RichyjV

RichyjV

Lives in Hong Kong Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Joined on Feb 1, 2013

Comments

Total: 82, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Horshack: I'm guessing it wasn't socially acceptable to attribute the price increase to the real source - the decrease of the value of the yen.

Because they have to buy in various raw materials to make the lenses, and the weak yen means its much more expensive for them to do that. I'm heading over there in a few days, its crazy how cheap things are at the moment due to the weak yen.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2016 at 04:48 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Giuseppe Milo (32 comments in total)

The compositions are really interesting, a few of them feel like the vignetting is ultra strong which is great for subject isolation but makes me wonder where, say, the rest of the bridge went

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2015 at 13:55 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike99999: It is difficult to take Ming Thein seriously. His photos are terrible and his opinions a joke. A bit like Ken Rockwell but without the humor.

I take him seriously, his photos are consistently good, his thoughts well-articulated and usually very fair, and he had a good commercial sense and knows what it is like to work with demanding clients in project-orientated work. That gives him a heap more credibility that most others in these comments sections. He is a proven high-level pro, comparing him to Rockwell is the only humourous thing here.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2015 at 09:15 UTC
In reply to:

Martin.au: No New Zealand?
Iceland?

Maybe too short a list. :D

Most beautiful places I've seen:

New Zealand South Island
Jasper National Park, Canada
Iceland, especially icecaps and interior
Assynt, Scotland

Still not seen Patagonia or Nepal, or a hundred other areas, but how can a list of the best not include the best?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2015 at 05:17 UTC
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

sensibill: As expected with his usual inaccurate/unbalanced Sony-bashing style, Thein lists a photo of an A7 series in with the header 'Too slow and unresponsive, power hungry'... Sounds like someone fell out of favor and didn't get a review sample from Sony.

And then 'take a long time to fix – after a long period of denial...' referring to Sony RAW compression (there was no denial on Sony's part).

Not sure what he's talking about with UI delays, either. But then, he's baiting clicks like other 'shock blog' folks (Lloyd & Rockwell) with the whole 'no cigar' thing about mirrorless. Some of us definitely have our needs met these cameras and there will never be a ONE SIZE FITS ALL solution. Just 'one blog gets more clicks'.

You guys do talk some absolute rubbish. Only in a heavily populated Sony forum will you hear so many attacks against people who 'only quite like' the camera, which he BOUGHT and USES. He doesn't have any advertising, no revenue from the clicks, so click bait is hardly an accurate accusation, and the amount of rubbish he must be sent from little internet trolls can hardly be worth the ZERO revenue he gets from it. Seriously if you can't handle people who civilly and rationally disagree with you about how a camera matches THEIR use needs, and you need to attack them relentlessly for it, youve got issues.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2015 at 01:05 UTC
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

NoMirror99: Ming's lack of knowledge about Sonys as demonstrated in this article, brings the veracity of the entire piece into question. In spite of that, I agree with some items in his list. And these are not DSLRs, get over it!

The guy uses the Sony A7r II to a very high standard, has a discussion on what he likes and doesn't likes, isn't over the moon about it but its good enough to have a place in his kit. The guy knows almost everything there is about every camera he uses, if you read more than one review that would be absolutely obvious to you. Get over it, hes a great photographer writing an honest review and he only quite likes your brand. He has a list of exactly what it is that he doesn't like, its not like he is bashing for fun, unlike half of the posters in this comments section with a fraction of the understanding of the camera, the brand, or how to shoot. Androole above actually quotes the guy, he uses it because sometimes its the best tool for the job, but he doesn't think its nearly as useable as some other stuff yet.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2015 at 00:56 UTC

"Reported to be worth between $8-10m, the company has made massive strides in both the commercial and consumer markets, and is claimed to account for over 70% of drone sales. According to figures quoted by Reuters, the company is on target to exceed $1 billion in sales this year"

A company with a $billion in sales is worth between $8 and $10 million? Thats interesting maths there.

Hasselblad has been quite strongly promoted here in China, some really spectacularly overpriced average consumer cameras targetted at the very wealthy who don't know any better. Interesting to see how drone development continues now that countries are starting to consider legislating in view of privacy and some security concerns. The quality of drone photography is already very high in many cases, and people seem to be able to pick up the skills pretty quickly.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2015 at 09:45 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
On Connect post Samsung launches enormous 18.4-inch Galaxy View tablet (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

backayonder: Would be useful for showing clients large images before printing etc?

I think it would. I've never seen a client stick their face close enough into a device to make out the pixels on most devices. Now my 5.7 inch phone screen has a higher resolution, but I think 1080P is still fine for a device this size in real life. Most 21 inch computer monitors are the same rez. I'd rather see an image this size and rez than a much smaller much higher PPI image, there are so many images that don't work on small screens and need larger ones to look good.

Obviously I'd prefer higher resolution if I can get it and it doesn't otherwise impair the device, but I think this would work well for this job.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 05:25 UTC
On article Photo prodigy: The images of 17-year-old Taylor Gray (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

fatdeeman: Most of this stuff is better than anything I'll ever take, a big part of that is down to the locations but then again that's always been half of the equation. This guy has a fantastic eye, is creative and technically proficient. I'm not as good as him at 32, I was comparitvely useless at 17.

I think a lot of people here feel very threatened by his talent.

Really, you think its threatening? Why is good work threatening? There's so much of it around, you will be feeling that way all the time.

I have to say that to me they look like well executed standard images. Nice locations, nice light, quite heavy post processing work, the usual night-time shots combining multiple exposures etc. Be in that location at the same time, 8 second exposure, f2.8, ISO 1600, some noise reduction, manual HDR, vibrance enhancements, pretty normal 'good' level photography. Really, pick any day and go to flickr's opening page of popular photos and you will see quite a lot of similar ones. I think the only 'talent' that cant be easily learned and is more innate is a *really* good eye, which is easier to see in street and harder to demonstrate in landscape.

I think the author should have just said 'we really like his work, what do you think?' rather than telling us that we should think he is a prodigy, thats not a conclusion that is easily reached.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2015 at 05:59 UTC
On article Photo prodigy: The images of 17-year-old Taylor Gray (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

fatdeeman: Most of this stuff is better than anything I'll ever take, a big part of that is down to the locations but then again that's always been half of the equation. This guy has a fantastic eye, is creative and technically proficient. I'm not as good as him at 32, I was comparitvely useless at 17.

I think a lot of people here feel very threatened by his talent.

To be fair most of the 'negative' or 'threatened' comments are people saying that the work is nice, the processing is good and the eye is good, but that 'prodigy' is a big claim as there are lots of other 17y olds operating at a similar level. I suppose if kids put the half time into learning photoshop that they can put into playing the latest computer game, then there is going to be a huge generation of expert post-processing talent.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2015 at 09:20 UTC
In reply to:

RichyjV: Good good, lossless would be much more preferable but maybe the processor cant handle it, and it will have to wait for a later camera.

The pro vs anti sony tribalism in these comments is pretty pathetic. People getting big mark ups for saying that other people will have nothing to complain about? Its a camera, thats all. If it works for you, great, if it doesn't then its likely that this fix alone won't make much difference, as I doubt that many people want to use uncompressed raws unless they really have to. Credit to Sony for making a mark and forcing Canon/Nikon (hopefully) to up their feature list past just slight improvements of MP/DR/ISO performance.

I'm not confused Brendon, I just don't agree with you. As I said, given the choice I prefer lossless over lossy compression, even though you are correct in saying that the differences won't be visible often. Nothing confused about that preference. Don't straw man me and assign things I never said to me, I never stated that the differences are like RAW vs JPEG.

When people start pretending that I said things I didn't, I stop discussing as its pointless. First tell of a troll is ignoring mitigating evidence and reacting to things you DIDN'T say instead of things you did. You did both, you want the fight, I have better things to do.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 08:55 UTC
In reply to:

RichyjV: Good good, lossless would be much more preferable but maybe the processor cant handle it, and it will have to wait for a later camera.

The pro vs anti sony tribalism in these comments is pretty pathetic. People getting big mark ups for saying that other people will have nothing to complain about? Its a camera, thats all. If it works for you, great, if it doesn't then its likely that this fix alone won't make much difference, as I doubt that many people want to use uncompressed raws unless they really have to. Credit to Sony for making a mark and forcing Canon/Nikon (hopefully) to up their feature list past just slight improvements of MP/DR/ISO performance.

Well I cant speak for what other people do or don't shoot, or if they have or havent seen the issue. Expect that quite a lot of photographers have encountered it because quite a lot of people shoot in difficult conditions. As a % of the numbers who own this camera? Probably a tiny proportion. I shoot losslessly compressed - lossless because otherwise whats the point of having a high end kit and 14 bit raws if I'm going to then volunteer quality loss. Compression because I've just put another 150GB of photos onto my backup drives today and +/- 20%ish file size makes a big difference over time.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 08:26 UTC
In reply to:

left eye: I've got a really fuel-efficient car, on climbing steep hills it's rubbish, embarrassing,
then there's this upgrade ...it'll guzzle the planet but climbs those hills fine, what do I do?
...ruin the planet and my hard drive, or stay with the slightly rubbishy eco option?

There is an in-between option that other manufacturers have been employing for the past several years, lossless compression, sounds good, and actually old hat these days.

Mk III will catch up.

@Tony

No whining, in fact I said "Good good, lossless would be much more preferable but maybe the processor cant handle it, and it will have to wait for a later camera" .Good good is hardly a whine. I also commented in a response to another comment that implied people are complaining for the sake of complaining, and that this fix should eliminate any grounds. Personally, I'd rather shoot lossy compressed than uncompressed, and just change over when shooting tricky conditions, when I'm bracketing. But im not buying that a lossless RAW is a 'great' bonus, its a partial. Way better than nothing, but not all the way. Anyway, really not worth the time to argue whether its a great bonus or a partial fix.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 08:20 UTC
In reply to:

left eye: I've got a really fuel-efficient car, on climbing steep hills it's rubbish, embarrassing,
then there's this upgrade ...it'll guzzle the planet but climbs those hills fine, what do I do?
...ruin the planet and my hard drive, or stay with the slightly rubbishy eco option?

There is an in-between option that other manufacturers have been employing for the past several years, lossless compression, sounds good, and actually old hat these days.

Mk III will catch up.

Seriously? It is just half a fix. Great that it gives options to have uncompressed, but still lagging behind the industry standard of lossless compressed. Its been around for years, its not like its a big ask for a camera that is so advanced in other areas. Unfair to say that this improvement should make people happy and that they are whiners if they are not.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 01:54 UTC

Good good, lossless would be much more preferable but maybe the processor cant handle it, and it will have to wait for a later camera.

The pro vs anti sony tribalism in these comments is pretty pathetic. People getting big mark ups for saying that other people will have nothing to complain about? Its a camera, thats all. If it works for you, great, if it doesn't then its likely that this fix alone won't make much difference, as I doubt that many people want to use uncompressed raws unless they really have to. Credit to Sony for making a mark and forcing Canon/Nikon (hopefully) to up their feature list past just slight improvements of MP/DR/ISO performance.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 01:51 UTC as 27th comment | 16 replies
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

timparkin: Gobsmacked at the attitude of posters here. Sony have actually listened and made a change to their cameras because of it. This is fantastic news. If they could offer lossless compressed easily they would have done so. Instead they did what they could to get the fix out quickly for those who need it. The penalty is a slightly larger file size. The good news is these files will probably open quicker because of it! (they don't need to decompress). Celebrate this win and be polite - we might get some more concessions

I'm all for improvements but

"Instead they did what they could to get the fix out quickly for those who need it"

This issue has been present for a long while, and these cameras were designed with this issue still not fixed, because they thought it wasnt worth fixing vs the cost of the fix. Its not a remotely quick fix, its just comes soon after enough fuss was made about a long-existing issue. So its a quick response to the tipping point of public opinion, but its not like they only just found the issue and quickly amended it.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 01:59 UTC
On article DxO ONE real-world sample gallery (185 comments in total)
In reply to:

///M: this thing keeps turning up like a bad penny everywhere I turn, it's highly impractical, over priced, so why so much press coverage? Do you get phone insurance with this? I bet allot of people will need phones repaired or replaced when damaged by accidents using this, and what happens to this when apple switches out the port with the new usb connector? oops!

DPR has a relationship with DXO where they share test data to use in reviews. It works quite nicely, the actual mapping DXO does is good to see, albeit only testing short focus distances renders it less useful for landscape judgments. Their final scores and conclusions for some things leave a lot to be desired, but if you can sift through the mush there is some good data there.

So its not too surprising to see coverage of the new DXO product on this site. As long as its fair, I have no issues with it. DXO really hurt their own credibility with the combined image score for this new camera, something they have not done for competing cameras many of which would vastly outscore it. The backlash probably surprised them, showed how many of their readers actually understood their content and was not satisfied with such biased content.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 22, 2015 at 03:16 UTC
On Connect post Sony Xperia Z5's 4K display shows most content at 1080p (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichyjV: "which contradicts the popular belief that higher resolution displays consume more battery power"

No, it agrees with that *belief*(fact) entirely, and mitigates by only using it a high resolution in certain circumstances. So it is using more power(obviously) but isn't doing it that often.

4k where it matters, on video and images only? You can't see it anywhere so what is the point? I have a 4k large TV and I have to put my face to a silly close distance on it to make out individual pixels.

you buy a TV, you stick a big photo on to see how much more detail there is than normal HD TV you used before. Pretty obvious behaviour. Pretty obvious trolling too.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2015 at 15:00 UTC
On Connect post Sony Xperia Z5's 4K display shows most content at 1080p (88 comments in total)

"which contradicts the popular belief that higher resolution displays consume more battery power"

No, it agrees with that *belief*(fact) entirely, and mitigates by only using it a high resolution in certain circumstances. So it is using more power(obviously) but isn't doing it that often.

4k where it matters, on video and images only? You can't see it anywhere so what is the point? I have a 4k large TV and I have to put my face to a silly close distance on it to make out individual pixels.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2015 at 02:22 UTC as 19th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

AshMills: Obviously if you want to be taken seriously as a portrait photographer you need to make your subject look as unhappy as possible. Ideally get them to the very pit of human existence and then exploit them. If that doesn't work, turn up the clarity slider a bit higher.

Thank you for your forgiveness. My opinions are always only my own. In this case my opinion (some years ago) was that some of the work for that years Taylor Wessing was very good as expected, and some was not (it was ok/quite good with excellent story/empathy credentials but not so much photographic), so I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to forgive, but I'll take it.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2015 at 07:51 UTC
Total: 82, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »