PIX 2015
Dennis

Dennis

Lives in United States CT, United States
Works as a Software
Joined on Oct 25, 2002

Comments

Total: 197, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

aris14: Photography is art. Stop.
The tools of this art are sophisticated devices called cameras and in nowadays tons of software. Stop.
The easiness of producing an image using a camera (its main tool) is colossal compared to other arts. Stop.
Furthermore this image may not require any particular education, culture or skills. Stop.
The aim of photography as art is common with all other fine arts. Stop.

Ι respect everyone's opinion for what he likes or not. Stop.
I do not pay any respect to all those who consider their opinion as an expert or specialist opinion just because they shoot some pix, the same way I would not pay any respect to the guy who paints my room and feels that he has an authoritative opinion for the work of Leonardo, Picasso, Dali, Turner (to name but a few), just because he can use a brush. Full stop.
Full stop.

Was there a point to pretending you're sending a telegram ? Were the "stops" supposed to make people think there's some weight behind your words ? Anyway, I stopped after "photography is art". Seemed like a good place.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 14:31 UTC
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Does it matter what it says on the tin as long as you are happy with what is in?

I don't see the issue. Everyone knows that a Sony lens with a Zeiss label that costs $1000 and has autofocus is not the same thing as a Zeiss ZF lens ... just as everyone knows that an Otus and a Batis are two different things. If someone is dumb enough to see the blue label and assume greatness without looking at reviews/specs/price then he deserves what he gets.

I'm not sure what 28-70/2.8 you meant, Vanitas ... there was a 28-75/2.8, but Sony's version is somewhat different; at a minimum, it adds a focus motor (albeit the noisy SAM motor). But this isn't rebranding; it's Zeiss branding a Sony lens with its stamp of approval (and its assistance in design, test & QC). No different from the Zeiss or Leica lenses on millions of digicams.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 16:50 UTC
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Does it matter what it says on the tin as long as you are happy with what is in?

I've seen a couple people say it matters because of the "higher asking price". Sony lenses are priced in line with Canon & Nikon ... higher in some cases, lower in others, and the Zeiss-branded lenses are not out of line with Sony's other lenses (the ones without the Zeiss label). I really don't think Sony is charging "extra" for the blue label. Just compare the lenses - look at the prices, look at the performance, and make your decisions. Some people choose Canon or Nikon, some choose Sony.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 14:54 UTC
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Does it matter what it says on the tin as long as you are happy with what is in?

Nope. The Zeiss logo on some Sony lenses implies a higher level of quality than the average kit zoom, but then again, so does the price. These lenses simply need to be evaluated like any other lens, taking into account price and performance.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 12:51 UTC
On Feature film shot on iPhone 5 coming to cinemas post (64 comments in total)

The "signature look" is that of a small sensor; plenty of DOF in every shot - looks like a stylized documentary. Every shot has the same FOV.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2015 at 18:26 UTC as 33rd comment
On Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR article (331 comments in total)
In reply to:

oselimg: Ok, it has f2.8-4, credit given where it's due. This is an "enthusiast" lens not a main stream one therefore $1060 ok. However it's only 1/2 stop faster at the wide end and 1 stop at the long end compared to mainstream alternatives which in most cases is not significant. No wedding photographer will dare shooting with f4 at the longer end. if it had f2.8 throughout it would have made sense especially at the long end and even slightly bigger premium would've been justified if it were, performance wise, the "jack of all trades". With todays sensor performances I think the target audience wouldn't hesitate increasing the ISO one step instead of paying $$$ premium. 7 blades aperture is another Achilles heel for this zoom.

" But your comment still begs the question that who this lens is for"

Everyone who wanted this lens in the first place but had to settle for the 16-85. I would have bought this lens. Unfortunately, it's a bit late ... I tend to use one of my smaller cameras for midrange stuff now, and the DSLR mostly for my 70-200/2.8.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 12:26 UTC

" will have filled some of the company's followers with despair"

Hasselblad has followers ? You mean on Facebook ?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 16:51 UTC as 84th comment
On Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dennis: What does Canon have against viewfinders ? Afraid it might compete with their DSLRs ?

BarnET, I agree, I don't think the Canon is competitive ... but at least, at $1250 with the EVF, it's the same price so you can at least move on to specs & features from there ...

And for some, it will boil down to the lens (speed versus reach) while for others, the name on the label.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 20:52 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dennis: What does Canon have against viewfinders ? Afraid it might compete with their DSLRs ?

p.s. Optional EVF is an ok compromise; I'd still prefer one built in, figuring it has to cost more to have it separate (and I'd expect it might be more prone to getting broken off), but now it's a $1250 camera that competes with the new $1300 RX10.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:46 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dennis: What does Canon have against viewfinders ? Afraid it might compete with their DSLRs ?

Well, it's pretty intriguing compared to an SLR. A 200/5.6 lens giving you the FOV of a 600 ... and f/5.6 on a sensor that does decent ISO 1600 (and usable 6400) ... at least based on my experience with the RX100. You don't get 600mm reach in anything remotely compact on a DSLR, unless you use a shorter lens and crop. Cameras like this (and the RX10 and FZ1000) hit a sweet spot for some, based on sensor size.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:37 UTC

The people running the established camera companies have to feel so old ...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 13:31 UTC as 140th comment
On Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction article (228 comments in total)

What does Canon have against viewfinders ? Afraid it might compete with their DSLRs ?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 12:22 UTC as 36th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

carphil: As far as I'm concerned, it's not a camera if it doesn't have a somewhat accurate optical viewfinder, Leica or not. The human eye is a much better judge of what is being seen than a computer chip. Why would I want a close video approximation of reality when I have it right in front of me. Over ninety nine percent of todays cameras are merely computerized image recorders with too many buttons and controls. I'll take ANY Leica rangefinder (with all their faults) over any of todays over-computerized offerings. If overpaying is the price I have to pay, then so be it. Furthermore, who cares what the camera sounds or looks like, it's the image that counts.

So you're worried about whether a "computer chip" can "see" as well as your eye, when it's a computer chip that's capturing the image you're shooting ? If you want to see reality, just put the camera down for a minute. It's not like you're capturing reality.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 17:17 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: I was hoping the new model would come in at 16MP. 80MP is going to be a noise monster and no good trying to take pictures of my daughter playing in the back yard in the evening. And my 5-year old computer would choke on those 80MP files. No sale here, sorry.

The camera looks amazing to me, though I'd love to try nature photography with it. Strobes in the backyard does make me think of Julie Blackmon, though, and I like her work a lot. I'm sure that's all I need ... a $50,000 camera ... and I, too, can be producing that caliber of work, right ?
No, I'm not close to target market. If I won the lottery, I might be one of the dilettantes who buy one, but I'll never be a photographer who could justify one.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 11:20 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: I was hoping the new model would come in at 16MP. 80MP is going to be a noise monster and no good trying to take pictures of my daughter playing in the back yard in the evening. And my 5-year old computer would choke on those 80MP files. No sale here, sorry.

Ross, I was joking about shooting my daughter in the back yard with it. I don't think the autofocus would be fast enough. But it might be good for photos of my cat. Anyway, after I spent that much on the camera, I wouldn't have enough money left over to upgrade my computer.

;)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 01:08 UTC

I was hoping the new model would come in at 16MP. 80MP is going to be a noise monster and no good trying to take pictures of my daughter playing in the back yard in the evening. And my 5-year old computer would choke on those 80MP files. No sale here, sorry.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 02:58 UTC as 14th comment | 6 replies

This just in ... Olympus to follow in the footsteps of Geico (remember the Cavemen commercials ?) They're going to premiere a new sitcom starring a bunch of guys with DSL-Arm ... How can it lose ?

I thought the commercial was pretty amusing. Some of the reactions here are even more amusing !

Direct link | Posted on May 22, 2015 at 00:52 UTC as 46th comment
In reply to:

Alice0102: Is there an "executive summary" for those of us that are technically challenged? My brief read leads me to believe this is something I could spend a whole lot of time concerned about when in reality I would never know if my concern and new knowledge accomplished anything at all. Why bother? Just do your best and enjoy your pictures.
Alice

There is. Skim the article, looking at the gold colored section headers and read the one that says:
"How does this affect my photography? Exposing to the right"

Or ... put as much light on the sensor as possible (without clipping highlights).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 04:08 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: Richard, great article. If you find time, at some point, to elaborate on a couple points, the illustration showing the test tubes makes it clear that SNR increases with exposure time, but doesn't address the confusion some people have with photosite size; if you have a 16MP and 24MP sensor, both are the same size, but each photosite on the 24MP sensor sees fewer photons and should therefore have more visible noise. There's no explanation of the difference between the 100% view and the downsampled or printed view. Therefore, when you say:

> And, since we've established that capturing more light improves your signal-to-noise ratio

I'm not sure you got there; you've explained how an increase in exposure increases the SNR, but without talking about averaging, you could argue that 36million (FF) photosites versus 16million (APS-C) should have the same noise (same test tube size, after all).

- Dennis

I agree with keeping it easy for everyone to understand; I've just seen enough debates in the forums over this ... people who insist that FF is "cleaner" than APS-C because the pixels are bigger ...

Just a thought, and thanks for considering it.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 18:28 UTC

Richard, great article. If you find time, at some point, to elaborate on a couple points, the illustration showing the test tubes makes it clear that SNR increases with exposure time, but doesn't address the confusion some people have with photosite size; if you have a 16MP and 24MP sensor, both are the same size, but each photosite on the 24MP sensor sees fewer photons and should therefore have more visible noise. There's no explanation of the difference between the 100% view and the downsampled or printed view. Therefore, when you say:

> And, since we've established that capturing more light improves your signal-to-noise ratio

I'm not sure you got there; you've explained how an increase in exposure increases the SNR, but without talking about averaging, you could argue that 36million (FF) photosites versus 16million (APS-C) should have the same noise (same test tube size, after all).

- Dennis

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 16:34 UTC as 184th comment | 3 replies
Total: 197, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »