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.
mrmiguel: I liked this camera before when it was called the X-E2.
If you gave that camera the same firmware updates, you'd have the same device, with a flash that bounces as well. I guess the DSLR-like form-factor is the only one that's selling in any numbers. Too bad.
That's an interesting method. I wouldn't have thought of using a camera like that however since my left eye is so much stronger than my right. Despite overall having slightly better than 20/20 vision, I don't think I would find it easy to switch to the right eye.
Incidentally, personally, I couldn't care less about my nose against the LCD, nor any smear on it. The LCD is pretty much a gimmick and time waster in my experience, and I only ever use it occasionally to check exposure with a histogram or to glance at the ~2 second preview for the same purpose.
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.
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?
Turbguy1: Eventually, cams will (actually already are) so small and "unobvious", it will be VERY difficult for law enforcement to realize they are being recorded....and if you stream to a distant server..then what are they gonna do?
I'll start becoming more concerned when and if Joe Public (or yourself for that matter) loses the right to be part of the system, or political discussion directing it.
falconeyes: He says, between high end compacts, mirrorless and entry dSLRs, the race is open.
I share this opinion although not expressed very often.
It may be that high end compacts eventually take over the current mirrorless and entry dSLR markets. Leaving high end SLR and system cameras with full frame and larger sensors for the interchangeable lens market.
Already now, the A7 seems to drive the system camera segment rather than the small mirrorless ones it all started with.
Interesting comment. What is the difference between mirrorless, DLSR and high end compact? I suspect for most people who will only ever use just one lens, that there is very little difference besides size and ease of use in individual cameras. I never like the sound of internal competition described in the interview. It just doesn't sound like joined-up thinking, nor does it sound like a safe position from which to innovate from the point of view of staff.
JohnEwing: The sample pics show perfectly why you're better off without.
not to mention the catchlights in the eyes tell a two lights - with at least one off axis - story. :)
Jim DT: I see two schools of thought here about the eventual role of mirrorless. Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Samsung and parts of Sony seem to believe that once EVF's and improved focusing technologies hit their stride, SLR's, with their extra mechanical pieces and big fat pentaprisms will become obsolete.
Canon and Nikon seem to believe that mirrorless is OK for people upgrading from digicams, but that for "real" photography, you need a DSLR.
I believe that current high-end DSLRs, with many years of development and experience behind them are truly superb picture-taking machines and probably the best choice for the most demanding users. However, the "serious" mirrorless camp is catching up quickly. And, with Moore's law on their side, they will continue to improve. Canon and Nikon could well find themselves champions of a disrupted technology!
It comes down to what you want to shoot with, doesn't it? Personally if I'm going to be looking at the world I'd rather do it directly than look through a lens, mirror,window, screen etc.
But failing a one-eye Google Glass or internal, bionic eye camera attachment approach, I'd rather use a pretty little slr or rangefinder than a digital screen. There would have to be a really compelling reason why glass and mirrors were all of a sudden become inferior.
Shmuel Goldberg: It must be clear that there is absolutely nothing in physics of a DSLR that makes it better than a mirrorless camera. Weight and size of DSLRs is not an advantage, it is a result of outdated technology. An idea that was excellent 75 years ago makes no sense today.
Are the frames per second the issue, I would have thought the lag before the frames are shown to the eye was key?
Let's say you are showing an evf with 50 or 60 frames per second, but with a 32 millisecond lag. The issue would be the 32 milliseconds wouldn't it?
Even if the electronics can manage a miniscule few milliseconds, wouldn't light perhaps be faster?
On a separate but related note, how do evfs manage in bright sunshine these days? I haven't used a top tier evf for a few years.
Goodmeme: Canon's camera business has tried to change market and product at the same time with its launch into Hollywood, video and the C system.
I can't help thinking that whoever is driving that fairly extreme strategy has in part caused what we might perceive as Canon's disinterest or lack of resources towards its cash cow photography market.
With mirrorless, phones and other technologies changing expectations, perhaps Canon could have done with at least one foot on the ground in order better to roll with the movement. Perhaps it's hard to change direction when you're mid-leap... I'll be interested to see how the division does generally.
Interesting comment, thanks!
I will - mainly for my own intellectual vanity if I'm honest - remind us that financial results always look backwards. They have been termed 'lag' measurements, because of this; 'lead' measurements would instead be things like customer satisfaction or even comments or reviews on competitor offerings, and might give one a much earlier indication as to current and future sales. But try telling that to a finance controller. :)
So to sum up my arguably random comment, all we can say for certain, (ignoring conventional talk referring to most recent results) is "they made more money..." not "they make more money..." It is just semantics, but it might be helpful in some situations to see things like this.