Random Photographer: Wow. I was hoping that eventually Canon would do something amazing with their Dual pixel tech, which was great for video when I had the 70D, but with that camera the video quality was so so and the sensor wasn't that great. But nope just incremental changes after 3 years and they didn't even put the tech in the M series, which would've been nice. For $1200 I cannot fathom why anyone would get this over the new A6300. Not trying to bash Canon fans. I really don't care what side you're on (I don't even know why there are sides when having choices is a great thing) but as a consumer, why would I get this camera? I'm actually asking.
you only have to look at some photos to see that some of the film era L lenses are sublime. There are very few - if any - prime L lenses to my knowledge that are disappointing in real-world use.
DualSystemGuy: 80D Body only: $1199
7D MKII body, free printer, free memory card, free bag, $1199 @ B&H
It is nuts for anyone who cares about this stuff not to go with the full frame line imo, or at least the 7d series if its the same money.
I went from a 10D to a 5D classic years ago. Honestly, I wouldn't replace it with a 7D series, the viewfinders are just too small (although I haven't looked at the mk2).
The only thing that would compel me to upgrade is if Canon put a pop up flash on a 5D series AND dropped the prices to film camera levels plus perhaps a little extra to allow for the sensor.
For what I use it for i.e. not professional, I'm not sure there have been many noticeable improvements over the old 5D classic. That someone would choose to buy these double digit D things new instead of a used 5 series or even a 1 series boggles my mind, and also reminds me I would far rather purchase an old 135 L or 35L to go with my poor old 5d than upgrade the body anyway.
Goodmeme: Anyone remember jpeg 2000? The only time I've ever used it is indirectly through a web printing service that converted my files then uploaded them. I imagine this will have similar applications, but it will be almost impossible to replace or even match jpeg.
Thanks for your comment, this sounds like a good idea.
tkbslc: I've tried several LED lights in my hotshoe for video, but all that happens is that all the subjects in the video cower and shield their eyes due to the brightness.
A normal flash fun, especially without ettl on, will take the photo before the eyes respond. There is no light for people to cower from, except for a few milliseconds when the flash activates.
When you have ettl or equivalent, the short burst which calculates required brightness can sometimes make people squint.
This isn't a problem with auto thyristor modes or manual as these do not use a pre-flash.
RPJG: Question from a dummy: are these really just meant for video, or can they usefully/sensibly be used instead of a flash?
Firstly, I'm surprised you ask something, only to say 'exactly' rather than saying thank you. If some one takes time to answer you, and you already knew the answer, well, I'm sure we can do better than that, can't we?
Secondly, the disadvantage is going to be brightness. A traditional flash gun doesn't have to light up the whole time, it's extremely brief and so can be very powerful. This disadvantage is mitigated by the increasing high iso sensitivity of camera sensors.
The most obvious advantage of this sort of lighting versus flash - apart from ease of use via preview - is the colour control. After years of using flash casually, I am only ever happy if the flash light matches the colour of the ambient. But that is easier said than done unless you are carrying a bag full of filters and have the time to test them out and fit them.
Personally I would prefer a conventional flash with a built-in, automated and variable color grid to easily replicate a box of gel filters.
Reactive: Isn't this a classic case of a solution looking for a problem? I wasn't aware my existing UV filter's tiny weight was a problem - it's insignificant compared with the lens weight. I wasn't aware it needed to be 10x stronger, as I've never been stupid enough to smash it against objects. I wasn't aware it needed to repel water and oil, since an occasional clean with IPA keeps it spotless. I wonder if Sigma will charge 'Art' prices for their completely clear glass filter? If so, they should move into homeopathy. Perhaps their next product will be a military-grade nuclear-hardened titanium lens cap?
Water droplets can ruin photos and video without you noticing the effects until too late.
Anyone remember jpeg 2000? The only time I've ever used it is indirectly through a web printing service that converted my files then uploaded them. I imagine this will have similar applications, but it will be almost impossible to replace or even match jpeg.
Neez: I actually want this over my galaxy s6 because of the micro SD slot.
I wish Google or Samsung would incorporate support for 2 or 3 micro sd cards or even full sized SD, just like hard disks in windows.
I understand they love the cloud, but some people -myself included - do not, ergo there is an untapped market. Perhaps this is Windows' way back into the mobile market.
cgarrard: Sounds like people with a lot of money buying other people with a lot of money and they are all making money.
Sounds like you need to go to business school :).
Actually, most acquiring companies tend to pay too much for new acquisitions, relative to future value. They are difficult to work sometimes, regarding operational cultures of two different businesses etc. The target company's shareholders usually do well in the short term.
I would say as an outsider this merger makes sense, not just for people to make money but also for human civilisation, for society at large.
You can own stock too, you know. Just like you can get involved in politics. That's the beauty of benign, non-autocratic civilisation, and the efficiency of capitalism.
Everlast66: Sandisk is my favourite brand of SD cards. It would be sad if WD ruins them.
I agree but why would they? I've had lots of hdds. Western Digital have not broken on me yet.
Mssimo: WD seems to be after sandisk's SSD business. In two years, we will have 15TB+ SSD and physical drives dont seem to be keeping up. WD spinning disks have a death date all over it just like DSLRs....its just a matter of time. Next up, maybe Nikon will buy samsungs camera business.
Well, I'll take the bait!
I agree about ssds vs hdds, but dslrs vs mirrorless is not the same. Light from a mirror is faster than any electronic viewfinder could hope to be; at best you won't notice a difference, but it cannot be faster, and it's unlikely to be clearer or nicer to look at in typical shooting conditions. It might be cheaper, but that's another argument entirely.
Print screen, paste.
I can't see how drm could get round that. It's a difficult problem, which unfortunately - like most issues in society - might be best addressed with education and an unlikely moral, economic and social environment wherein very few people are overly selfish or desperate.
Goodmeme: If you want one, I presume you had better order fast before Hasselblad sue? I'm not a lawyer so would love to be corrected, however the fact that someone is admitting inspiration is like Samsung making an iphone clone and admitting they were copying Apple. Isn't this obvious intellectual property infringement?
I mean, would it not have been safer to claim ignorance of the Hasselblad model and just have created a wooden hand grip which is not a new thing? Or could Fotodiox have a reasonable defence anyway?
I just don't understand why they are referencing Hasselblad; is this brave, ignorant or something else?!
Well, I wonder if I was right after all, or perhaps they just made a few, because I can't see any on sale.
Incidentally, regarding budget for legal action, last time I checked just receiving a letter of warning with a legal threat is enough to make most people feel sick with worry and is not expensive. In fact, some people would only need to be asked nicely and they might stop.
FAReynolds: At the library that I work at we have hand-colored lantern slides of local estates' gardens. They were taken some time in the 1920s or 1930s. I am trying to find out if we would need permission from the current owners if we placed them on the Web? In other words if an owner allows his or her property to be photographed would you need the permission from a new owner to continue to use them or publish them in a different medium?
I'm not an expert, but most laws and court decisions follow generally accepted principles of morality of the society, as they are at trial/ decision-making time.
A generally accepted principle of copyright is that when a person is deceased then copyright ceases so those left behind benefit. Works of art & literature are free to use after 70-100 years in most countries.
Given the authorship - even the capture dates - of the photos in question is uncertain, and the original photographer has likely succumbed to mortality or at best is a centenarian, I would not anticipate a problem.
Another aspect is historical value or general public interest and education.
But...if the gardens currently belong to important local personages or celebrities, and that is the only reason they would be interesting, then perhaps they might feel their privacy is being infringed, and regardless of legality, perhaps you ought not to publish.
As always, put yourself in their shoes, and law/life is easier.
the Mtn Man: We've long passed the point of diminishing returns. 8K resolutions might have a place in the scientific field, but for home entertainment? Hardly. You already need an enormous display to see any difference between 1080 and 4K at a normal viewing distance -- I'm talking something larger than 150" which is far, far biger than anybody would have in their living room. To see the difference between 4K and 8K? I can't even imagine.
Actually you might, but I and some others don't!
I agree with 20/20 vision needing such large sizes to see the difference, but that is only for typical vision, i.e. can see what most people can from 20 feet, from 20 feet. I have approximately 20/12 vision meaning I can see what typical 20/20 sight can see but from almost double the distance, or from 20 feet what most could only see from 12 feet. Lucky me, but I'm 36 so younger eagle-eyed folks might see even more.
My point is, although I wouldn't currently buy 4k due to cost-benefit and my budget for such things, a 4k projector or TV at around 60-80" at 2-3m viewing distances probably would be a noticeable improvement for me and many others with better than 20/20 vision.
The latest PCs support 128GB RAM; a quantity which I can finally imagine photographers wanting to process 120MP RAW files.
I personally just bought 16GB DDR4 RAM for my new PC, which will hopefully be more than enough for my oh-so pedestrian 5D classic's measly output! :)
lorenzo de medici: The equipment is good if it allows you to progress beyond technical limitations and move into areas of artistic preference. That's what I see here. A fine photographer using excellent equipment to produce stunning results. I'm still not enthusiastic about wide angle portraiture. I want the portrait that I produce to accurately show the subject's facial features, not a distortion of those features. I'm working on a portrait right now that would be so much easier with a wide angle lens. In addition to the person, I need to include several other elements in the background that are clearly recognizable, if not in perfect focus. But there's no way I'll go any shorter than 70mm or get any closer to the subject's face than 6 feet. That's just me. Other opinions may vary.
Have you tried the pincushion effects (develop module>transform> distortion) in Lightroom?
I sometimes miss the look of my old '15mm fisheye on a crop-camera' portraits, however I found that this setting replicates it well; that is, stops faces from looking so freaky at wide angles, while keeping most of the view.
filmconvert: Adobe seem to be making all the same mistakes Quark did back in the day which lost Quark the Crown of the Digital publishing world. Affinity are right around the corner waiting to capitalise on Adobe's greed and complacency.That said, it's very easy to convert the newer software to be compatible with CS6 and/or include cameras in the future with the older software, you just go into the plist doc and include the cameras or version of CS your on.That or just go back to using film and forget all about Adobe and their rental software fetish and constantly have to upgrade to the newest piece of kit to keep up with the Joneses.
I think they just made 'capture in dng format option' the next must or want-to-have new feature for serious amateur cameras. There's no way I will spend money on software just to be able to use a new camera. After Lightroom 4 I have not felt the need to upgrade for the sort of money Adobe want.
re: apertures small in the context of increasing its suitability, don't you mean wide?
Cane: Why knock off a $250 lens?
It's out of production, replaced by the is version which is priced much higher. If a few tens of thousands are bought, you're looking at a lot of revenue. The alternative is a Canon used lens which costs more.