PIX 2015
Archiver

Archiver

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Feb 24, 2005

Comments

Total: 223, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Lightcapture: Finally v-log is out of beta and... wait what, you have to pay for it?!

Paying for significant firmware upgrades is pretty common in the professional video realm. The Canon C100 had a dual-pixel AF upgrade that cost money. The Sony FS700 cinema camera had a paid-for 4K upgrade. There are quite a few more such examples.

The GH4 is not really a consumer camera, despite its price and form. It is Panasonic's answer to the demands of the indie film market that bought the GH1 and GH2 in droves. A log profile is definitely not a consumer feature. Consumers who 'shoot a little video' would have no idea how to correct and grade log footage, if they even understood what log footage was for.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 11:27 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: "paid firmware upgrade"

I hope this isn't the wave of the future.

@Astrotripper - as much as the price point would indicate a consumer market, the GH4's features and accessories like the YAGH base place it in the prosumer/pro market. The firmware itself is nothing that would interest the average consumer, so it wouldn't matter to them if it is a paid-for feature or not.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 11:22 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T successor rumored to feature new lens article (298 comments in total)

YESSS. Please make it sharp wide open, even if it's only in the centre. Sharp wide open!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 10:05 UTC as 64th comment

If Olympus really wanted to make money, they could always pay an external financial consultant to help them invest in third party shares.

Oh, wait...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 00:34 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
On Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners article (481 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chris Joy: Phasing out CS means the end of the Adobe production suite for me. I've always bought every other release of the full production suite as I edit video, audio and photos for my little one-man-band production business. I've been able to make CS5 work for the last 4 years with Lightroom5 taking care of raw's. I used CS3 for years before moving to CS5.

DaVinci Resolve 12 Lite (aka FREE) is going to become my video editor. Its also arguably the best color grading program on the planet - and its FREE. Photoshop was mostly used for retouching portraits and stitching. Affinity can handle retouching and there are good stitch programs out there.

I'm testing Capture One before buying LR6. Either way, Lightroom is the end of the line for me and Adobe. DNG's may be a workaround, but its another step. No thanks.

It was fun. Peace.

Thanks, I'll definitely look into it. I'm well aware of its use in colour grading for cinema, although Resolve 12 seems to be the first attempt to make it a more complete editing package. If the VFX engine can replace After Effects, that could be even better.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 11:35 UTC
On Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners article (481 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jay A: This is honestly the kind've thing that makes me so suspicious of this entire digital photo world that we live in now. At the drop of a hat some CEO can determine that everything is obsolete. I have negatives dating back over 40 years that I can still make prints from. But, will my RAW files be able to be opened in ANYTHING 40 years from now?

The thought of opening jpegs doesn't worry me, but proprietary raw files? That may or may not be an issue, as technology may change so much in another 40 years that future systems may be able to open just about any past file thrown at them.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 11:00 UTC
On Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners article (481 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Every serious brand new camera has a RAW converter for FREE in the bundled software.

It's time to dust off those camera's software CD's and give it a try.

If you don't want to be a monetary zombie, there are other ways around it...

.

Heavens preserve us from that awful Silkypix thing. I don't even like the way it renders, let alone the interface. Ugh.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 10:56 UTC
On Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners article (481 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chris Joy: Phasing out CS means the end of the Adobe production suite for me. I've always bought every other release of the full production suite as I edit video, audio and photos for my little one-man-band production business. I've been able to make CS5 work for the last 4 years with Lightroom5 taking care of raw's. I used CS3 for years before moving to CS5.

DaVinci Resolve 12 Lite (aka FREE) is going to become my video editor. Its also arguably the best color grading program on the planet - and its FREE. Photoshop was mostly used for retouching portraits and stitching. Affinity can handle retouching and there are good stitch programs out there.

I'm testing Capture One before buying LR6. Either way, Lightroom is the end of the line for me and Adobe. DNG's may be a workaround, but its another step. No thanks.

It was fun. Peace.

The thought of moving to Resolve for video editing is a bit scary, as I am very familiar with Premiere Pro CS6 and have developed a good workflow with it. I'm concerned that I won't have the same kind of functionality with Resolve, like lots of titling and captioning options, having multiple sequences open and toggling between them, etc. Then there's the very export friendly presets in Premiere Pro for YouTube, Vimeo, and the ability to create presets such as might be used for TV broadcast.

If Resolve can easily handle all the things I use in Premiere Pro, I just might switch over in the next year or so.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 10:51 UTC
On Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners article (481 comments in total)

Not really an issue for me. I already use DNG Converter for any file format that Lightroom 4.4 doesn't support, and if/when I upgrade to Lightroom 6, that will be the last Lightroom upgrade I use for a long time. Am certainly not paying this blasted Creative Cloud tax if I can help it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 10:44 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

coody: It is pricy. It is not worth of spending $1000 for 5 minutes 4k video. The Mark III should be a better choice if one really wants RX100 series.

It might not be worth it to you to pay $1000 for 4k video, but that's pretty solid 4K video using the very flat s-log 2 profile in a camera with a f1.8 aperture that fits in your pocket.

Quite a few people in both amateur and professional video would be willing to pay that kind of money for such a camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2015 at 11:35 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: People who are interested in RX100 IV should seriously consider GM1, this is written by a happy new owner

way exceed my expectation
sharp lens, excellent IQ, fast auto-focus, good image stabilization,fast operation

Mainly because of the great sharp lens, to my great surprise IQ even beat my NEX-5N with Sony 10-18mm F4 lens (already much better than the garbage 16-50mm kit)

why by this overpriced camera? just for being a little bit smaller?

And tolerate lower IQ and much more expensive? It is your money but I really can't understand

If I'm not worried about whether a camera can fit in my pocket, the GM1 is super. The GM1 and a few small primes make a very versatile kit. Of course, that would cost more than a III, but perhaps about as much as a IV if you buy the right primes secondhand.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 09:29 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: People who are interested in RX100 IV should seriously consider GM1, this is written by a happy new owner

way exceed my expectation
sharp lens, excellent IQ, fast auto-focus, good image stabilization,fast operation

Mainly because of the great sharp lens, to my great surprise IQ even beat my NEX-5N with Sony 10-18mm F4 lens (already much better than the garbage 16-50mm kit)

why by this overpriced camera? just for being a little bit smaller?

And tolerate lower IQ and much more expensive? It is your money but I really can't understand

The problem with the GM1 - RX100 comparison is the kit lens. Don't get me wrong, I love my GM1, but it is almost always with the Oly 25/1.8, or some other Oly primes like the 45/1.8 or 17/1.8. These lenses make the GM1 non-pocketable. The kit lens with the GM1 makes it just pocketable, but with a fair difference in aperture compared with the RX100 III/IV.

In fact, I've been looking at the RX100 III and IV as possible alternatives for when I want a truly pocketable camera with wide aperture, decent stills and excellent video. Nothing at all against the GM1's photo and video quality, but to get a wide aperture lens it is simply not something you can slip into a pocket.

I know someone who used a Canon S95, and he later bought the Olympus E-M5 and Pana 12-35, and he also bought a RX100 (original). He has ended up using the RX100 almost all the time, despite the difference in image quality, because of its convenience and portability.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 03:46 UTC

This is a marketing message that attempts to say they are moving back to a photography-based audience. "Come back," Hasselblad is saying.

The concern is that the new CEO's background is not with the photographic industry, but with the high-fashion market that Hasselblad tried to crack and suffered massive derision for in the first place.

It does give hope when he says that he will rely heavily on the people who have been with Hasselblad for a long time, and learn this industry.

On an optimistic note, it could be surmised that he intends to follow through on this promise because the profitability of the company depends on this.

Cynically speaking, he could also do whatever he wants and still get paid at the end of the day, and sail off to another brand in the luxury goods industry after Hasselblad unveils the solid gold H56D with buyer-chosen gemstones and matching leather luggage set.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 07:40 UTC as 42nd comment
In reply to:

Hugo808: 24-35. Big deal. A 28 would cover that, cost less, be cheaper and have better IQ.

Still, if you can't be bothered to take a step backwards or forwards...

@Roland Karlsson - A 24mm f2 lens at f2 will have deeper (longer) depth of field than a 35mm f2 lens at f2. For a more pronounced example, shoot a Canon 24mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4, and compare the depth of field. The 35L will have more shallow depth of field.

If a person is okay with the loss of resolution and depth of field changes, naturally there's nothing wrong with cropping to simulate longer focal lengths. I do it all the time with the Ricoh GR, which has a 35mm and 47mm crop function, and the new Leica Q does something similar.

But it's a matter of preference and tradeoffs, ultimately. Bigger/more lenses to make use of the whole sensor and have better depth of field control, or a single lens with related issues of cropping?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 01:38 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: 24-35. Big deal. A 28 would cover that, cost less, be cheaper and have better IQ.

Still, if you can't be bothered to take a step backwards or forwards...

@RolandKarlsson - I meant to address my remarks to Hugo808, not you. Apologies.

I agree with you regarding the cropping of a 24mm lens and perspective, although I like to have full use of the sensor in general. Then there is the difference in depth of field between a 24mm lens at f2 cropped to 35mm, and a true 35mm f2 lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 09:02 UTC
In reply to:

Edgar Matias: With a Metabones Speed Booster for m4/3, it's 17-25mm f/1.4 or for the equivalence crowd... 35-50mm/2.8-e.
:-)

For use on a m43 camera, I'd still be inclined to use the 18-35/1.8. Considerably more wide angle and a bit wider aperture.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 08:48 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: 24-35. Big deal. A 28 would cover that, cost less, be cheaper and have better IQ.

Still, if you can't be bothered to take a step backwards or forwards...

Sometimes you literally cannot take a step backwards. Sometimes you want the perspective of a 24 or 35. Not everyone is as forgiving of perspective differences and fields of view as you.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 08:45 UTC
On Video Overview: Leica Q article (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wesley Byrne: My fear of sensor dust overrides any interest I might have had in this camera.

Those cameras have fully extending lens barrels. From the looks of it, the Q has an internally contained focusing design which would minimize the bellows effect of a barrel wheezing in and out, and thus, less chance/impetus for dust contamination.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 08:29 UTC
On Video Overview: Leica Q article (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

T3: I'm surprised it doesn't have a threaded shutter button. No chance to add a soft-touch shutter release. Also surprised they don't offer a silver body in addition to the black one.

Just wait another year. There will undoubtedly be a silver chrome version, and likely an a la carte version where you get to choose the leather colour and texture.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 08:27 UTC
On Ricoh GR II: What's new and what does it mean? article (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

RidgeRunner22: I must be getting old, I really wanted to like the GR but with a menu system that was massive and not intuitive, so many programmable buttons I would forget what I'd set them up for, I never really had much fun with it. Also the manuel focus was terrible which wouldn't matter except the autofocus system really isn't really reliable, the 2m snap focus is somewhat useful.
I ended up selling it and buying the Nikon A, same terrible autofocus, but much better Manuel focus, much simpler more intuitive menus and UI, and metering and AWB seem much more reliable.

That's interesting. This is the first time I've seen someone say they didn't like the Ricoh menu system. I've shot with cameras at all levels from Canon, Fuji, Sony, Leica, Olympus, Panasonic and Ricoh, and I find Ricoh's menu system to be one of the most logical and usable. In fact, it is one of my favourite menu systems.

As for the programmable buttons, I'd rather have more than less. The GR has a huge range of customizability due to those buttons.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 01:26 UTC
Total: 223, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »