Marcin 3M

Marcin 3M

Lives in Poland Gdansk, Poland
Joined on Nov 19, 2005

Comments

Total: 186, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR article (230 comments in total)

As camera market continues to shrink, the prices are going to rise. In the near future cheap lenses and cameras are going to be embedded inside smartphones.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 09:21 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: At 1.09 You can clearly see the Hasselblad left there by the Apollo mission :)

http://petapixel.com/2011/06/15/there-are-12-hasselblad-cameras-on-the-surface-of-the-moon/

only aliens could do that. They probably stolen one with other stuff, and checking their cargo on the moon they decided they prefer 135 films over 120 rolls.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: At 1.09 You can clearly see the Hasselblad left there by the Apollo mission :)

I think they have had a number of them. Those cameras, who landed on the moon were left there - afaik. Those on orbital module were taken back, to earth. For some copies propably the only trip was a trip from Sweden to Canaveral.
But, You know, they never get there, hence ebay auctions ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 14:33 UTC
In reply to:

Lil g: How can the earth rotate when its flat?

It looks like the sense of humour of some contributors of this thread was evolved by the will of the Creator, or was created by the evolution, and as a result, it does not exist.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 12:24 UTC
In reply to:

Lil g: How can the earth rotate when its flat?

Cartagena, we should distinguish if it is circle or sphere. IMO oi is circular, photographed wit the fisheye, to create feel of sphere.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 08:02 UTC
In reply to:

Lil g: How can the earth rotate when its flat?

Adrian, It looks like spherical, because it is always photographed from the balloon (or something) with a circular 210deg Nikon fisheye.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 06:21 UTC
In reply to:

Lil g: How can the earth rotate when its flat?

Look at the soles. Many of them proofs, that Earth is concave!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 23:38 UTC

At 1.09 You can clearly see the Hasselblad left there by the Apollo mission :)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 23:14 UTC as 40th comment | 4 replies
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (214 comments in total)

Conclusion: buy 810 with 85/1.8 rather than c5 with otus. The biggest difference will be noticed on your credit card balance.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 14:18 UTC as 71st comment

All LR 6 users can enjoy dehaze feature for a whole moth. Hurrrah!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 17:19 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Jorgen E: I'm staying with CS6, Adobe. You know the reason...

Good point, jesper. With perpetual You can survive, with subscription you have legal action against You.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 17:18 UTC

Shift should work in macro distances with FF too. Image circle is much bigger atv1:1.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 22:50 UTC as 34th comment
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: My DSLR has LV. Does any EVF camera offers optical vievfinder?
Seriously, as technology makes progress, the difference between are less important.
But eventually, all owners of CC2020 will be able to make any raw image of any subject with LRCC, and then develop it and modify it with the PSCC. All this using only the touch screen of any 15" smartphone (with 16K curved and packable display).

Cameras are becoming obsolete. Photographers too.

I hope I'm just kidding.

But none of EVF has ttl OVF, while most OVF dslrs have EVF (aka lv).
I think that dslr's worst evf os miles ahead of evil'd best ovf.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 15:29 UTC

50g heavier than N 24-70/2.8.
It is interesting, how compares background blur when f is changed between 2.0 and 2.8 @ 24/35mm, but I think that extra 35mm from 24-70 will be more important than 1EV extra and slightly better bokeh - at least for typical applications.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 13:41 UTC as 75th comment | 1 reply

My DSLR has LV. Does any EVF camera offers optical vievfinder?
Seriously, as technology makes progress, the difference between are less important.
But eventually, all owners of CC2020 will be able to make any raw image of any subject with LRCC, and then develop it and modify it with the PSCC. All this using only the touch screen of any 15" smartphone (with 16K curved and packable display).

Cameras are becoming obsolete. Photographers too.

I hope I'm just kidding.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 13:33 UTC as 207th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: For about 170 years photography was proud to reflect reality. Not any more.

Mirek, maybe photography is more realistic, but image on the output of the processing is not realistic anymore. You pointed b&w, and I think it is very important aspect. Did You noticed, that sometimes we think about world of early photography as if it were colourless? It was not, of course. But we know it. But besides it we can see this world without distortions, and this makes early photography priceless. Now think about how next generations will receive our photographs? Maybe they will develop some dephotoshopping tools. If not, it all are going to be a petabytes of mostly junk.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 22:53 UTC
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: For about 170 years photography was proud to reflect reality. Not any more.

Of course, you may disagree. But painting example is not very good. Whatever is painted, it is painted. Not everything that goes through imaging software is photography. Photography can be turned into something like painting, opposite change is not possible. Pity that most lost this feeling of "true", hovewer it should not be surprising in contemporary world.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 22:42 UTC
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: For about 170 years photography was proud to reflect reality. Not any more.

No, it probably does not add anything, but it changes one of the most important aspects of image - its "air" perspective - and image's general mood as a result.
It can be priceless in some kind of "utility" photography, but IMO changes the "language" of the image too deeply.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 22:00 UTC
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: For about 170 years photography was proud to reflect reality. Not any more.

Photo_rb, Adams tried do emulate human's vision by photochemical means. Today we can approach this with HDR. But mist removing/adding is more domain of FX, long_wave ir imaging, uv imaging, artificial aperture radar imaging... Priceless when You have to create scene for a fantasy movie or spot enemy's tanks in the bush. Both has very little to do with photography, at least from my point of view.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 19:34 UTC
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: For about 170 years photography was proud to reflect reality. Not any more.

Mirulo,thanks this You will get image of something that does not exist. Like rendered scene.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 19:29 UTC
Total: 186, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »