Daniel L: Nothing but a war profiteer.
I'll take a room full of one-percenters and "war profiteers" over a room full of socialists.
Joachim Gerstl: The Half Dome looks impressive but it is hardly the top of the world.
You need to go there and see it. The fact that you are nearly one and a half kilometers higher than the start of your hike up Half Dome is rather striking; at the top, you have 400 meters of drop! Folks have actually died falling down the "gentle" slope with the wire ropes.Besides, when you get more than forty or fifty feet of sheer cliff in front of you, any extra is irrelevant if you fall.
Soooo ... photographers signed contracts on their own volition, and it's compared to Apple stealing royalties? (According to certain comments, some either sign or attempt to commit fraud by falsely signing. In some jurisdictions, that can be construed to be the same as signing your own name!)
photo_rb: Not sure how they get a 360MB capture...maybe they meant degrees?
Because the actual capture is from multiple sensors (different directions) each multiple times (HDR). Then it's processed down into a bite-sized piece.
The Squire: It takes a single shot but takes 2 minutes to create a 360 degree image? Wahhh?
Read carefully: it actually records HDR shots in each direction, so a "single shot" can be several images from each sensor, and there are several sensors. Then it processes the shots - combining for HDR and stitching - and produces a final "Google ready" street view. This happens oh-so-much-more quickly than a human could do it, by a factor of ten or more.
DStudio: The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.
However, we still have another problem, in that much of the media is more interested in a story then the truth. And much of the general public - as well as juries themselves - fail to view such video clips with common sense. The whole incident, situation and context must be taken into account. This problem goes back at least as far as the Rodney King incident, where people ignored the fact that King refused to pull over for 20-40 miles, driving at high speed under the influence, and was a big man who then charged officers just as a person under the influence of PCP would. The police had to use batons because their use of firearms (and even tazers now) is restricted. King's skin color and last name made it sound worse.
But the Texas law is an AWFUL response to the public's lack of discernment. There's no place for it!
Dark Goob, You, and virtually every citizen of the USA completely and utterly misunderstands the Constitution. It is NOT a grant of rights to the people, it is a LIMITATION on the powers of government.
Trk: That law is very clear for me as outside US observer. In Colorado there is long term actual problem with citizens taking images of police activity within 15 feet, therefore they want law which will function against that.Because I live in central EU I would interpret this as issue with police which often violates laws during police activity and they want to make impossible for citizens to collect evidence, maybe police in Colorado is connected with organized crime as in my country therefore lobby can easily present such a laws.
D Webb, you forget the US Gov't, the biggest bunch of crooks that ever lived. I'll take Big Oil over my huge tax load any day of the week.
Mescalamba: Thats interesting actually.
Otherwise, sapphire in this case is just synthetic corundum. Rather easy to make in large quantities. Not much to do with that sparkling blue gems. :) Im not sure if it even has same oxides as natural one. But sure, sapphire glass sounds much better than corundum glass. :D
Or simply aluminum (aluminium) oxide ... you know, sandpaper grit.
Summi Luchs: What about the coating (compromising the durability of the glass itself) ?If the material has a transparency of 99.9%, as said, there ist only 0.1% reflection (an attenuation of around 10 F-stops) my guess would be they don't need coatings. OTOH they write of 'superior coatings' in their press release. Then I ask what's the point of extremely durable glass, when the coating gets scratched.
I believe that the transmission number takes into account anti-reflective coatings.
RaghavBaijal: Is that an APSC lens?? It looks Huge! I though it would be much smaller (Diameter) considering Full Frame lenses are about that big...
Yep, all 300 mm f/2.8 lenses must have a front element of at least 107.14 mm, so there's only a little to be gained (or lost, as weight) by making everything else smaller.
BobORama: If you look CAREFULLY at the R, G, and B ray path images provided, you see the problem immediately. While the lens is achromatic for in focus subjects, the OOF image areas are not. And they cannot be. "Show me the bokeh." I expect it to be an incredible melange of badness.
As daarkfire says, all lenses are only color corrected for the part that is in focus.
Vegetable Police: Let's make everything wireless! It might even be safe for humans. We're not sure yet, but it could be. There's a small chance that you will not develop any health conditions being exposed to wireless signals all day long, and we like those odds.
I'm not particularly worried about non-ionizing radiation. Heck, your house is full of it, 24/7, unless you are completely off the grid and living without electricity.
babart: Problem being that standard Manfrotto camera plate, which, when the camera body is moved to vertical position, allows the camera to rotate on the mount screw. Especially if it has a heavy-ish lens mounted. In this case, of course, "heavy-ish" might be misleading :).
That's why you use the spring-loaded locating pin, that fits in a hole in ... nothing, I guess. You could always drill another hole in the bottom of your camera!
Mark Banas: A cautionary tale about the risks and responsibilities of crowdfunding, to be sure. I've backed a few kickstarter and indiegogo campaigns, and all but one managed to get their ducks in a row. (Still waiting for 2013's Colorright Power Panel, Drew!) Maybe I'm good at analyzing the presentation for pitfalls?
Given the number of folks here that believe that any failed KS project owes them a refund, I wonder if they are the same folks that wanted their favorite bank or auto company bailed out? Those certainly failed due to poor business decisions and gross mismanagement.
Jozef M: How much weight? How big/small is this apparatus? Use the metric system too, please.
I was very pleased when, as a teen forty-five years ago, the US was in the process of converting the official standard to metric. My family always had imported motorcycles, and metric was in our heads! (Heck, one cigarette manufacturer had commercials stating that their cigarette was 101 millimeters in length, "one silly millimeter longer, 101" was the slogan.)What a disappointment when that conversion effort failed (no doubt that congressmen were pressured by manufacturers.) And we still have artifacts from that failure: automobiles with a mixture of metric and inch fasteners!I'm a metric person in an imperial world (the US), but I speak both fluently. (An engineer I work with told me yesterday he still changes US dollar prices into pounds/shillings/pence; that change happened about the same time the US was supposed to change.)
rj conklin: 120 mp matches the human eye!
Regarding the DR of the human eye, it's nowhere near what has been listed here on an instantaneous basis! There certainly is an upper limit to brightness recorded - your eyes will close when you point them at, say, the sun! Also, eyes must undergo that chemical change that makes them more sensitive to low light, a change that is "undone" by bright light. (For those with the type of minds that notice such things - I do - the human eye in very dim light produces a lot of noise, certainly more than an old 1Dinosaur at ISO 3200!)So on a 1:1 comparison - a quick glance, a single shot - I'd bet that most DSLRs would beat the human eye in dynamic range.
mais51: Typical Nikon charges you heap more for not so much change. Just like the D800/D800e twin -$300 extra for removing a filter.
Actually, the D800e has an ADDED filter, to cancel the AA filter, just as Canon's new DSLR has.
mpgxsvcd: I wish all of the camera manufactures realized what Canon has already figured out. Canon knows that if you get the word out there that your cameras are the “best” then it will take a long time for the general public to figure it out if that no longer is true.
Basically Canon is still riding high on their PR campaign from more than a decade ago. They still sell some cameras simply because most people don’t even realize that Samsung, Olympus, and Panasonic even make cameras.
I hate to say it but the other camera companies better start investing more into Advertising and getting their entire line of cameras in stores like Best Buy. It doesn’t matter how good your product is. Not enough people will buy it if they don’t even know it exists.
Canon still sells cameras because it's all about the glass. Cameras come and go, and the difference between the best and worst isn't all that great. (Shoot transparencies for a decade, and the DR issue becomes moot, for example.)So if you have $20K in Canon glass, you'll deal with whatever cameras they release - and then, only if the improvement over what you have is great enough.
WayneHuangPhoto: I'm seriously considering selling all my Canon lenses and my old 5D mkI to finance the purchase of a D750 and one really good super wide angle lens. What do you all think?
I'm considering selling some of my Canon stuff and getting an EOS-5Ds R plus that new 11-24L mega-wide lens. Should cost ~$7K or less.
Steve Balcombe: I've been earning my living from created works since about 1987 - photography, graphic design, computer programming and web site design. So I have a vested interest in preventing copyright theft.
But for goodness sake, does this guy think that because he published a photograph of a basketball player with his legs split in 1985, he owns every photograph of the same thing? Utterly ridiculous.
Actually, making a near-likeness of a photo (or painting, etc.) to avoid paying for the use of the original is a copyright violation.The only issue here is the 30 years of non-enforcement.