HubertChen

HubertChen

Lives in China Guangzhou, China
Works as a CEO
Joined on Jun 29, 2011

Comments

Total: 604, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)
In reply to:

crackshooter: As soon as I learned that the camera rememberes the micro-adjustment of AF from lense to lense, (thanks Erik Magnuson and Bob Meyer), then I really see no problem whatsoever. I am used to, and expect to tweak equipment when it is brand new, be it bicycles or a kayak...
-Regards from first time DSLR buyer.

@ R Butler: I fully agree! May I suggest a third question?

3) After you tune the Micro adjustment, how long will it remain accurate?

The Mirror mechanism is mainly made of plastics. Pretty much all plastics have a thermal expansion coefficient, and worse, they expand with increased humidity and shrink with low humidity. Plus the reflex mirror is a moving part, which never can be so accurate. At the precision you have been testing, changes of the mirror position in sub micrometer will show as change in focus position. So if calibrating focus will only last for a few days or maybe even hours, and calibrating it takes you 20 minutes, then it would not be an efficient solution for most photographers.

For this reason I even never bothered to adjust my PDAF. I live in a place where humidity can change by 70% in only one day, which I am sure will ruin all micro adjustments. If I need this accurate, I shoot CDAF on sensor, which with my camera is super accurate.

Posted on Oct 12, 2013 at 07:51 UTC
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)
In reply to:

HubertChen: Canon made a dramatic technological breakthrough: Sensor based AF has now the speed of OVF AF and at the same time is much more accurate. If you put this sensor into an LCD Viewfinder camera, the advantages become more obvious:

1) Camera is about 100 USD lower cost, because the complete OVF, plus mirror mechanism, plus additional PDAF sensor is removed, plus great simplification in firmware.
2) New LCD viewfinder are becoming more appealing than OVF: Larger image, more display information, depth of field preview
3) More accurate AF. Important to anyone with fast lenses who like to shoot shallow depth of field

This will be the winning camera and Canon just delivered the last missing piece to the puzzle: Sensor AF with no compromise. Big news!

About the PDAF inaccuracies shown in the Article. Anyone shooting very fast lenses in close distance knows these problems. Any PDAF camera has it. It is an inherent System Problem, not a dpreview staff problem!

@ Ralf B
Exactly! The Sony SLT is an improvement over the conventional DSLR in that it makes the mirror mounted in a fixed position instead making it move. This is an important simplification and this will make for less discrepancy of PDAF with real focus on the sensor. But still you have two AF systems than need to be developed and manufactured, one of which still need to be calibrated, with calibration being an expensive process in production.

Instead once you go for electronic viewfinder and the new Canon Sensor, you remove the redundant development and production of 2 AF systems and remove calibration.

Considering that production cost of mechanical parts is getting more expensive and production cost of electronic parts is getting lower cost, it is clear where this industry is going.

Posted on Oct 12, 2013 at 07:42 UTC
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)

@ Andy Westlake, Shawn Barnett and Richard Butler

Great Article, great research, great testing. Thanks so much for identifying the dramatic breakthrough Canon delivered and for explaining it in great writing. I truly enjoyed it. Keep up your excellent work! You made me read a Camera review cover to cover of a system I do not have :-)

Posted on Oct 11, 2013 at 16:34 UTC as 84th comment
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)

Canon made a dramatic technological breakthrough: Sensor based AF has now the speed of OVF AF and at the same time is much more accurate. If you put this sensor into an LCD Viewfinder camera, the advantages become more obvious:

1) Camera is about 100 USD lower cost, because the complete OVF, plus mirror mechanism, plus additional PDAF sensor is removed, plus great simplification in firmware.
2) New LCD viewfinder are becoming more appealing than OVF: Larger image, more display information, depth of field preview
3) More accurate AF. Important to anyone with fast lenses who like to shoot shallow depth of field

This will be the winning camera and Canon just delivered the last missing piece to the puzzle: Sensor AF with no compromise. Big news!

About the PDAF inaccuracies shown in the Article. Anyone shooting very fast lenses in close distance knows these problems. Any PDAF camera has it. It is an inherent System Problem, not a dpreview staff problem!

Posted on Oct 11, 2013 at 16:29 UTC as 85th comment | 2 replies
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)
In reply to:

ijustloveshooting: what a lame that Conventional, OVF autofocus screws all the time...then what's the point of a dslr?

I have shot with a variety of cameras and if you use an extreme narrow depth of field lens at close focal distance every PDAF I have shot with was off, about the same as shown in the Article. So this Article is very much in line with reality. If you shoot with lenses of smaller apertures you will never see these problems.

Posted on Oct 11, 2013 at 16:16 UTC
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: It is ridiculous that some blame the test for the poor OVF AF results!
As for me, Canon can include their 'dual pixel' autofocus system among its least of Most Relevant Innovations. People should congratulate the ones who developed this technology, as it's definitely an advance for photography.
...Still it puzzles me to see manual focus works even better than 'dual pixel'. One would be forgiven to ask why they bothered inventing autofocus at all.

They bothered because of speed. Try to manual focus reaching the accuracy level as described in here on any moving subject and you will get dramatically better results with AF!

Posted on Oct 11, 2013 at 16:12 UTC
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)
In reply to:

57even: So to get this camera to focus properly you have to hold it in front of you like a compact and focus using the rear screen? I am the only one who thinks this doesn't really move the game forward in any meaningful way?

You can use an LCD viewfinder and use the camera same way as an optical viewfinder, except you have a much larger, more immersive viewfinder.

If not to your liking, you can at least recognize the progress in live view and look forward to the time when they combine this sensor with a great LCD viewfinder.

The time is near where LCD viewfinder will be preferable over optical viewfinder. Better user experience paired with lower cost.

Posted on Oct 11, 2013 at 07:23 UTC
On Curiosity in the WiFi Remote Capture challenge (3 comments in total)

This picture made me smile from ear to ear! Nice shot and congrats to deserved win

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2013 at 06:56 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

mister_roboto: Accounting for inflation in USD it'd be about $600 today.

Thanks for these calculations. It puts the whole thing into a different perspective.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2013 at 07:56 UTC
In reply to:

SRT3lkt: people are happier back then

This always has been the excuse of the unhappy ones. Happiness is is the result of a person's hard work to become happy. It is not about a time or place.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2013 at 07:56 UTC
In reply to:

HubertChen: The facts make the intention super clear, that the intended use of the Memorial was Public domain:
1) The Artist Gaylord was paid 0.8 Million USD to create the war memorial for a public park
2) The Artist was contracted directly by US Congress

Leaders lead society by example. The Congress leading by example on how to make law (agreements) to create piece and understanding. The Artists lead by example on how to understand intention and express intention.

Example of Congress: Not capable to manage paperwork necessary to run a public park. Giving away 0.8 Mio USD for Art to be displayed in a public Park and still not having purchased the copyrights is embarrassingly stupid. Also not capable to have a friendly relationship with the Artist.

Example of the Artist: Greedy Slimy Snake. Even he already got paid 0.8 Mio USD and his work is used exactly as intended by his customer, he found a legal way to make something very clear becoming very confusing, complicating the future of others.

...
You can see in responses in this place that for half of the people here this whole thing is very upsetting. Those are the once inexperienced with intellectual property license agreements and they feel it to be counter intuitive and nonsensical.

The other half instead are professionals and they ask: What do you want, this is how it is done.

My point is that it is perhaps time to change the way it is done. To make the standard way of doing business intuitive and the way a paying customer would expect, even and especially he is inexperienced. This would make for a more friendly and happy life for all participants.

We changed it for us, and we and our customers are certainly more happy.

When I was in my twenties I had a major lawsuit every year ( which I usually won). Now I am in my forties and I have not had a lawsuit in the last 10 years and I am a much, much happier person and so are my customers, staying with me for 10 years plus.

I hope this makes more sense now?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2013 at 15:31 UTC
In reply to:

HubertChen: The facts make the intention super clear, that the intended use of the Memorial was Public domain:
1) The Artist Gaylord was paid 0.8 Million USD to create the war memorial for a public park
2) The Artist was contracted directly by US Congress

Leaders lead society by example. The Congress leading by example on how to make law (agreements) to create piece and understanding. The Artists lead by example on how to understand intention and express intention.

Example of Congress: Not capable to manage paperwork necessary to run a public park. Giving away 0.8 Mio USD for Art to be displayed in a public Park and still not having purchased the copyrights is embarrassingly stupid. Also not capable to have a friendly relationship with the Artist.

Example of the Artist: Greedy Slimy Snake. Even he already got paid 0.8 Mio USD and his work is used exactly as intended by his customer, he found a legal way to make something very clear becoming very confusing, complicating the future of others.

Dear Enconmiast,

Thank you for your detailed and very precise response. I agree with all what you said. I apologize that my previous writing was not clear. I meant the intent of the customer, not the intent from the Artist. Customer being in this case the Congress and the extended customer being the public.

I have been on the selling and contracting end of such intellectual property license agreements for the past 25 years, so you can assume I am sufficiently experienced.

In all this time to anybody who was new to the method that the Artist / photographer remained owner of the intellectual property was not intuitive to the customer and in many cases once the customer understood the idea, he felt cheated.

For ourselves we eventually gave up using this license model, as we considered it more important to keep the customer happy and consider us reasonable and for that reason come back and give us repetitive business.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2013 at 15:25 UTC
In reply to:

Sirandar: There are 2 camps

Camp 1 will agree because they want creative works to generate as much income as possible in as many ways as possible.

Camp 2 doesn't want to pay directly or indirectly for this.

Basically the US gov made a stupid mistake paying 0.8 million for a public monument and not getting the rights and the artist is cashing in on it.

I would have been interesting to follow the flow of money all though this monument project to see how it flowed and into who's pocket but we will never know that.

Judging from the picture at least the artist is talented .... sometimes we pay 0.8 million for an eyesore.

Thanks Sirandar for this summary

may I add a Camp 3: This should not have gone to court!
Camp 3 agrees in principle on Camp 1. The agreement said that the Artist is still copyright holder. If going to court, copyright law must be uphold, or other Artists lose the only power they have to protect their intellectual property. However in this case the intent for the monument was for use in public domain and using a photograph of it is using it as it was intended in spirit when the whole project was started. That the Artist is now fighting his employer will make those even more hesitating who considered to contract an Artist. This simply makes life harder for those Artists fighting to make a living. More scared patrons = less earning. So Camp three is this should never has gone to court. Who plays on this level has the privilege and responsibility to be a role-model and show how to successfully build Win-Win relationships.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2013 at 04:03 UTC
In reply to:

HubertChen: The facts make the intention super clear, that the intended use of the Memorial was Public domain:
1) The Artist Gaylord was paid 0.8 Million USD to create the war memorial for a public park
2) The Artist was contracted directly by US Congress

Leaders lead society by example. The Congress leading by example on how to make law (agreements) to create piece and understanding. The Artists lead by example on how to understand intention and express intention.

Example of Congress: Not capable to manage paperwork necessary to run a public park. Giving away 0.8 Mio USD for Art to be displayed in a public Park and still not having purchased the copyrights is embarrassingly stupid. Also not capable to have a friendly relationship with the Artist.

Example of the Artist: Greedy Slimy Snake. Even he already got paid 0.8 Mio USD and his work is used exactly as intended by his customer, he found a legal way to make something very clear becoming very confusing, complicating the future of others.

@Enconmiast
The difference between agreement by the letter and by intent

By the letter:
You are referring to the letter of agreement. As it appears the government was stupid and signed an agreement with the Artist where he still remained sole copyright to the Artwork. But in this case clearly the letter of the agreement is in conflict with the intent of the agreement. This is why all parties involved thought they can take a picture without commission. They thought it is OK and inline with the intent. None of the parties ever had the intention to steal from the party.

Intent:
I am referring to the intent. The Spirit. The core idea. The heart and soul of the agreement. It is about two parties really understand each. They set out to make a Win-Win project and then continue to behave causing Win for the other party.

Win-Win works great. People working happy together. As a result there are usually many follow up projects

I hope this is something you feel is right?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2013 at 03:40 UTC
In reply to:

HubertChen: The facts make the intention super clear, that the intended use of the Memorial was Public domain:
1) The Artist Gaylord was paid 0.8 Million USD to create the war memorial for a public park
2) The Artist was contracted directly by US Congress

Leaders lead society by example. The Congress leading by example on how to make law (agreements) to create piece and understanding. The Artists lead by example on how to understand intention and express intention.

Example of Congress: Not capable to manage paperwork necessary to run a public park. Giving away 0.8 Mio USD for Art to be displayed in a public Park and still not having purchased the copyrights is embarrassingly stupid. Also not capable to have a friendly relationship with the Artist.

Example of the Artist: Greedy Slimy Snake. Even he already got paid 0.8 Mio USD and his work is used exactly as intended by his customer, he found a legal way to make something very clear becoming very confusing, complicating the future of others.

@ Encomiast

Facts I am referring to that the intended use of the Art was for public domain:
1) The Memorial is placed in a public Park. It is common sense that everything inside a public park is indeed public domain
2) The Artist was contracted directly by US Congress. When the Congress is doing it, it is usually solely for the purpose of creating Art for use in the public domain.

I think these facts are not for dispute. To see the memorial, you need to enter the national park and you can see the signs that you are entering a national park. You may also google it.

Your second statement:
Nobody here has intention to take away earnings from a hard working Artist. Quite the opposite. But this is not what is happening here. It is not that the US government stole creative work from Gaylord. Gaylord was in fact paid eight hundred thousands USD for his work by the government to put it into public domain. His actions are making it harder for Artists like you to get contracts.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2013 at 03:21 UTC
In reply to:

mausta: It is pretty clear.
IF the Government had purchased the copyright to this sculpture then the artist would not have any claim.
Likewise if someone commissioned an artist (you) to make a work of art, then printed millions of copies of it and made over 17 million dollars, WITHOUT PURCHASING the copyright from you, don't you think they would owe you some of that money?
The reason there is copyright protection is because of instances such as this!
The artist is not to blame, he is exercising his (copy) rights to his original creation. Again if the govt. had purchased these rights from the artist he would not have the copy"RIGHT" anymore!!!! Don't bash the artist, he apparently still holds the copyright.
All of this bitching and moaning about how we can't take pictures of anything because someone else made it is absurd. Copyright law defines what is and what is not protected. If you are profiting from your photography better consult the copyright law or better yet a copyright lawyer.

What is sh10453 says is all technically correct and it is a way to make more money and unfortunately it is also a way of doing business which is common place. You do this, you will have more money short term.

You do this, you will upset lots of people. Because the only way to get this money is through litigation, as it is counter intuitive.

Inexperienced customers will sign your agreement and you will need to wait and watch them if they give you a chance to litigate them for more money due to copyright infringement.

Experienced customers will not sign with you such agreements. Experienced customers are the onee who would bring repeated business and are the ones you actually would want to attract.

Last but not least, simply think on the counter intuitive aspect. It is not helping your relationships if you make agreement where you make people believe they get a) and you know you only want to give b) and later fight your customers when using a)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2013 at 01:19 UTC

The facts make the intention super clear, that the intended use of the Memorial was Public domain:
1) The Artist Gaylord was paid 0.8 Million USD to create the war memorial for a public park
2) The Artist was contracted directly by US Congress

Leaders lead society by example. The Congress leading by example on how to make law (agreements) to create piece and understanding. The Artists lead by example on how to understand intention and express intention.

Example of Congress: Not capable to manage paperwork necessary to run a public park. Giving away 0.8 Mio USD for Art to be displayed in a public Park and still not having purchased the copyrights is embarrassingly stupid. Also not capable to have a friendly relationship with the Artist.

Example of the Artist: Greedy Slimy Snake. Even he already got paid 0.8 Mio USD and his work is used exactly as intended by his customer, he found a legal way to make something very clear becoming very confusing, complicating the future of others.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2013 at 00:49 UTC as 15th comment | 7 replies
On Tribute in Light, 2013 in the My best picture this week challenge (22 comments in total)

Yesterday I could browse Bob Tullis pictures in his gallery in dpreview. Today they are all 404 not found :-(

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 17:32 UTC as 2nd comment
On Tribute in Light, 2013 in the My best picture this week challenge (22 comments in total)
In reply to:

HubertChen: Dear Bob,

Thank you for this inspirational shot. It taught me how you can shoot Ansel Adams style with light enough gear and in a not too time consuming way. To me your technique is striking the perfect balance between cost, weight of gear and achieved quality. Thank you for this very valuable lesson!

Thank you also for your gallery. I truly enjoyed studying your body of work.

Also thank you so much to share this in full resolution!

I have a question for your: Can you send me a link to a near far shot of yours with this lens which is shot in daylight. I like to have a better understanding how the real world resolution of this lens is in daylight. I am thinking to buy a lens in this focal range, which I have never considered before and hope you can help me to better understand what can be accomplished. Is it possible that at f/8 at 8mm you have a pixel sharp rendition from near to far on APS-C?

Thanks,

Hubert

ah, and when researching, I found a review of your lens on photozone: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/526-samyang8f35eos

I am not sure if you are interested in this kind of things, but if you are, photozone makes excellent and very critical reviews and their review shows that your lens is extremely sharp. It has some lens aberrations (which is common for fisheye lenses), however you can eliminate those in post processing.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 17:26 UTC
On Tribute in Light, 2013 in the My best picture this week challenge (22 comments in total)
In reply to:

HubertChen: Dear Bob,

Thank you for this inspirational shot. It taught me how you can shoot Ansel Adams style with light enough gear and in a not too time consuming way. To me your technique is striking the perfect balance between cost, weight of gear and achieved quality. Thank you for this very valuable lesson!

Thank you also for your gallery. I truly enjoyed studying your body of work.

Also thank you so much to share this in full resolution!

I have a question for your: Can you send me a link to a near far shot of yours with this lens which is shot in daylight. I like to have a better understanding how the real world resolution of this lens is in daylight. I am thinking to buy a lens in this focal range, which I have never considered before and hope you can help me to better understand what can be accomplished. Is it possible that at f/8 at 8mm you have a pixel sharp rendition from near to far on APS-C?

Thanks,

Hubert

Dear Bob,

Thanks for your reply and for your link to your Fish-eye Set on your flickr account. I found your lake pictures and technically it showed me what I was looking for. Foreground is sharp as well as background down to pixel level. It was a pity that I could not find the metadata in flickr, nor could I really zoom to pixel level. I needed to use this funny slideshow and hope it is panning at about pixel level. I miss the more simple and more practical flickr UI, where I could get those basic information.

However, sharpness already looked better than what I expected.

I actually was not looking for a fisheye. I would be buying a rectilinear lens. I will go for the Sigma 8-16mm. Important is that your pictures have shown me how to take great looking pictures at 8mm focal lengths. I never have seen any good ones before, but yours are truly inspiring and have shown me the way! Thank you so much!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 17:22 UTC
Total: 604, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »