MikeFairbanks

MikeFairbanks

Joined on Oct 1, 2012

Comments

Total: 212, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

scrup: Cmon guys the A6300 has more comments than Canons flagship. Lets buff this post more so it looks competitive.

I didn't say you can't be pro with a crop sensor. I was talking about the highest levels of pro sports. There would be no reason for a professional photographer at the Super Bowl to use anything less than the best available gear, even if it's expensive. Sure, you can shoot the Super Bowl with a 7D, but it would have zero advantages over the 1dx.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 16:26 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

SwedishPhoto: I honestly don't get why some people call this camera (and others like it) a "fashion statement", or that people are hipsters etc for buying one.

Look at cars (which costs a lot more, well usually..). People have different tastes in cars as well, many people let the look of the car affect their decision. Some people don't care what car they buy, as long as it takes them from A to B, and so on. We often buy not just with out wallet, but also with our eyes.

Personally I really like the retro look of the PEN-F and Fuji cameras. There's nothing wrong with wanting a camera that looks good (to the buyer). It's in the eye of the beholder.

Only aliens in movies agree on fashion, and that's why your post Swedish, is refreshing. You say what everyone should admit: We do buy based on looks in many areas, so we shouldn't criticize someone for caring what a camera looks like if we ourselves care what a car looks like, or a coat, boat, breed of dog, tool, etc.

I don't buy cameras based on looks (I need a specific set of specs for what I do), but I still admire these retro cameras. They look great.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 01:32 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (394 comments in total)

I think it looks fantastic, but 4/3 is not enough.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 01:29 UTC as 3rd comment

I watched the videos at the highest resolution from this Nikon. I wasn't impressed. These things have a long way to go.

I owned the original Theta 360. I gave it away a month later because the quality was so awful.

I'll take a smaller field of view with higher quality. 360 has a long way to go for single-unit cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 01:24 UTC as 1st comment

Maybe their mistake was taking the company public, which sometimes causes a company to become focused on short term goals instead of long term goals.

I was surprised that they thought their niche market was enough to go public, and perhaps I was right. time will tell.

Most of the GoPros are too big. An action camera should be as small as possible. I own the little one (GoPro 4 Session), and it's pretty good, but at 200 dollars it's at the very upper limit of what I'd pay.

Pivot makes HD sunglasses, and that's kind of cool. I imagine the action cameras are going to be more wearable in the future.

Get smaller. That's important for action sports.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 01:20 UTC as 7th comment
On article Hands on with Sony's a6300 and G Master lenses (239 comments in total)

Things are improving, but the selection for me is still limited. I'm beginning to work more and more on film and tv sets, and I need a quiet shutter. Sound Blimps work fine, but are extremely limiting. The Sony A7s and AsII can shoot silently, so that's a start. The crop sensors aren't enough, however, because flash is a no-no on set (even between takes it can me a big no-no).

The unit still photographer must shoot fast and be stealth using only the light available (which can be natural or artificial, but never is under the control of the photographer.

I'm glad Sony provides a real professional camera with a silent shutter. I wish they all did.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 01:08 UTC as 5th comment

So many people are mocking this camera for price, size, cost of accessories, etc., but they don't realize that for some photographers every single advantage is needed to help them make a living. Tomorrow you'll see a lot of photographers at the Super Bowl. It's a fishing tournament, and they need a fast boat and quality gear to haul in the big fish. Some will go home skunked and some will have the big one.

If I were shooting professionally at the Superbowl I'd want all the bells and whistles, including expensive Wifi accessories to get that photo to the editors as quickly as possible.

The photos will be online minutes after they area taken.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 00:56 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

MyReality: The megapixel amount is not a trade for anything. This is a PRO sideline sports camera . Pros shoot for the web and publication. They don.t need more than 20MP.

There's nothing wrong with spray and pray. Luck is still a factor in many professional careers, and by luck I don't mean the superstitious kind. I mean luck as in chance.

14-16fps means you'll have a much greater likelihood of getting the shots you need for your editors.

If you're not a pro then, yes, you probably don't need this camera.

With those shooting speeds you could almost make a film using photos. Imagine when one of these reaches 24fps. It'll make 4k look cheap.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 00:50 UTC
In reply to:

Frank C.: I dunno, I think the new Nikon is gonna smack this camera... is Canon still using their own sensors with the inferior DR? Aren't Canon owners fed up by now?

Nikon is struggling to keep up with themselves, let alone Canon. Yes, they sometimes do a better job with a few bits and pieces, but they are having to delay the release date of the flagship crop camera (the D500), and so who knows what else is going on over at Nikon? They are a great camera company, but this new Canon is going to sell and sell well. 14-16 photos per second in raw is pretty darn amazing if you photograph high-speed professional sports like surfing, skateboarding, football, etc. You won't miss much at that speed.

I like that the shutter is rated for 400k activations.

My only complaint is the battery grip is built in. I understand the need for more juice, but I'd rather have a lighter camera and spend sixty seconds swapping a battery. That thing is huge.

I still want it, though, even though I don't need it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 00:44 UTC
In reply to:

scrup: Cmon guys the A6300 has more comments than Canons flagship. Lets buff this post more so it looks competitive.

The Sony A6300 will be an outstanding camera, but it's still a crop sensor. That won't cut it for indoor sports on a professional level. If you want to shoot the Superbowl you need something that can handle it, and even then it's a huge challenge.

I have a feeling someone is trolling this thread with that A6300 bit.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 00:38 UTC
On article Extreme made easy: GoPro HERO4 Session review (57 comments in total)
In reply to:

arhmatic: It would be useful to see photos of the camera as it sits next to other objects.

Could be anything. Other cameras, phones, pencils, coffee cups etc.

Best way to understand the actual size of the object.

Remind me and I'll do that when I get home from work. I own one.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 21:14 UTC
On article Extreme made easy: GoPro HERO4 Session review (57 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nicholas128: Only waterproof to 10m :-(

That 214m free dive thing isn't exactly accurate. The guys doing those stunts are using weights to descend and balloons to rise.

I wonder what the record is when done without any device at all (other than a swimsuit).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 21:13 UTC
On article Extreme made easy: GoPro HERO4 Session review (57 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: I own one (bought it right around Christmas time). Mine was relatively cheap because I was given a $175 gift card to the Apple Store, so I went and got this nifty camera. My out of pocket expense was about 35 bucks.

So, is it worth $199? That depends.

It is extremely small, very durable, and can attach to anything without attracting a lot of attention. It's perfect for a skateboard, surfboard, RC plane or car, and anywhere else you need a very light action camera. It's 2.5 ounces and can be used without any of the mounts.

What I do is take Velcro (the kind with the sticky back) and mount the camera on whatever I want. If the camera will take a few licks then I use the mounts and case (which doesn't add much bulk or weight.

I mounted it to the front bumper and had a car-totaling wreck (three weeks ago). The camera didn't get a scratch (even after being ejected across the road).

Low light video is poor and grainy. Outdoor is fine. Live view through phone or tablet is great

To follow up: If you NEED a tiny action camera, this thing is worth the money (when shooting outdoors). If you don't need it to be small then spend the 200 on a decent waterproof camera that does video, has zoom, etc.

If GoPro thought this would be a game changer, they really messed up. It's a fun camera, and I really enjoy mine, but I doubt I'd buy it for 199.

If I was a skater or someone who really needed light and small, then I'd do it. Again, it's small (about the size of a golf ball). It's much better on a helmet than the other GoPros, and it's very strong.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 21:11 UTC
On article Extreme made easy: GoPro HERO4 Session review (57 comments in total)

I own one (bought it right around Christmas time). Mine was relatively cheap because I was given a $175 gift card to the Apple Store, so I went and got this nifty camera. My out of pocket expense was about 35 bucks.

So, is it worth $199? That depends.

It is extremely small, very durable, and can attach to anything without attracting a lot of attention. It's perfect for a skateboard, surfboard, RC plane or car, and anywhere else you need a very light action camera. It's 2.5 ounces and can be used without any of the mounts.

What I do is take Velcro (the kind with the sticky back) and mount the camera on whatever I want. If the camera will take a few licks then I use the mounts and case (which doesn't add much bulk or weight.

I mounted it to the front bumper and had a car-totaling wreck (three weeks ago). The camera didn't get a scratch (even after being ejected across the road).

Low light video is poor and grainy. Outdoor is fine. Live view through phone or tablet is great

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 21:07 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply

Too bad it won't work with the Hero Session 4 (or perhaps it will). I like the idea of streaming from a better camera rather than just using my phone.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 01:31 UTC as 3rd comment
On article GoPro's poor holiday sales lead to staff layoff (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: I bought my first GoPro about a month ago. It was the Hero 4 Session model (half the size and weight of the others).

It's very close to the size of a cardboard box that would fit exactly one golf ball.

What I like mostly is the cost. I got it for $199. It's a really good deal for what it can do (everything but 4k. It can do 2.7k, which is still heaps better than 95% of the displays out there.

Anyway, they originally sold it for $399 and hyped the heck out of it, but a couple things were a blow to GoPro.

First, the Polaroid Cube had just come out and was 99 bucks. It's not as good as the GoPro, but was a fourth of the price. Secondly, Polaroid went after GoPro over the design. So GoPro cut the price in half (my gain), and it includes two mounts and two cases (it is waterproof without the cases).

It's also durable. It survived a crash while mounted to my front bumper last week. Not a scratch on the camera. The car was totaled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBaBwB-zAfs

The insurance company paid a lot of money to us for that car (far more than it costs us), so we went out and bought something new (for my wife). I'm now the driver of a minivan. Such is life.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 01:25 UTC
On article GoPro's poor holiday sales lead to staff layoff (124 comments in total)

I bought my first GoPro about a month ago. It was the Hero 4 Session model (half the size and weight of the others).

It's very close to the size of a cardboard box that would fit exactly one golf ball.

What I like mostly is the cost. I got it for $199. It's a really good deal for what it can do (everything but 4k. It can do 2.7k, which is still heaps better than 95% of the displays out there.

Anyway, they originally sold it for $399 and hyped the heck out of it, but a couple things were a blow to GoPro.

First, the Polaroid Cube had just come out and was 99 bucks. It's not as good as the GoPro, but was a fourth of the price. Secondly, Polaroid went after GoPro over the design. So GoPro cut the price in half (my gain), and it includes two mounts and two cases (it is waterproof without the cases).

It's also durable. It survived a crash while mounted to my front bumper last week. Not a scratch on the camera. The car was totaled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBaBwB-zAfs

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2016 at 01:56 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
On article Top 5: Hands-on with Nikon D500 (785 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: That's quite a hefty price for a crop sensor that's less than half the surface area of a full frame. Wow. If I were a dedicated sports photographer, especially for high-speed sports like skateboarding then I'd be all over something like this, but outside of action it's overkill at that price.

For me.

Doughster: There never was a serious full frame vs. crop debate. Larger sensors have more latitude for better image quality.

If a crop sensor is just as good as a full frame sensor, then a one-inch sensor is just as good as a crop, and a cellphone sensor is just as good as a one-inch.

Crops have an advantage for reach, of course, and the lenses can be cheaper (if you buy the entry level lenses), but full frame sensors still rule and will be the norm relatively soon.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 01:48 UTC
On article Top 5: Hands-on with Nikon D500 (785 comments in total)

That's quite a hefty price for a crop sensor that's less than half the surface area of a full frame. Wow. If I were a dedicated sports photographer, especially for high-speed sports like skateboarding then I'd be all over something like this, but outside of action it's overkill at that price.

For me.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 00:24 UTC as 23rd comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

damian5000: These cameras aren't for low light or narrow DOF, so no need for a big sensor. People saying "what's the point, blah blah"... in terms of zoom, these make the crap 3x zoom on an RX100 or Panny LX100 a huge joke, or the pitifil 16x zoom of the Panny FZ1000 and 20x of G3X downright shabby.... Everyone has their needs and these mega zoom small sensor cameras fulfil what no big sensor camera could without spending huge amounts of money on enormous glass for ILC. People just enjoy pooping wherever they can I suppose.

And don't forget that with a tripod or other mount, and the built-in wifi, one can aim at the subject, stand back, and zoom/focus with the tablet or phone. Wait a few seconds for the vibrations to stop, and then you can open up that shutter all you need to let in good light. I use a Canon 6D and good glass for portraits, landscapes and more. It's hard to beat quality equipment.

But the Canon 530 (previous model) with its 50x zoom and wif (I got it for 299) is just plain fun.

I stood outside The Walking Dead set and could actually see into the smallest corners of the set. With good light and a stable mount, it's quite a useful tool.

And the prices are cheap enough for it to be a fun toy.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 01:51 UTC
Total: 212, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »