kemal erdogan: Nice shots, but all the pictures look like the ones we saw elsewhere.
In what ways these pictures are different?
yes, the saving the sharks theme as been well established for a couple decades now, so no real new ground, and I suspect few new people open to conversion. That said, many of us enjoy getting these shots personally, even if it would be far cheaper to just buy one. (a week to Guadalupe Island is 2-3k)
alcaher: I like the pictures, specially #5 its a nice portrait. I like alot the idea of shooting with only natural light source.
Sharks are beautiful creatures of nature and they are here for a reason. Sadly they are dissapearing. I recommend people to watch Sharkwater"docummentary, It shows the nasty things some people and fishermen are doing to the sharks in some places like where i live (Costa rica)
there's really not a lot of choice on natural light, unless you're just doing a head shot. Water limits the working distance for strobes to roughly 6ft, and white sharks are 2-3x this.
Black Box: Interesting photos but I truly believe they belong at a scuba diving website, not photography. There is very little about the latter here. It's mostly about holding your breath, using your emergency hose and watching your pressure levels. And of course making sure none of those dresses get tangled up in that shipwreck.
yes, that you know very little about UW photography. When and if you get enough diving experience to get some shooting experience, you'll see.
gail: ''Canon USA no longer lists the EOS M on their website, so it seems unlikely that the lens would see distribution in the US.''
If this is true, then Canon played US photographers for fools by selling their EOSM cameras at firesale prices then abandoning us. I'm stuck with an EOSM brick and apparently won't even be able to by the telephoto lens I like to have since it apparently won't be available in the US. I've been purchasing Canon cameras for close to two decade, but I doubt I will buy another Canon. There are a lot of other fine choices out there.
I bought it at the firesale price thinking I got myself a higher quality compact camera for the same money I once spent on the S90. And it's pretty easy to order these other lenses on Ebay from japan or china.
Have you done any UW photography, Black? It is technically very difficult and it's not because of the diving aspects. It's the problems around light and color. Without strobes, the same subject at 20 ft is very different than at 40 or 70 or 100. But strobes only have an effective range of 6-8ft.
If the object truly is a waterproof camera, not just something that is ok if dropped in the pool, you can take almost any Canon or Olympus model and then buy the truly "waterproof" (130+ft) housings. The housings are 150-200 over, but if you don't care about 1080p video, there's an abundance of cheap older used models whose jpg output is just as good.
peevee1: What's with people demanding RAW on a camera with 16 million pixels on a tiny 1/2.3" sensor? Look at the pictures, they have noise (VISIBLE IN JPEG!) even at base ISO! What do you expect from RAW, more encoded noise? Because JPEG at max quality already encodes 12 bit/pixel, and those tiny pixels don't have even 10 bits of information (as opposed to noise) in them!Want to correct the picture - go ahead and correct the JPEG. Same thing. RAW is not going to turn these 16 mpix into 16 mpix from D4s! Besides, except on Oly and Pentax at the very wide end, these pixels are way smaller than Airy disks, and even then Bayer-interpolated! Downscale 4:1 and stop fooling yourself.
If you ever used these compact cameras for underwater use, and doubly more if you ever used an SLR as well, you'd know why RAW is attractive. In wider angle shots where no subject is within 5 or 6 ft of you, the end result is a blue-green mess that is extremely difficult to fix on jpg, and easy with RAW.
springsnow: I wonder if it's better to just use your smartphone if you have waterproof ones like the SGS5 or the Xperia Z lineup. I mean none of these have anything particularly stellar in terms of image quality, and since most people would downsize them anyway, imo a smartphone would be good enough.
smartphone is a much more expensive loss if it floods. That SGS5 is only rated as water resistance to 1m, which means that even skin diving to 10 ft is a questionable drill. And don't forget that dynamic pressure (swimming up and down) is very different than static pressure.
mgblack74: So Panasonic comes out with a camera that does just about everything a GoPro does except they add a fragile cable that attaches to a Sony Walkman like device to strap to your arm. Or that necessitates 2 points of contact on any board sport. Or is not quad copter friendly at all. But hey, your aunt can film her hat making and your dad can get close ups of his carburetor like its 1983 again. Wicked.
Gopro's 2013 model can't do 30p, no. But that's an easy next release feature. I never used 4k on mine. The LCD is helpful in many circumstances (no guessing at aim), but at a cost of battery life and having a far more awkward double mount. Since I used my gopro to depths of 150ft, this panasonic isn't going to do me any good.
wus: Nice try, but need better ... 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling. I wouldn't mind an interchangeable lens system based around the CX sensor as long as I can take it down to 60 m and have at least 1 true wideangle lens, like the old Nikonos V with the 15 mm UW Nikkor. Although a bigger sensor camera with a (true!) phase detect AF and a couple lenses including a true macro would of course be better. And of course a strobe (or, better, 2) are mandatory for serious underwater photography.
guys, when you see a rating like 5 or 15m, it often is static pressure. A watch rated at 50m in theory should be fine for most divers, but they routinely flood because the dynamic pressure is higher.
Given the cost, and the limited rating, I'd be reluctant to push it.
erichK: Kalin,Your assessment of Woodford shows a more objective analysis of what he actually did and its effects than most.
Please do the same for the convicted three. Liars they certainly were. Crooks they were not. There is no proof, and at this point no credible allegation (this has been investigated pretty thoroughly) that they ever lined their own pockets.They kept hiding embarrassing losses that they hoped they could recuperate, but the hole just got bigger and bigger.
I do agree that no one involved looks good, and thought the worst of all of them, until I actualy researched K's career. Brilliant engineer and visionary, especially in imaging, and came in as a reformer. Could likely have got a top job anywhere. Continued, or at least approved the accounting fraud. Will likely be lucky to get an engineering job. Sad story indeed, especially for those of us who really enjoy Olympus cameras (and look forward to further miniaturization and streamlining of their end-o-scopes!)
absolutely they are crooks - you admit it yourself: "they kept hiding embarrassing losses"
Peet Venter: We may not like it, but this is the future of ALL software. rather get use to it. Adobe, let me have it please, Why kick against facts, why try and dry the oceans with a plastic bucket. Guys, in 12 months all of you have come around. This is not nice, not good and not right. but this is the way of our brave new world.
Subscriptions are a trend enabled by the emergence of the cloud. Note however the similarities to mainframe computing in the 60s and 70s, which gave way to the PC era where users were free to do what they wanted. Vendors would love to get as much lock in as they can and then be able to charge even more, but ultimately it's the ones paying that will collectively vote.
Just a Photographer: Luck is on our side that there is still a huge economical downturn.
Companies rather cut on expenditure then too raise them by adopting (Adobe's) ransomware model.
Most companies will stick with their current version until it can't be used anymore. So will the average small business owner (designers and photographers) and the advanced amateurs who adopted to use Photoshop as their editing tool.
Adobe needs 20 million users to make this a viable profitable business.They recently only had 500.000 cloud customers. So that is by far not enough.
Even if they get to 2 million in a years time that would not be enough for Adobe to make this model profitable. So Adobe is taking a great risc in times that are not so bright.
what's the basis for your 20 million figure? Last year their revenue was 4.4B, a company high. It would only take 7.3M at the 50/month rate to meet that, and at this point Adobe still gets revenue from other sales. (The Marketing Cloud and Document Services groups account for 1.5B of the total) So it would be 4 or 5 million to stay even.
In Q4 2012, they were adding 10k subscriptions a week. With no other choice now, that will increase. If it doesn't not increase fast enough, then we can probably expect to see a CS7 box next year. Bear in mind that on the old cadence, we'd only be seeing 6.5 right now. This is them trying...and our response will drive the next step.
Pythagoras: off topic, but... why do CF cards still exist?
the difference is significant to people shooting burst modes, and frankly it's hard to get a long history of SD cards with overstated class ratings.
Jeff Peterman: This doesn't make any sense. With hard drive mirroring, you have a backup in case one hard drive fails. But this is a single card with a single interface, so what's the chance that one copy of the file will be good if the other is bad? Pretty slim. The most likely failure will be at the interface.
flash media shows failures at the block level. The entire reason people are interested in two card slots in their cameras is from past experience where an image was lost by just a few bad bytes, which typically kills one horizonal row 8 pixels tall.
The problem, however, is that a card with one bad block is likely to have others, and due to wear leveling, the second copy could be right next to the first.
jedinstvo: Last summer I had some photos on a national story and I got 50 calls from picture editors. Not one wanted to pay. They all wanted "to share." I asked every one of them "are you working for free right now?" The problem is there are so many people shooting pictures and they now have the ability to transmit quickly and reliably. So the image that went around the country was from a local fishing boat captain. It wasn't as good as my photos, but it was free. Newspaper management all over the country has decided photographers are dead weight.
yes, the burger wars brought us pink slim.
why we often find is competition leads to lower prices at lower quality, because for enough people, cheap is more important than good. Now just about everyone has a point of diminishing returns where you no longer see value in paying incrementally more. But the point we're seeing now is closer to 'monkey with an iphone who will give away their image for free.'
Alternative Energy Photography: Maybe the Sun Times fired the photographers because they don't want to pay Adobe's monthly subscriptions for 28 people.
$50 X 28 = $1,400 monthly, plus a few more copies for editors and maybe Lightroom for all those too.
Freelancers are responsible for the cost of their own tools.
As a society, we are what we have wrought.
while there are minor snark points to credit here...1) you don't need a copy for every person. You could have a handful of PP folks at the office, let the field shooters keep shooting2) $50/month is a tiny expense compare to cubicle space, disability, unemployment, and of course salary and benefits. And even if they were buying the outright licenses every X years, that's still a chunk of the $50 being spent.
Johnsonj: 100 million kids with camera phones will always beat a staff of pros with the best gear.
if you don't mind your paper looking right at home next to the tabloids in the checker stand.
agentul: the camera seems nice, but one of the things that i like in my friends' DSLRs is the much longer battery life. A rating of 380 CIPA shots is comparable to what my GH2 can achieve (i think it's 320 or something). And it's a camera with EVF, so you have no way of taking pictures without using some amount of energy. A DSLR, with its OVF, is much more energy efficient. So 380 CIPA shots means that Canon used a really small battery. It's probably understandable given the size of the camera, but it kills one of the main advantages it could have had over mirrorless cameras.
CIPA has 800 for the 7d, but I've taken 1000 and still see 50% battery remaining. If you don't use the LCD very much, the actual result can be much higher. But if you don't have a choice but to use it, obviously it's a bit harder. What do people get in actual use on the GH3 (which costs $500 more than this model)?
It's of course very simple to swap the battery, unless you're dealing with a tripod mount or a housing for underwater use. But you want small...you have to give up CF and big batteries.