jhinkey

jhinkey

Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Works as a Aerospace Engineering Consultant
Has a website at www.hinkey.zenfolio.com
Joined on Dec 27, 2005

Comments

Total: 200, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
On Best Digital Cameras for Kids news story (64 comments in total)

Don't underestimate the ability if today's kids to adsorb and master complicated things. My two 9 year olds constantly surprise me in their ability to quickly become proficient with electronic gadgets of any sort.

Heck, one of my girls frequently asks for my D800 (with 50/1.8G or 50/1.2 AIS attached) and takes very respectable images (of course under strict supervision) - the only issue is that it's too big/heavy for her hands.

I've been thinking of getting her a used Panasonic G3 and kit lens for a few hundred $$ - it's small, light, has a viewfinder (I find it's tough for kids my girls age to hand-hold a point and shoot very well), and takes very decent video.

She currently has a Nikon S30 which is fine, except the image quality sucks and she can clearly see that.

This list is a good start, but there are plenty more kid-friendly cameras out there for sure and even used last generation m43 cameras can be a great camera for a kid that is proficient with electronic stuff.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2013 at 17:48 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
On Roger Cicala gets inTouit with a new Zeiss lens news story (46 comments in total)

Very cool to see - thanks Roger!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2013 at 23:40 UTC as 17th comment
On Samsung introduces 10mm F3.5 Fisheye for NX news story (101 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nikonworks: Such an announcement should have the 35mm equivalency mentioned.
( or am I just dating myself? )

With fisheye lenses it's hard to define a FF equivalent due to the choices in the design of the fisheye. For instance Nikon has made both at 16/2.8 and 16/3.5 fisheye and even though they have the same focal length the f/2.8 covers 180 deg. while the f/3.5 version covers 170 degrees.

So it depends on entirely on the projection used in the design of the fisheye.

It also depends on the sensor format diagonal dimensions.

So, yes you are just dating yourself a bit. Everyone really should be talking diagonal Field of View (FOV) or something like that to have an equivalent between lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 17:17 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Hardly a thoughtful piece - it's completely emotional.

One has to approach this event with wide open eyes regarding the realities of how people access and consume information in today's digital age where almost everyone has an imaging device on them and swiftness reigns supreme over accuracy and quality of reporting and imaging.

I don't like the way things are going in the news business, but that's the way it is.

We'll see if not having these 28 photographers on staff, but instead having images come from elsewhere will improve their bottom line - time will tell.

Therein lies the problem - a lack of rational thought in opinions.

When I saw the word "thoughtful" in the article description I thought I would read a thoughtful opinion, not emotional ruminations.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 7, 2013 at 23:39 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Hardly a thoughtful piece - it's completely emotional.

One has to approach this event with wide open eyes regarding the realities of how people access and consume information in today's digital age where almost everyone has an imaging device on them and swiftness reigns supreme over accuracy and quality of reporting and imaging.

I don't like the way things are going in the news business, but that's the way it is.

We'll see if not having these 28 photographers on staff, but instead having images come from elsewhere will improve their bottom line - time will tell.

"Opinion page is there for the addition of emotion to a news story."

Opinion does not equal emotion nor vice-versa.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 7, 2013 at 23:19 UTC

Hardly a thoughtful piece - it's completely emotional.

One has to approach this event with wide open eyes regarding the realities of how people access and consume information in today's digital age where almost everyone has an imaging device on them and swiftness reigns supreme over accuracy and quality of reporting and imaging.

I don't like the way things are going in the news business, but that's the way it is.

We'll see if not having these 28 photographers on staff, but instead having images come from elsewhere will improve their bottom line - time will tell.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 7, 2013 at 22:41 UTC as 20th comment | 7 replies
On GIFTY concept camera produces instant flipbooks news story (30 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: Why would anyone want one of these things?
Would they actually pay money to own one?

My 9 year old girls would love one of these . . . . especially if reasonably priced and rugged enough to dropped occasionally

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 15:46 UTC

Compared to the 50/1.8G FX and 35/1.8G DX lenses this seems overpriced. Granted it's not that simple, but a 4x price factor?
2x at most seems appropriate.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 23:21 UTC as 44th comment

Nice, but not $900 nice . . . .

Although an avid Nikon user for some time now - I've recently added some m43 gear to my kit because Nikon came out with a very anemic 1 system. I couldn't wait anymore for a compact, high IQ system with non-dumbed down bodies and a decent lens selection.
The V-2 was a step in the right direction, but it was too little too late as it lacks features that I think should have been there. Plus the lack of anything seriously wide or a fisheye or other fast primes aggravates the situation.

Nikon is playing catch-up to m43 and needs to get serious real fast with high quality glass that's not outrageously costly nor larger than the m43 equivalent.

Part of me wishes they would build something to compete with the Fuji XE-1 offerings.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 22:13 UTC as 46th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

sjvr11767: Look, I think Adobe could make this work if:
(1) They lowered the price. (It should be cheaper than it would have cost you to upgrade CS over the same period of time as between different versions.)
(2) Allowed you to pay, at a reduced cost, for the entire year's subscription in advance. (They might very well do this.)
(3) Gave greater freedom in picking which products you subscribe to.
(4) Provided a program that would, even after you stopped your subscription, allow you to at least view and export your files.

If the price was right, and they had a Lightroom + Photoshop CC package then I might actually go for it.

Yes, have a stand alone version as now and a cloud version.
Also, a version of Photoshop geared JUST to photographers as opposed to graphic artists would be a great option.
Allow me the option to pay more for the stand-alone version of PS if that's what I prefer (I'll pay for the perpetual use capability).
Allow me the option of paying for the creative cloud version if that works for me.

Don't force me into the CC option when that doesn't make sense for me (aka you lose my business).

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 22:24 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)

Since many photographers (not graphics artists who heavily modify their images and still call it photography) don't use most of Photoshop, why not split Photoshop into a full version and a stripped down version with the features that most photographers only need.

I personally only use a handful of Photoshop features - I could use LR, but I absolutely detest the workflow that I'm forced to use - and would love to have a perpetual license version of Photoshop for Photographers option. Leave the CC version on subscription for those who need full PS capabilities and the latest and greatest feature releases.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 15:16 UTC as 389th comment | 4 replies
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: This is horrendous reporting. Not a single tough question. No meaty follow-up questions. Nothing pithy.

-- How many users does Adobe expect to lose as a result of this strategy? How was that figured in?
-- What about longtime loyal users who can't afford this scheme?
-- What is Corel's reaction? Does it plan to step up marketing Paintshop Pro? What about other competitors with photo-editing programs?
-- Has anyone chased down former Adobe executives for their opinions?
-- What about the Wall Street analysts who follow Adobe?
-- What about Edelman, Adobe's PR agency? How are they handling the backlash?
-- And many more...

I've been doing technology journalism for decades and knew the founders of Adobe -- Chuck Geschke and John Warnock very well, writing numerous stories about them over the years. Who's chasing them down for their reaction to their company's arrogant, money-grubbing scheme?

This is very big news, people are outraged, and no one is chasing the REAL story.

More of a press release for Adobe propagated through DPR than an actual interview.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 15:05 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

dstate1: What a complete PR disaster. They should have run both subscription and user owned models in parallel with strong pricing on the subscription package. After a few years the market would decide and adobe would be the good guys for offering a choice. Better to boil a toad slowly so he doesnt notice.

Exactly - allow me the choice of either paying for a perpetual license at an elevated rate or paying less for the cloud service knowing that if I stop the service I no longer have access to the software. Don't see how these can't co-exist.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 15:04 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)

Seems they should make a version of photoshop just for photographers OR make LR operate more like photoshop and not like a cataloging system.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 01:55 UTC as 764th comment
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scott A. Flaherty: What it comes down to is that you are more than doubling my cost to use Photoshop. After all these years of me being a loyal customer, you have the nerve to do this.

Yep, I've had every version since PS 4 I believe and paid upgrade prices for each. Now my cost will double with no functionally useful additional features of the cloud version.

Also, what's to guarantee that they will release anything but bug fixes during the year between major releases?

I use profession engineering simulation software that I pay 1 year in advance and they guarantee 3 releases per year with significant capability increases. I suspect Adobe will not do this and that new features will be few and far between . . .

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 01:54 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

QuarterToDoom: Wait wait he says they don't want multiple coded bases but they will have multiple coded bases for LR? WTF?

Yes, his replies were inconsistent at best.
Either you have a tool dedicated to photographers and there is only one version or have the cloud version - having both with different features is total rubbish.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 01:45 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)

So he says:

"We don't have plans to make Lightroom a subscription-only option but we do envision added functionality for the CC version of Lightroom"

So I take this to mean that the non-subscription version of LR will stagnate and the CC version will get all the development. This is equivalent to saying that LR will also go the CC route.

The whole tone of the responses seems very slippery to me. It seems they could have just split LR and CS completely with LR being an annual license and CS being in the "cloud" and not very useful for photographers.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 01:39 UTC as 772nd comment
In reply to:

Peter K Burian: If you own CS3 or a more recent version, it's $10 per month for Photoshop CC.

Use the dropdown menu at https://creative.adobe.com/plans?plan=single
and select Requires CS3+ Purchase. (This means you own CS3 or a newer version of CS)

Then, it is $10 per month not $20.

I am not thrilled to pay $10 per month ... although in the long run it may be cheaper than paying $700 for each new version of CS every couple of years.
--

Only $10/month for the first year . . .

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 16:15 UTC
In reply to:

smithore2: Where is the weight in the physical specifications?? 1kg???
Why 2.8, it's equivalent of 5.6 in dof on m43, that's too much.

Too much only if you want low DOF - others don't need low DOF.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2013 at 20:40 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: Hm, not sure what is this lens for. On m4/3, it's equivalent to 120mm/5.6, hard to think of a useful application. On APS-C, it's equivalent to 90mm/4.2 --good FL for portraits, but too slow for that; the existing SEL 50mm/1.8 though slightly short is much better in the other respect. Sigma for some reason releasing lenses, which add little to existing native lenses, how are they going to sell them?

This lens is for taking pictures:).
Well, it's equal to 120/2.8 on FF (regarding light gathering abilities and shutter speed NOT DOF) which is an interesting prime for landscapes and such. Would go well as a compact companion to my 12-35/2.8 Panasonic on my GH-2. Plus f/5.6 at 120mm FF equiv. for portraits is still very useable, especially if you want the whole head in focus.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2013 at 20:38 UTC
Total: 200, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »