

No OIS? Seems like a good match for the A7MII in that case.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2015 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

quatpat: Well, a full frame lens is a full frame lens, no matter what body you put behind... This said, it seems like a lot fo people are mislead by the relation body to lens size, which make these lenses in the photos look bigger than they really are.

Some of the commenters here below seem to forget how small the A7 bodies are, which is why they think that the lenses are huge in relation to them.

"Sensors require telecentric lenses, and such lenses for full frame can be neither compact nor short."

Ah. That explains the 16mm and 20mm pancake lenses for E-Mount, as well as the Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM. Oh, and the Voigtlander 40mm f/2.8.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 18:09 UTC

"Intended as a 'carry everywhere' zoom for a7-series owners the FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS would seem most at home on the a7 or new a7 II. "

At f/3.5-6.3, it would seem most at home on the A7s where the high-ISO capabilities can compensate somewhat for the slow lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 18:02 UTC as 42nd comment
In reply to:

Siobhan A: Alas, APS-C and small size are no longer top priorities.
I am still waiting for a nice traditional portrait lens. Maybe 2016.

The 50/1.8 on the APS-C is a 75 and it's relatively inexpensive. They do need a 70mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 though.

The 18-105/4 G isn't too bad portrait-wise if you back off and use 105 (157eq).

Also, the 90mm f/2.8 could have potential.(135 eq)

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 22:03 UTC
On article Sony issues firmware 1.10 for Alpha 7 II (59 comments in total)

Really, really hope Sony adds that 5-axis stabilization system to the a6000M2.

(And, as long as I'm wishing, a silent electronic shutter and some of that A7s high-IOS magic.)

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 00:08 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Joed700: I would like to see APS-C cameras to disappear. During the film era, we only had 35mm SLR and point-n-shoot for most people. The APS-C breed was introduced at a time when chips were still quite expensive/lack of technology for FF DSLR. Today, FF DSLR starts at around $1600 price range while APS-C are around $1000 - $1700, which is ridiculous. The existence of APS-C somehow made the FF (old 35mm equil.) into a higher class. I don't think it will cost that much to produce FF compared to APS-C. It's just an opportunity for camera manufacturers to make more money. Point-n-shoot has it's place because they are compact and good for traveling while the APS-C are about the same size as FF DSLR; APS-C also lacks shallow DOF; not a desirable option for isolating your subject....

And I'd prefer to see FF all but disappear. Advances in sensor technology mean that the advantages of FF over APS-C are decreasing year after year. The sensor in my Sony A6000 outperforms the one in my old Canon 1Ds, in a system that's smaller, lighter, and easier to carry.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 05:19 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: So much for sleep eh Richard? :)

I say its about time camera companies take risk and start building more enthusiast friendly cameras. I'd still like to see more risk and more niche's filled.

And maybe one of them will be bold enough to finally make a digital film cartridge we can use for our film cameras.

Carl

Doesn't make much sense, really. A digital camera is more computer than camera these days, and the sensor is just the tip of the iceberg. Improvements in power, processor design, process design, ISP technology, bus technology, storage technology, and more mean that, like computers, it does little good to simply drop in a new sensor.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 02:41 UTC
Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »