ColdViking

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Nov 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Hands on with the Hasselblad H6D 50c/100c (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alphoid: This is a serious question: Could someone explain a specific application which is better served by the Hasselblad 50c than by a Sony A7RII? By that, I mean technically and concretely describe a setting where a photo taken by the Hasselblad would be superior to one taken by the A7RII, and why?

I can (kind of) see the merit of 100MP for specialized applications, but the 50c just confuses me. I'm genuinely trying to figure out if this is a serious product, or if it's designed for the same market which would buy a Stellar/Lunar/etc., but a little less obvious.

Here are some areas where it will work better as a tool

1/ Product photography, cars, etc, where DR is critical
1a/ Any area where DR is critical

2/ Outdoor shoots where the sync speed is crucial, particularly fashion, but anywhere you want to "over power" the sun

3/ General fashion shoots, particularly where large prints (several meters tall) are required

Any area where high resolution and/or fantastic dynamic range and/or high flash sync speed gives you an advantage.

Any time you want to pick up girls ;-) Size matters!

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 12:12 UTC
On article Hands on with the Hasselblad H6D 50c/100c (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I understand it's a tool but, man, is this ugly or is this ugly?

It's a thing of stunning beauty.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 11:44 UTC
In reply to:

davidit: Always be nteresting to hear the "who has the best editing platform" argument. Should be the who can make my photos look better argument. Seriously how would you guys even have made a living in the film days with your heavy reliance on post editing? If you cannot use one of your photos straight out of your camera without running it through software then you should give up. The only editing i do is cropping.
You should all take a step back and learn how to take good photos rather than waste your time arguing about editing.

There has NEVER been a situation where you used your photos straight out of your camera, but the Polaroid and positive film are the closest. Here are some possible scenarios:

1/ B&W film. Result will depend selection of film, how you develop the film, on how you develop the positive image what paper you chose etc. These are done in LR today using filters, exposure change, color temperature etc.

2/ Color negatives in a cheapo shop - the development process would change the end result, and in cheapos it would vary from shop to shop and day to day. Also, film selection - same as LR with a clueless LR user.

3/ Color negatives in a good shop - same as above, same as LR with a user with clues.

4/ Color positives - changes in film, development etc would significantly impact end result.

What most photographers do today they ALWAYS did in the film days too. Claiming there is such a thing (even in digital) as straight out of camera is just clueless nonsense. Even JPGS are processed heavily.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2015 at 09:30 UTC
In reply to:

davidit: Always be nteresting to hear the "who has the best editing platform" argument. Should be the who can make my photos look better argument. Seriously how would you guys even have made a living in the film days with your heavy reliance on post editing? If you cannot use one of your photos straight out of your camera without running it through software then you should give up. The only editing i do is cropping.
You should all take a step back and learn how to take good photos rather than waste your time arguing about editing.

>> If you cannot use one of your photos straight
>> out of your camera without running it through
>> software then you should give up

MAN. YOU ARE A GENIUS! You were able to use your photos straight out of camera in the film days? I never was. If it was a B&W film, I had to go to my dark room and develop the film. A process where I had tremendous control over pushing etc. After that, I had to develop the resulting negative into an image, and in that process I would frequently use tools (and my hands) to doge and burn to make the image exactly as I wanted.

I am AMAZED at your abilities. How did you do it? When you pulled the film out of the canister, how did you prevent it from being destroyed instantly, and how on EARTH did you show the result to people?

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2015 at 09:19 UTC
On article Panasonic's Post Focus feature arrives November 25 (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

Brian Mosley: This could be used to create a simulated narrow depth of field... Finally demolishing one of the last FF features without having to carry heavy, expensive and bulky fast lenses.

Well done, keep going Panasonic!

No, it could not. The feature will only shoot with the depth of field that the lens can handle.

This feature could be "replicated" today with any camera, Panasonic or not, by shooting a series of images while changing focus (which is what this firmware update in reality does). If your subject was entirely stationary and your camera on a tri-pod you could achieve the exact same thing even using manual focus. You could just shoot 30 different images each with a slightly different focus point and then chose the picture you wanted to use afterwards.

This does NOT enable any type of new depth of field possibilities.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 09:01 UTC
In reply to:

ColdViking: Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

So, no.

There are a few reasons, and a far, far, far better alternative. Reasons:

1/ It runs a mobile chip, the chip will never be able to do what a laptop or desktop chip can do. Want to do RAW? Forget about it. Never going to happen. There is no way the ARM chips are going to be able to power through that.

2/ It runs an operating system designed for a phone. It shows. It doesn't work.

3/ The apps are not there, and due to (mostly) hardware and software limitations of the device, they're never going to be there either.

The alternative, if you want to use a tablet, is a Microsoft Surface Pro. It's a real PC. It blows anything ever created by Apple out of the water for real work. It also isn't all that much more expensive than the iPad pro.

The iPad "Pro" is for those easily separated from their money.

>> The apps will be there when the hardware is there

From whom? Apple? They can't even created a decent browser when most of the work is done by others. Safari today is the Internet Explorer 6 of the bad times. Apple Software Quality is in free-fall.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 21:01 UTC
In reply to:

ColdViking: Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

So, no.

There are a few reasons, and a far, far, far better alternative. Reasons:

1/ It runs a mobile chip, the chip will never be able to do what a laptop or desktop chip can do. Want to do RAW? Forget about it. Never going to happen. There is no way the ARM chips are going to be able to power through that.

2/ It runs an operating system designed for a phone. It shows. It doesn't work.

3/ The apps are not there, and due to (mostly) hardware and software limitations of the device, they're never going to be there either.

The alternative, if you want to use a tablet, is a Microsoft Surface Pro. It's a real PC. It blows anything ever created by Apple out of the water for real work. It also isn't all that much more expensive than the iPad pro.

The iPad "Pro" is for those easily separated from their money.

>> The Surface Pro is nice but is still just a PC.

"Just a PC"? In the same way a Mac Book Pro is "just a PC". Do you think the iPad pro will be competitive with a Mac Book Pro? Seriously?

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 20:59 UTC
In reply to:

ColdViking: Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

So, no.

There are a few reasons, and a far, far, far better alternative. Reasons:

1/ It runs a mobile chip, the chip will never be able to do what a laptop or desktop chip can do. Want to do RAW? Forget about it. Never going to happen. There is no way the ARM chips are going to be able to power through that.

2/ It runs an operating system designed for a phone. It shows. It doesn't work.

3/ The apps are not there, and due to (mostly) hardware and software limitations of the device, they're never going to be there either.

The alternative, if you want to use a tablet, is a Microsoft Surface Pro. It's a real PC. It blows anything ever created by Apple out of the water for real work. It also isn't all that much more expensive than the iPad pro.

The iPad "Pro" is for those easily separated from their money.

There is a HUGE difference between generic benchmarks and real-world software. I develop software for a living, also iPhone and iPad apps. According to the benchmarks shown, the 6S is closing in on the Surface Pro 3. In the real world this is not true. Not even close.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 20:58 UTC
In reply to:

wansai: For light editing, sure. For on-the-spot editing, sure.

The main problem is one of workflow though. Then there's the problem of the software. This does not run the adobe suite. It runs the basic mobile apps. You can do some pretty basic things, that's about it.

Get a Surface Pro 3 or 4. That is far more suitable with enough horsepower to do most things a creative can need. I do photo editing, processing, digital art, desktop publishing and graphic design on my surface pro 3.

The surface pros also run full blown adobe suite and in desktop mode, have multitouch trackpad so you can use the suite quite comfortably.

In touch mode, I open photoshop, click 1 button to apply my custom action. Or just set it to batch process. Or just use lightroom if that's more to your workflow.

The ipad pro will be a better illustration tool than a photo editor's tool. It's fundamentally no different from an ipad.

>> new generation of apps

Doesn't change the fact that the CPU in these things can not keep up. That's not what they were designed for.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

Priaptor: You want a "tablet" to do real work, wait till Oct 6th and get the new Surface Pro 4, which is what the iPad Pro should have been.

If only Microsoft understood sooner how much more advanced their hardware was than Apples, we wouldn't have had to wait so long for the ultimate combination of Windows 10 and a Surface Pro 4 that perform real computer tasks, rather than apps

@Sinatra

>> The iPad will have the advanced photo
>> editing apps.

No, it won't. Ever. The horse power simply isn't there. It's not an accident. The ARM chip is designed to be power efficient and capable of running presentation devices and phones.

>> Microsoft....well, the selection will be limited.

Really? So, Lightroom, Capture One Pro, Photoshop, Premiere Pro are limited apps? Why do you feel that?

You do know that the Microsoft Surface is a full-blown, "bog-standard" Windows PC right? Anything you can do on a laptop or desktop you can do on the Surface Pro. You have been able to for several years already. I edit and color correct 4K video on my Surface Pro with Adobe CC (albeit with 1080p proxies). You'll never do that with an iPad.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2015 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

Raintitan: The article is spot on. It is all about the software and I believe memory constraints will prevent a full Suite from running. However all new apps will pop up.

For now, the Surface Pro 3 is a great tablet like solution with stylus. I really like using it to edit.

R

It's not all about software actually, it's also about hardware. The ARM chips are simply not up to the task. This is not a flaw of the ARM, it wasn't designed for that. If they were they'd run the battery down in a couple of hours.

Add tons of RAM, it won't help.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2015 at 16:37 UTC

Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

So, no.

There are a few reasons, and a far, far, far better alternative. Reasons:

1/ It runs a mobile chip, the chip will never be able to do what a laptop or desktop chip can do. Want to do RAW? Forget about it. Never going to happen. There is no way the ARM chips are going to be able to power through that.

2/ It runs an operating system designed for a phone. It shows. It doesn't work.

3/ The apps are not there, and due to (mostly) hardware and software limitations of the device, they're never going to be there either.

The alternative, if you want to use a tablet, is a Microsoft Surface Pro. It's a real PC. It blows anything ever created by Apple out of the water for real work. It also isn't all that much more expensive than the iPad pro.

The iPad "Pro" is for those easily separated from their money.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2015 at 16:34 UTC as 72nd comment | 7 replies
Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »