SantaFeBill

SantaFeBill

Lives in United States Santa Fe, USA, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Apr 28, 2005

Comments

Total: 59, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Mahmoud Mousef: It's really simple.
Social networking sites are a marketer's wet dream and a dream for central planners and profile-building global spying agencies.

You (and your kids) are the product. Make no mistake about it. You are exploitable to the maximum extent of the law. In case you haven't noticed, there is no law. EVERYTHING you do online is being recorded, including your phone calls and Skype calls.

Your details, pics and associations are shared with many companies in back-room deals; you have agreed to this. If you are OK with your associations and content being exploited by marketers and shared with government, insurance and god-knows-what-else, continue using these 'free' services.

If you're OK with these spies spying on you, that's fine. Just don't say anything critical of your so-called leaders or you may find yourself on the receiving end of a big stick real quick.

You are not in charge of your content. Your content and activities are there to be sold and exploited.

"I don't do anything wrong, so I don't have to worry that the state knows everything I do." Tell that to the literally millions of people who were killed by their governments in the 20th Century alone, simply because of who or what they were, not because of anything they did. In Hitler's Germany, all you had to be was an 'Untermensch', in Stalin's Soviet Union, peasants who were seen as an obstacle to collectivization.
Tell that to the tens of thousands that are now being imprisoned or executed around the world today simply because of their ethnicity, religion, or politics.
How can you know anything about history or current events and think that an authoritarian government waits to punish those it wishes to until they actually do something that would, in a free society, be considered a crime?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 02:11 UTC
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: Sorry there's no optional EVF. Where I live, the usual bright sunlight makes an LCD useless outdoors, unless you mount a hood. Then you lose compactness and the advantage of an articulated LCD panel.

The X-E1 system costs US $400 more than the X-M1 system. I think Fuji could have made an optional EVF that would sell for less than $400, but of course that would have had a possible negative effect on X-E1 sales.
An optional EVF would have given people the choice of having one or not, or adding one later if they found a need.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2013 at 00:03 UTC

Sorry there's no optional EVF. Where I live, the usual bright sunlight makes an LCD useless outdoors, unless you mount a hood. Then you lose compactness and the advantage of an articulated LCD panel.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2013 at 16:26 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies

Just one more reason to stay far away from Adobe products (except - perhaps - the free ones). And as far as LR goes, it's only a question of 'when', not 'whether' Adobe does the same with it.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 15:30 UTC as 239th comment

G6 - Strange combination of advanced features that would appeal to the technical savvy user but an obsolete sensor that will turn those same users off. I can only guess that Panasonic was afraid that a significant sensor upgrade from the G5 would hurt sales of the GH3.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2013 at 16:58 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: The dpreview comments make it sound like this lens will act like an F2.8 lens for light gathering. It will act just like an F1.8 lens for light gathering.

You're quite right. An f/1.8 lens is an f/1.8 lens, whether it covers APS-C, FF, or MF. F-stop is a ratio between the focal length and the size of the maximum aperture opening. I'm most surprised DPR doesn't seem to understand that - and it makes me wonder about their reviews. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 16:12 UTC

Interesting, but still no attached GPS unit to write GPS data at time of exposure. No options to add EVF or hot-shoe external flash.
No GPS is SOP for m4/3 (one reason I've stayed away), but the lack of reasonably-priced external flash option seems strange if Panny is really aiming this at more sophisticated users as well as less sophisticated ones. As, to a lesser extent, does the lack of an EVF.
(The FL-360L is priced at US$270 at B&H. I can't see many adding a unit of that price to the GF6.)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2013 at 19:50 UTC as 15th comment

The kit lens already looks huge compared to the body. Wonder what a 500 would look like?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2013 at 00:39 UTC as 25th comment
On Google pulls plug on desktop version of Snapseed article (65 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidVogt: Lovely, I bought this program for $20 and now there won't be any updates. Thanks, Google!

From the Google Official Blog:
"Beginning today we’ll no longer sell or provide updates for Snapseed Desktop for Macintosh and Windows"

Seems perfectly clear. And yes, updates to OS and/or other system components mean that at some point the desktop version of Snapseed will stop working.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2013 at 23:31 UTC
On Google pulls plug on desktop version of Snapseed article (65 comments in total)

And do some still think that the rest of the Nik programs for desktop are going to stay around? That would be a triumph of hope over experience.
"Do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Nik software ... ." (With apologies to John Donne.)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2013 at 23:19 UTC as 23rd comment | 3 replies
On First Impressions: Metabones Speed Booster article (357 comments in total)
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: Quote from the review:
" we calculated a focal length multiplier of about 1.07x ..."

Can someone explain how _multiplying_ the focal length by 1.07 _decreases_ the focal length?

According to my calculator, 50 x 1.07 = 53.5.

Even if you think DPR doesn't know the difference between multiplication and division, and divide 50 by 1.07, you still don't get the values for reduced focal lengths stated in the review.

Apparently somewhere in the process '0.71' got turned into '1.07'. ( And then there was the multiplier value of '1.09' mentioned earlier in the review)

Proofreading anyone?

Thanks for the clarification. As you say, we need to specify whether we mean 'physical focal length' or '35mm equivalent focal length'.
Guess I've been around photography so long that I always read 'focal length' to mean the physical measurement, as was safe in the old days.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2013 at 23:37 UTC
On First Impressions: Metabones Speed Booster article (357 comments in total)

Quote from the review:
" we calculated a focal length multiplier of about 1.07x ..."

Can someone explain how _multiplying_ the focal length by 1.07 _decreases_ the focal length?

According to my calculator, 50 x 1.07 = 53.5.

Even if you think DPR doesn't know the difference between multiplication and division, and divide 50 by 1.07, you still don't get the values for reduced focal lengths stated in the review.

Apparently somewhere in the process '0.71' got turned into '1.07'. ( And then there was the multiplier value of '1.09' mentioned earlier in the review)

Proofreading anyone?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2013 at 18:28 UTC as 27th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Sanpaku: The 150mm f/2.8 will be tempting for hiking/travelling/weight conscious wildlife photographers, especially if Panasonic also make a sharp 2x teleconverter (preferably with integrated tripod mount). Alas, still not DSLR competitive for sports til Olympus or Panasonic does on sensor phase detection focusing.

The 42.5 f/1.2 would have been interesting to me before I discovered how nicely the 75 f/1.8 simplifies portrait backgrounds, if you have enough space.

A Gh3 + the Panny 150 f/2.8 will weigh only a half-pound less than the D600 + the Nikon 300mm f/2.8? I don't think so ... . :-)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 19:27 UTC

Once more with feeling ...
In response to what seems to be a misunderstanding that has shown up in several posts here (and I see in others on DPR):

An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens, period. F-values are a measure of the size of the aperture vs.the focal length of the lens. Or: Fstop=focal length/aperture. These are the _only_ two factors determining a given f-number. The size of the sensor that the lens will cover is irrelevant as far as the f-stop is concerned.

So a FF 150mm f/2.8 lens mounted on an m4/3 body via an adapter will have exactly the same maximum f-stop as an m4/3 lens on that body, provided the adapter doesn't change the effective focal length of the FF lens. (Assuming the lenses are correctly spec'd by the makers.)

Actual light transmission is measured in T-stops, of course, which is why pro video shooters use lenses calibrated that way.

If you want more detail, of if you think I'm wrong, Google 'f-stops' or 'f-number' and read the articles.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 19:17 UTC as 19th comment | 11 replies

90mm f/1.2 and 300mm f/2.8 (35mm focal lengths equivalents) at prices. whatever they will be, far less than their FF equivalents! Although the apparent lack of O.I.S. seems a most strange omission, as it would make using these lenses - esp. the 150 - with an Olympus body the more obvious choice.

A prediction: IF some maker can come up with a m4/3 body that has continuous AF as good as, say the Nikon D7000, AND has GPS capability, either built-in or add-on, m4/3 will replace the DX format systems for many users.
It's only the lack of these two things that has kept me in DX.

Of course, FF and MF shooters will likely stay with these formats for the IQ advantages.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 18:30 UTC as 20th comment | 4 replies
On 500px expanding into the cloud post (34 comments in total)
In reply to:

BSHolland: I'm a bit confused about 500px Terms of Service, with regards to licensing & sublicensing. (English is not my mother tongue).

500px claim the "right to sublicense". But only "in connection with the Services".
From my understanding, sub licensing is only necessary when it is NOT in connection with the services.

So what's the point in phrasing it like that?

+1 on that. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2012 at 23:08 UTC
On 500px expanding into the cloud post (34 comments in total)

Just curious - Why is the site referred to as '500px'? The posted logo is _clearly_ '5' plus the infinity symbol, so why is it not '5infinity'? Is 'px' mathematical shorthand for the infinity symbol?
And where do the two '0's' after the '5' come from?

In short, how do you get from '5infinity' to '500px'?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2012 at 00:30 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Doug Pardee: Instagram's Kevin Systrom has responded:

"it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language...

"The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question. ..."

"Nothing has changed about the control you have over who can see your photos. If you set your photos to private, Instagram only shares your photos with the people you’ve approved to follow you. ...

"Please stay tuned for updates coming soon."

Ref: http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening

What's confusing about "without any compensation to you"?
But I think they may have realized they made a mistake, and are looking for a way to back down.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2012 at 00:32 UTC

The DPR analysis of the new terms vs. the old is just incorrect. It overlooks the explicit grant in the new terms to _sell_ your images. As another poster pointed out, the old terms were somewhat ambiguous on this point. Even more importantly, the new terms _remove_ the restriction on to content declared private or non-public. Under the new terms, _even_ content declared 'private' by the OP can be sold by Facebook.
Another nice goodie in their terms of use is this disclaimer: "None of your Content will be subject to any obligation of confidence on the part of Instagram, and Instagram will not be liable for any use or disclosure of any Content you provide."
N.B.: "ANY use". They can sell your photos to a porn site if they choose.
Read the entire terms, and then decide if you want to use them, even if they back off the 'we can sell your stuff w.o. paying you' bit.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2012 at 22:46 UTC as 9th comment

Wonder how long before lawsuits start over some photo of someone's attractive wife/daughter/girlfriend showing up in a come-on for a men's magazine, I'd hope that the person or persons bringing the suits could wring Facebook dry (as in shut the doors) for invasion of privacy, as I'm not sure that any agreement for unlimited use would protect against invasion of privacy of a non-public figure. (If you're a Ms. K. it's different of course.)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2012 at 22:11 UTC as 12th comment
Total: 59, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »