PIX 2015
DesmondD

DesmondD

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) Hamilton, New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a Auto electrician
Joined on May 9, 2009

Comments

Total: 32, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

LEGACYMOMENTSPHOTOGRAPHY: if they made compacts with a 1 inch sensors in the basic models, and with loads of filters and creative tools that would be nice. Im talking bout the £60 low end market. BEEF UP CAMERAS. the same could be said in putting full frame sensors in all dslrs like the 35mm film days but charge entry prices!

Basically you get what you pay for, it would all have to cost more. For good image quality they need larger sensors which means larger lenses etc. But for people who are already happy with the images they get from their phones it will be very difficult to convince them to carry another device around regardless of how good the iq is - since they are already happy with their phone images.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2015 at 23:12 UTC
In reply to:

DesmondD: It would be interesting to know the exact percentage [to population] of cameras being sold compared to 20 years ago. Digital got a lot more people involved in photography initially, now mobile phones have drawn many of those people away from "real cameras". Now perhaps we are back to the original percentage of people actually interested in using "real cameras" for their photography.[?]

Interesting graph mapgraphs. These days it is probably more difficult to determine what should be included I imagine. Phones have cameras in them, tablets have cameras, Panasonic has a compact that is also a phone.... if they could include a category for people who use phones for their photography I imagine it would by longer than the 'compacts' section. But then there are so many devices with features that are not used [I don't use the camera in my phone] the line becomes very hazy without knowing how many people actually use those features so I suppose the graph they have is the closest to being a safe representation of what we can safely say is happening.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

DesmondD: It would be interesting to know the exact percentage [to population] of cameras being sold compared to 20 years ago. Digital got a lot more people involved in photography initially, now mobile phones have drawn many of those people away from "real cameras". Now perhaps we are back to the original percentage of people actually interested in using "real cameras" for their photography.[?]

I think digital has given photography a major boost in general. I almost gave up on photography with film - digital got me interested again because I could learn while taking photos, not while seeing the prints a week later when I had forgotten my settings. All that is really changing now is a separation between people who just want to 'capture their memories' and hobby photographers.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 20:18 UTC
In reply to:

LEGACYMOMENTSPHOTOGRAPHY: if they made compacts with a 1 inch sensors in the basic models, and with loads of filters and creative tools that would be nice. Im talking bout the £60 low end market. BEEF UP CAMERAS. the same could be said in putting full frame sensors in all dslrs like the 35mm film days but charge entry prices!

Full frame sensors cost a lot more to make than dx sensors. It's not possible to give more for less cost and for a company to stay afloat.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 20:04 UTC
In reply to:

AmateurSnaps: Article sounds like nonsense to me.

People have mobile phones on them all the time that can take photo's. Camera sales drop. Conclusion? Mobile phones are too complicated.

Did you mean "compacts are too complicated"?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 20:02 UTC

It would be interesting to know the exact percentage [to population] of cameras being sold compared to 20 years ago. Digital got a lot more people involved in photography initially, now mobile phones have drawn many of those people away from "real cameras". Now perhaps we are back to the original percentage of people actually interested in using "real cameras" for their photography.[?]

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 20:00 UTC as 110th comment | 5 replies

Eventually we'll be able to select aperture, shutter speed, focus point and just about anything else after the 'shoot'. All you will have to do is get the composition right. Interesting technology of course but also just gimmicks for people who don't know what they're doing to make it look like they do in post processing later. Of course it could be useful for critical events that need to be captured but for the majority of people just a waste of time.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 22:59 UTC as 4th comment
On Nikon D7200 Review preview (573 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wubslin: Still doesn't explain why I should buy one though.

It's not an advert - as Steve Franklin mentions it's a review.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 21:33 UTC

Maybe Land Rover can have one under the hood - it will still see plenty of scenery :)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 09:26 UTC as 18th comment
On Canon EOS 5DS real-world sample gallery article (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

All Bushs Fault: This collection of samples mostly seem to aim directly at the camera's weak spots, high ISO, low light, scenes mostly in shadows.

Exactly! I'm sure most potential buyers would want the full picture of what they might expect from the camera. Only the advertisers would carefully present the best images from the camera - we, as buyers benefit from seeing the weaknesses of potential purchases.
I imagine there would be a lot of angry new owners if you hadn't shown the cameras weak spots.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 09:20 UTC
In reply to:

DesmondD: I still haven't found an optical viewfinder that doesn't give me motion sickness. I recently looked through a Sony 7S and had to stop looking through it after 10 seconds. Looking TTG "Through The Glass" is still the best for me.
I know not everyone is like that but I'm thankful it's still an option.

Yes, sorry, I meant an EVF.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 01:11 UTC

I still haven't found an optical viewfinder that doesn't give me motion sickness. I recently looked through a Sony 7S and had to stop looking through it after 10 seconds. Looking TTG "Through The Glass" is still the best for me.
I know not everyone is like that but I'm thankful it's still an option.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 23:58 UTC as 99th comment | 5 replies

The next development to keep stills photographers happy is perhaps 4K video with a 'flash synch' option so you can keep recording and press another button to fire the flash for a frame. HSS flash option can ensure that flash covers the frame.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 23:27 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-CM1 camera review post (248 comments in total)

I wish they would just limit the megapixels and concentrate on low light performance. But then many people think 6 megapixels isn't enough.

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2015 at 18:56 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

DesmondD: After giving this more thought I'd like to ask another question based on our comparison to rain falling into tubes. Let's assume the same exposure at iso3200 - one image is taken at f2.0 and 1/1000th sec while the other is taken at f16 and 1/15th sec - both giving the same exposure. At F2.0 we have 1/1000th sec of large raindrops but they are 'let in' for such a short time the photon "packets" are more random. If we got the same final exposure at f16 and 1/15th sec would the fact that the shutter was open for longer mean that we would achieve a closer average between the 'tubes' compared to the faster shutter speed? As with rain if we put something in the rain briefly the drops are spread out but if it is left for longer eventually the whole surface is covered since there has been enough time for it to become evenly spread thereby eliminating the random aspect.

I was thinking further about this and changing the aperture would be like having a smaller hole for the same size drops to fall through so it will smply take longer to happen. It would be an interesting test to do for those with time to play :)

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 20:03 UTC

After giving this more thought I'd like to ask another question based on our comparison to rain falling into tubes. Let's assume the same exposure at iso3200 - one image is taken at f2.0 and 1/1000th sec while the other is taken at f16 and 1/15th sec - both giving the same exposure. At F2.0 we have 1/1000th sec of large raindrops but they are 'let in' for such a short time the photon "packets" are more random. If we got the same final exposure at f16 and 1/15th sec would the fact that the shutter was open for longer mean that we would achieve a closer average between the 'tubes' compared to the faster shutter speed? As with rain if we put something in the rain briefly the drops are spread out but if it is left for longer eventually the whole surface is covered since there has been enough time for it to become evenly spread thereby eliminating the random aspect.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 08:56 UTC as 40th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

DesmondD: This is an honest question: Considering the speed of light compared to the shutter speeds we use what kind of shutter speeds can actually show up the randomness of "light packets"? There must be a point where it all averages out pretty well - where is the boundary?

I wasn't thinking when I asked this question - obviously the amount of light falling on the sensor will depend on shutter speed and aperture settings -reflected in the iso needed which will suggest how low the existing light levels are. So even if I have a shutter speed of 1 second, if the 'rain' is just a very light drizzle the 'tubes' will still not collect even amounts of 'drops' right? :) I was obviously mislead by thinking more of the actual shutter speed rather than resulting combined settings.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 08:05 UTC

This is an honest question: Considering the speed of light compared to the shutter speeds we use what kind of shutter speeds can actually show up the randomness of "light packets"? There must be a point where it all averages out pretty well - where is the boundary?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 07:06 UTC as 51st comment | 4 replies
On Nikon 1 J5 offers 20.8MP BSI sensor and revamped look article (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

jnxr: "Capable of shooting at an amazing 20 fps at full resolution with Autofocus (AF), even high-speed action can be captured with clarity and precision, while even reaching up to 60 fps with AF fixed on the first frame."

--can reach higher fps while shooting much higher res still images, but still can't go over 15fps for 4k video. WTF NIKON?

As someone mentioned a gopro can do that. Perhaps they are limiting it to 15fps so people have to buy the V4 with 24 fps :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 19:08 UTC
On Nikon 1 J5 offers 20.8MP BSI sensor and revamped look article (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

jnxr: "Capable of shooting at an amazing 20 fps at full resolution with Autofocus (AF), even high-speed action can be captured with clarity and precision, while even reaching up to 60 fps with AF fixed on the first frame."

--can reach higher fps while shooting much higher res still images, but still can't go over 15fps for 4k video. WTF NIKON?

60 fps full res will probably only be for about 12 -20 frames. 4K video has to be constant.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 08:29 UTC
Total: 32, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »