SirSeth

SirSeth

Lives in United States Hagerstown, United States
Works as a Teacher
Has a website at wallygoots.smugmug.com
Joined on Feb 8, 2004
About me:

My plan is to ever improve my trade, my hobbies, and my relationships with family, friends, and my God. My trade is teaching Math and Computers. My primary hobbies are lutherie (guitar building) and photography. My God is slow to anger and abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor His anger forever; He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us for our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth so great is His love for those who fear him. As far as the east is from the west so far has he removed our transgressions from us. If you have questions or gripes about my God, I always enjoy talking with someone who is a seeker. Rock throwers are rarely convinced of anything spiritual and I can respect their desire to believe differently than myself.

Comments

Total: 447, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Lee Jay: 700 shots on 3 batteries? I shot 2,250 shots at an airshow on one battery.

700/3 = 233 shots per battery. I wasn't dead at 2,250 and some of those were videos, so it looks like the battery life difference is about a factor of 10 between this camera and my 7D Mark II.

I usually carry 3 batteries. No way I'm buying a camera for which I'd need to carry 30!

I agree. It's one of the areas in which smaller mirrorless cameras require a trade off. Some will find it worth it because of what and how they shoot. Others will not find it nearly acceptable. ~500 shots with a vertical grip is ok for most of my shooting situations.

BTW, three batteries for your DSLR offering ~6750 shots isn't what I would consider "normal" power requirements. Of course no one is going to carry 30 batteries for their mirrorless. If you have a requirement of shooting 6000+ shots on a single assignment, it's not the fault of mirrorless cameras (or Sony) that another tool is better for you. Same with if you need card redundancy and excellent AF-c which the above article illustrated perfectly.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2015 at 21:02 UTC

Man! I love the northwest in the fall!

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2015 at 16:26 UTC as 39th comment
On article Video: What's in the future for Sony's Alpha system? (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

SirSeth: Rishi! Great questions, and I have burning questions of my own. So, not as criticism, but as curiosity, here's what I was wanting you to ask in addition to the well phrased questions already in the interview. 1. In all the areas that Sony is innovating, what has the discussion been in regards to the operating system and settings menus? Cell phone OSs focus heavily on usability and customization; what limitations in a camera preclude a similar level of usability and customization? 2. I've recently wished that focus peaking could make out-of-focus areas opaque and in focus areas clear rather than obscured by a color mask (kind of like reverse focus peaking). With the improvements in EVFs and processors, is it possible to enhance focus aids in new ways to maximize usability and focus accuracy with legacy lenses? 3. It's amazing that the A7Rii can natively focus Canon lenses. Is expansion to other mounts possible? How much can you say about where this is going in the future? :)

I was thinking about a light opacity layer in out-of-focus areas which would make in-focus areas pop. My gripe with the current peaking system is that it obscures what we want most to see. Therefor, when using peaking we have to trust the color mask without observing if what is colored is really in focus. I now find focus peaking to be a rough guide which could be refined. I'm not suggesting that a reverse peaking opacity mask is the ultimate solution, but I do think this is an area that could see innovation.

Just a brain storm. Thanks for the above thoughts and carry on with your fine work. I wish you the best. ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2015 at 20:34 UTC
On article Video: What's in the future for Sony's Alpha system? (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

SirSeth: Rishi! Great questions, and I have burning questions of my own. So, not as criticism, but as curiosity, here's what I was wanting you to ask in addition to the well phrased questions already in the interview. 1. In all the areas that Sony is innovating, what has the discussion been in regards to the operating system and settings menus? Cell phone OSs focus heavily on usability and customization; what limitations in a camera preclude a similar level of usability and customization? 2. I've recently wished that focus peaking could make out-of-focus areas opaque and in focus areas clear rather than obscured by a color mask (kind of like reverse focus peaking). With the improvements in EVFs and processors, is it possible to enhance focus aids in new ways to maximize usability and focus accuracy with legacy lenses? 3. It's amazing that the A7Rii can natively focus Canon lenses. Is expansion to other mounts possible? How much can you say about where this is going in the future? :)

Oh, I have nothing to berate! Nothing really even to request... just curiosities. So thanks a million, Rishi, for the goodly response and for the work you do. I'm quite aware that there is an art to interviewing.

Out of curiosity, have you discussed the possibility of reverse peaking with the staff there? Do you have an opinion as to this being possible (or even desirable)? I've always wondered why this isn't the way peaking works since the current method obscures exactly what I want to focus on with a color mask.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2015 at 02:01 UTC
On article Video: What's in the future for Sony's Alpha system? (269 comments in total)

Rishi! Great questions, and I have burning questions of my own. So, not as criticism, but as curiosity, here's what I was wanting you to ask in addition to the well phrased questions already in the interview. 1. In all the areas that Sony is innovating, what has the discussion been in regards to the operating system and settings menus? Cell phone OSs focus heavily on usability and customization; what limitations in a camera preclude a similar level of usability and customization? 2. I've recently wished that focus peaking could make out-of-focus areas opaque and in focus areas clear rather than obscured by a color mask (kind of like reverse focus peaking). With the improvements in EVFs and processors, is it possible to enhance focus aids in new ways to maximize usability and focus accuracy with legacy lenses? 3. It's amazing that the A7Rii can natively focus Canon lenses. Is expansion to other mounts possible? How much can you say about where this is going in the future? :)

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2015 at 03:06 UTC as 32nd comment | 4 replies
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1509 comments in total)

I would love it if someone gave one of these to me! Just to look through the viewfinder! Then I would sell it and buy an A7Rii and a set of Batis primes. Maybe an A7Sii also. And a new computer... and... a new guitar. And a trip to Costa Rica with my family... and...

$13,000 for the kit is a lot of money folks!

I hope the EVF heralds things to come in future mirrorless development though.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2015 at 19:27 UTC as 459th comment | 1 reply
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1509 comments in total)
In reply to:

photomedium: It's like the space odessey monolith. Useless.

Hey, didn't the space odyssey monolith cause leaps in evolution to occur? This could cause DSLRs to become extinct. ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2015 at 19:21 UTC
On article Photo prodigy: The images of 17-year-old Taylor Gray (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

BigOne: Those are very pretty photos, but what they lack is originality. Mist over the water, the circle of moving stars, a ship's reflection on still water, a lettice of girders on a bridge - it's all very picturesque, but we've seen it all before. The skill is definitely there and it's really nice, especially for a 17-year-old. Now he needs to come up with fresh ideas.

Agree that "20 Under 20" is fantastic. There are lots of really talented young photographers. I think Taylor has some good hits above but that he also has a lot of room to develop. I wonder how he became feature here? Just curious. Is he part of the DPR community? I like seeing up and coming community members featured.

BTW, the photographer who did my wedding was one of my students and was 17 or 18 at the time. I kind of got her into photography and was very pleased with her work.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2015 at 00:22 UTC
In reply to:

mailman88: That's funny...if you print 13x19 @ 300ppi., all you need is 24.3 mp.

I'll let DPR explain it.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4613822764/high-iso-compared-sony-a7s-vs-a7r-vs-canon-eos-5d-iii

And I concure. The reason one should consider the A7S is video, silent shutter, and maybe uber ISO values not available on other cameras.

Make a living? HA! Who said anything about that. I use a Canon FD 500mm f4.5L and mirrorless because it's the most affordable route to great big glass and I still want more MPs for the reasons described. Has nothing to do with being a "Pro" but that doesn't mean it's less valid a reason. Money or status doesn't make an opinion more correct.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 12:37 UTC
In reply to:

mailman88: That's funny...if you print 13x19 @ 300ppi., all you need is 24.3 mp.

@photominion. I realize that it used to be believed that increasing resolution above 8mp necessitated a compromise because smaller pixels created more noise. You could extrapolate that from pixel pitch comparisons back in 2004 between 8mp compact camera sensors and 8mp APS-C sensors. I no longer believe this to be the case, especially as we've seen sensors triple and quadruple the resolution yet still improve high ISO noise. What I have come to realize is that smaller pixels and newer sensor generations mean noise is finer and if the larger image is viewed as a whole image, the noise could even be worse per pixel and the image appears cleaner when viewed as a whole. But it turns out that with new sensor generations, even per pixel today's pixels are cleaner than back in the day meaning smaller pixels are not necessarily more prone to visibly disturbing noise at the image level. (Meanwhile software has also become more capable at managing it when you do have to use screaming high ISOs)

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 03:59 UTC
In reply to:

mailman88: That's funny...if you print 13x19 @ 300ppi., all you need is 24.3 mp.

I can only tell you why I "want" more MP. When I shoot bears, wolves, and birds I crop a lot. Being further away means more natural behavior. I'm shooting with 500mm behind a FF sensor. Sure, I could shoot a crop sensor and get a bit more "reach" but that just crops the middle of the lens circle and is essentially the same as cropping the FF image after. Keeping the bird or animal smaller in the viewfinder means tracking it is easier on a gimbal. Secondly, more MP means smaller pixels so noise is smaller, and in a crop won't show up as much as a lower resolution sensor cropped the same amount. Choose to keep the whole frame without cropping and you've got finer grain noise and more detail. The only drawbacks are that you need good techniques and good glass and large hard drives. But better detail, finer noise, and room to crop are hard to argue with for what I do. Of course this is a fixed 35mm here, but who doesn't want better detail and finer noise for street or landscape?

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

yahoo2u: ....."All three lenses will feature a Sony E-mount for use with full-frame Sony cameras sans an adapter."
.
It is "without an adapter"
.
If you want to throw in french expressions while writing english go to france.

If we cut words of foreign origin out of American English it would be a lot easier to learn--anyone can memorize 34 words. But hey, if you want to rename bokeh to reflect American values, how about just calling it "the parts that look like you just got hit by Chuck Norris."

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2015 at 00:29 UTC
In reply to:

Hannu108: They doubt nobody ever landed on the Moon. Even a photo of a waving flag seems to be a fake.

“On the moon, there's no air to breathe, no breezes to make the flags planted there by the Apollo missions flutter”

http://www.space.com/18067-moon-atmosphere.html

Weird...

Francis, the international space station has been visited by 141 Americans and has been constantly manned for the last 14 years as a joint effort between NASA and 4 other space programs. The number of flights made by the US during that time is far above other agencies. So I did read what you said and I won't argue that the Russian space program is called "NASA." I will report that they have sent 44 Russians to the ISS. Other countries fall to the single digits. What say you?

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 01:42 UTC
In reply to:

Hannu108: They doubt nobody ever landed on the Moon. Even a photo of a waving flag seems to be a fake.

“On the moon, there's no air to breathe, no breezes to make the flags planted there by the Apollo missions flutter”

http://www.space.com/18067-moon-atmosphere.html

Weird...

"Something's got to be to it?"... that's where you lose me. Lots of people believing something makes no difference to whether or not such a thing is true or a hoax. To illustrate, many believe worms come out in the rain so they don't drown and that if you scratch poison ivy it will spread. Neither are true and many people using false reasoning don't make them more true. Lots of people believe in God which doesn't cause Him to exist and lots of people don't believe in God which doesn't cause Him to cease to exist. He exists or not separate from belief. As far as NASA sending people into near earth orbit, there is an international space station that you can observe with the unaided eye! You can see it clearly with the aided eye. Some people believe the earth is flat even though one can fly/sail around it. More people believing it, is faulty thinking, not evidence.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2015 at 01:36 UTC
In reply to:

Hannu108: They doubt nobody ever landed on the Moon. Even a photo of a waving flag seems to be a fake.

“On the moon, there's no air to breathe, no breezes to make the flags planted there by the Apollo missions flutter”

http://www.space.com/18067-moon-atmosphere.html

Weird...

What makes it a conspiracy theory Francis, is that people take something they don't understand and develop a theory about it that is completely false based on incorrect flawed reasoning. Pictures, reasoning, and credible witnesses hold no weight once one builds on a false premise: and the secrecy almost adds weight to their argument based on false hypotheses. This is the case with the "waving flag" which lead to "oscillating fan" which led to "secret television studio." But the flag is not waving and there is no need to make up anything secret. That's classic conspiracy theory not reality.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2015 at 18:28 UTC
In reply to:

Smeggypants: " NASA funding issues may prevent the space agency from providing additional moon mission scans in the foreseeable future."

Oh please!!! The single most important historical event in history and "funding issues" *may* prevent release of most images. What a load of boll-ocks!!!

****Failed to post new comment because it contains swear words****

Significance is debatable by rational individuals, the truth of the event is debatable by irrational conspiracy theorists.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 19:55 UTC
In reply to:

Hannu108: They doubt nobody ever landed on the Moon. Even a photo of a waving flag seems to be a fake.

“On the moon, there's no air to breathe, no breezes to make the flags planted there by the Apollo missions flutter”

http://www.space.com/18067-moon-atmosphere.html

Weird...

Who is "they" or is it you that doubts? I think they are the same folks that believe other conspiracy theories like the world is flat.

The flag is propped up and probably not waving. It's not weird that they would think to prop it up (so it could be seen) and that it would also be very difficult for it to lay flat in the exosphere and lesser gravity.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 19:39 UTC
In reply to:

gurmusic: Fake

Yeah, the world is flat. ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 19:29 UTC
In reply to:

Smeggypants: " NASA funding issues may prevent the space agency from providing additional moon mission scans in the foreseeable future."

Oh please!!! The single most important historical event in history and "funding issues" *may* prevent release of most images. What a load of boll-ocks!!!

****Failed to post new comment because it contains swear words****

It makes sense to me since this is an independent undertaking; not a NASA undertaking. Funding for personal side projects, even if approved, may have funding hurdles. I still think the collection is splendid!

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

EthanP99: "with the same performance level as a mirrorless camera"

like a pentax Q mirrorless?

Well, there is plenty of material in DPR forums to make a go at it. ;) Just bring on equivalence arguments. "So if you put a BMW motor on a skateboard..."

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2015 at 12:16 UTC
Total: 447, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »