Joined on Jun 6, 2006


Total: 457, showing: 301 – 320
« First‹ Previous1415161718Next ›Last »

When will Teton Gravity announce a $700 micro-copter + stabilizer to compete with the DJI Phantom or the various other contenders for the role of big boy fly toy? Perhaps never (too "down market"), but the quality of inexpensive devices is rising fast.

Were it to loft no more than a half-decent P&S, or maybe a GoPro, that would be good enough. The only acid test is whether a device is apt to crash or fail to return "home" if the R/C falters.

The daily rental costs of the equipment and crew needed to create the featured ski video is probably over 300x that sum. To top that off, there is no one to buy or see 4k video. The 4k display in a store I visit is often out-of-order or displaying rather gross animations.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2013 at 13:37 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

Press Correspondent: This is a fake record. I don't know what "antique cameras" this guy owns, pinhole, Polaroids, digicams, or smartphones, or may be he owns a thousand copies of the same model, but in my book "antique camera" stands for film. The world record for having the largest number of film cameras belongs to Richard LaRiviere (USA) who owns 894 DIFFERENT film cameras that he has collected since 1960.

Why not limit "antique" to daguerreotypes?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2013 at 15:33 UTC
In reply to:

ThomasSwitzerland: This man looks happy. The camera marriage is his best choice.

No, more like serial polygamy. Each darling ceases to interest him every time he spots another.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2013 at 15:30 UTC
On Sony A3000 preview (677 comments in total)
In reply to:

mad marty: "Wolf in sheep's clothing?"
It's clearly the oposite : A sheep in wolf's clothing"
It only makes sense for somebody who wants to look like a pro with a dslr and would need a point and shoot actually.

No, better called "a tiger in a rabbit's clothing." This model might sell big in Asia, where millions might not afford a $800 DSLR, but could justify a $400 "good" camera as a frugal choice.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 16:20 UTC
In reply to:

fotochase: He can call himself an artist, I guess, but he shouldn't call himself a photographer. He's a "compiler" or an "arranger" of borrowed materials. Being a photographer in my opinion means that you exercise some control over the photographic equipment and the composition of the image.

The quality or distinction of a piece of work are what define an "artist." The tools are merely incidental. Most works derive from sources that no one conjures on their own. In the case of cameras, the key artists are probably the engineers who desiigned the cameras and production processes, not the shooters. But even they rely on work of others. It is pretty silly to say that use of space photography cannot qualify as "art," unless a person flew into space and took the pictures himself. Maybe Bezos could afford an orbit tour, but not many others.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 15:54 UTC
In reply to:

ConanFuji: I don't understand how this is photography on the so called photographer's part.

More like graphic tweaker.

In advertising or cinema, the quality of the presentation is mainly a function of work that hinges very little on whoever held or ran the camera. It can take days or weeks to compose and edit what it took only seconds to shoot or record.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 15:47 UTC
In reply to:

WT Jones: Nothing interesting here in my opinion. You have seen one arial photo, you have seen them all really.

Be careful. Pray your aircraft pilot doesn't confuse your street or house for a runway.

"Lower the landing gear. This place looks like the others. Cross your fingers. Pinch your nose, too, if it turns out to be a fee lot."

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 15:43 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: If I didn't shoot it, I'm not using it, period. No way I'd use someone elses work to call my own art- no matter how you spin it. These are new images, there's an infringement on the craft that being a curator has been in the past- it seems to be a modern curse to trample on anything good of the past.

No thanks.

Then why dare take photos with a camera someone else made, which you could not build yourself. To be authentic, it would come from raw materials you extracted from the ground and forged or distilled with tools you crafted yourself. Next you can build your own rocket and loft your own satellite into space. A mere farmer did this in a movie (or was it a cartoon?), so why can't you? And, if that's not possible, then it's not worth doing. Right?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 15:36 UTC

A humble question: why do satellite photos appear so sharp, if what I see from a jetliner window always appears hazy at best? Even at high noon on a clear day, and even (less likely!) my window is not all smeary or scratched up, my photos' resolution is poor. Satellites are outside the atmosphere, but must peer through the same air, humidity, clouds, dust, and feedlot dander as an air traveler, no?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 15:29 UTC as 11th comment | 2 replies
On Sony A3000 preview (677 comments in total)
In reply to:

rpm40: I think Sony is going to nail it with this one. Many consumers don't understand the finer points like sensor size, apertures, and so on. They understand that a big camera that looks like an SLR will give you better images- and generally, that's right. They will see this and think "wow, I can get an "SLR" for $399!" And this camera will probably serve that crowd well- it will deliver the high IQ they thought they would get from a big camera, and with it's simple menus and the perks of mirrorless, it will be a very easy transition.

This camera will bring LOADS of new users to the e mount world. Good for Sony, good for NEX, good for mirrorless in general.

A main goal would be to avoid the awful menu structure of the first NEX cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 16:27 UTC
On Sony A3000 preview (677 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: I have an honest question. Do people really think this camera would be better off at say $800 with a 2.3M OLED sony viewfinder, 921k Rear LCD, and RX100/RX1 like menu system? It would have the same mount and same image sensor. Are those changes worth doubling the price? I think sony nailed this. People want APS-C, ILC, a viewfinder, and a professional looking grip for as cheap as possible. Canon's made a killing meeting that spec list.

Question: will the a7000 be a competitor, or the replacement, to the a77 SLT? Will there be a FF a9000 in 2014?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 16:24 UTC
On Sony A3000 preview (677 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bob Janes: Good price point for a mirrorless with EVF: if people want a better viewfinder and rear screen, the NEX 6 seems to fill the bill...

The kit costs less than many lenses. With focus peaking, EVF resolution matters less. People don't look for cellphones with EVFs, so why let that factor break a deal anyway?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 16:21 UTC
On Sony A3000 preview (677 comments in total)

Priced at $400, or perhaps discounted to $350 a few months hence, this might sell to people who occasionally need something better than a phone camera, but aren't about to sink >$600 into a DSLR. If priced below the NEX models, it might displace them, since the NEX are essentially giant lenses that bob in front of undersized sensor packets with too little grip.

It offers focus peaking, which some more expensive cameras don't, and offsets the modest EVF resolution.

One question is whether the budget build quality will be as resilient as a Civic or as vulnerable as a Yugo. Another question is whether the APS-C sensor will perform on the same grade as a NEX6 or NEX7, or be "crippled."

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 16:18 UTC as 131st comment | 1 reply

Aldecoa took risks. But, when the gator lunged, he had the presence of mind not to leap into the muck and wrestle the Canon out of the beast's jaws. Think, though, of the photo op that would have been to others. The original "Wilhelm Scream" was based on a gator encounter, and you hear it every time someone sees their camera being destroyed.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2013 at 17:21 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

Mattoid: If you are going to delete 'trolling' comments then you are against free speech and you may as well not have comments.

Free speech is not a license for rudeness, grafitti, or anonymous slander. Habeas corpus came before freedom of speech. To this day, many countries have laws that protect reputation, privacy, or state security, without anything resembling a First Amendment right.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2013 at 14:11 UTC

A major reason to allow comments is to entice people to come back to a site, whether to add more comments, or whether to rouse other people's comments.

Are mainy of the comments uncivil, sloppy, or worthless? Of course. The main reason for that is that people can give themselves fantasy names ("Carlos Danger," etc). Invisibility brings out the worst.

The most obvious cure is to adopt a "real name" policy. Anyone who visits blogs or sites that require real names will think they are on a different planet: adults who think twice about what they say or respond; people who avoid excess or insults so as not embarrass themselves.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2013 at 14:06 UTC as 88th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

kkardster: You couldn't really change the ISO in the film days without opening the back [and replacing the film], so no loss of functionality there.

My dearest used to open camera backs all the time, in order to see how the pictures came out. Well, this sure prevented any bad pictures! The rest where all unsurpassed images of polar bears in snow storms eating marshmallows.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 17:09 UTC

Any analogies to current attempt to design a phone that can fit inside a traditional DSLR? Or, to frame and focus the matter more precisely, make a camera that stands a chance to compete with phones?

That aside, the problem of building or selling a digital sensor to fit into an old camera body is that the device might cost more than a new digital body, and there can't be any more than a few thousand souls would would find it worth the bother. Retro for the sake of retro is a regressive goal.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 17:06 UTC as 70th comment

What ISO and shutter time would work? The few dim streaks my eyes ever see last under one second and occur only one or two times per minute. Urban light overwhelms all but the brighter stars. More might be visible atop a remote mountain, but still not be brilliant enough to produce sharp streaks. Easier to photograph lightning. Maybe Adobe could offer a "Perseid effect" to help me add streaks to my pictures. Or maybe pinstripe decals on my window would do the same thing, so I don't have to spend a night in some eery place.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 18:26 UTC as 11th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

chillgreg: It's very simple. Ren Kockwell (no google indexing for this post) is an outright idiot, a buffoon, and a snob. His language and attitude have become progressively more arrogant and condescending over the years. Any knowledge of value he once offered is now mired in the sickly sweet treacle of fake virtuosity and blind narcissism.

Versus everyone else's humble, unprepossessed, and cordial consideration of other people's views.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 20:33 UTC
Total: 457, showing: 301 – 320
« First‹ Previous1415161718Next ›Last »