I stopped shipping from my small business to Canada long ago. There were too many packages that ended up disappearing. I could track them as far as Ontario then no more.
joeybob: Did Ian shoot that with a D800 or a 5DMKIII ?
Huh? What? - Film?
What the heck is that?!?
I was shooting about that time, and slide film was either ISO 5 or 10. It was a struggle to get a fast enough shutter speed to stop motion. Amazing how we have selective memories.
I worked (For Boeing) right across the street from the Flight Center when it first flew down from Everett. Naturally, I made several trips across the street to look it over, inside and out.
I remember that they had built a ramp for the nose to run up on as it pulled into the B-52 Hangar. By raising the nose, it lowered the tail enough to be able to clear the hangar doors.
There was some black plastic pipe routed in the ceiling, that said "Sears Best" on it. It might have been added by flight test.
It had a lot of flight test equipment as well as ballast tanks so that water could be pumped around to shift the weight.
Electronic equipment was still less than reliable then. On one of the first flights, the New Inertial Navigation system shut down (all three systems) while out over the Olympic Peninsula, and the crew had to use the "Whisky Compass" which was a ordinary magnetic compass that folded down from over the windshield. Obviously, they found their way home to Everett.
So, can I patent using f/8 to take photos? How about all the other apertures?
I have my own product photography light table setup, maybe I'll file for a patent.
The precedent set is that we could have almost every aspect of photography lighting patented, since it does not seem to matter if its been done for 50 years, or 100, for that matter.
A certain patent examiner needs to find honest work.
Are any of them now tall enough to use without putting the center column up and losing most of the anti vibration effects needed in a tripod?
I guess that when all cameras have tilting lcd's, we won't need tall, but for now, I want something to bring my camera to eye level and still be stable enough to use for a long exposure.
I like the new scene, it gives me the option to compare so many parameters of the cameras.
For example, the colors and saturation of the Fujii X-M1 are darker except for the blues where they are lighter. I'd think this could be fixed in post processing, so its a question as to just how much correction of the image is done.
One of the sad things is the loss of high tech. Kodak had a wonderful research team that invented some very innovative things.
The problem was that management could not see their potential and the need to pull out all the stops to develop them, not believing that film sales would drop like a rock. Almost any photographer could have told them what was going to happen.
Another sad loss was Bell Labs, the patents, research, and inventions are now done in China.
My First Digital Camera was a Fujiifilm MX-700 that I bought in 1998. 2.2 mp, and for the time was among the best. We had a Olympus C-860L? A battery eater, but it was a great camera.
I replaced the Fujifilm with a Nikon CP-990, and later with the first Canon Rebel DSLR.
A few years ago, I bought a used Kodak DCS460D from 1995. Its original $35,000 price was out of ordinary mortal reach, but I paid $100.
There are a lot of Mirrorless Cameras hitting the market. Those with new lenses are a concern because a DSLR owner would have to keep two different but expensive lens systems.
This is going to cause some fallout. Companies are going to drop some models or even systems. The micro 4/3 systems have a nice advantage, lots of different lenses that fit cameras from different manufacturers, so even if a manufacturer drops micro 4/3, there are still makers in business.
Cannon has obviously been hurting with their "M" system, and have flooded the market with low priced deals in order to buy a share. We'll find out in a couple of years or sooner if that strategy works.
Photo-Wiz: I just tried ACDSEE Pro 6. It purports to be non-destructive of the original image. But when I did a Clone on one Jpeg, it made a permanent change to the original image. Is this non-destructive?
Yes, it saves the original in a sub folder, so you have twice the amount of disk space used. Not very efficient.
Fortunately, you can turn it off. I use ACDSEE for jpegs only when I am working on a quick and dirty image, like a craigslist photo and don't want the original version around.
I'm wondering if voters voted on a camera they own, or just on specifications. I've owned two of the three top contenders.
Opinions are fine, but sales would be a indication of people who actually vote by plunking down their hard earned dollars.
shaocaholica: Is front/back focus really an issue with the lens? Generally speaking of course. I don't see how a camera with perfect sensor registration, perfect AF sensor registration and perfect viewfinder screen registration would front/back focus with any lens. The AF module keeps turning focus until it sees light in phase at the given focus point. Can someone explain how the phase detect AF module would think its in focus while the image projected on the sensor would not be in focus and all this the fault of the lens?
When using phase detect, the camera body calculates the proper position for the lens to be in focus and tells it to go there. If the lens goes to some other point, there is front or back focus. Accurate AF depends on the lens moving to the focus point as directed. When they do not, its a problem.
I suspect that the reason for the narrow text column is due to those using a phone or other narrow mobile device to read it. It would be nice to have the option for a wider text column.
Many of the other posts have already hit on the high contrast. I changed mine to yellow, but its really the high contrast and not the color that gets me.
Scales USA: I am a bit concerned. Some of their conclusions regarding lenses just do not seem to be valid.
Like all others, they test lenses mounted to cameras, and then, only a small sample. The lens to lens variation and camera to camera variation leaves me wanting a real test of a lens. I am interested in seeing more information about their testing, but the single resolution figure for a lens on their site leavs me wondering.
I am hoping that they obtain the technology to first properly adjust a lens before testing it, as well as test a significant sampling. Otherwise, its just one data point, and not worth making a big deal out of it.
I'm certainly reserving any opinion until I have a chance to see a few reviews and compare the results with other lens testers. I'm glad to see that your widget will be used, and that DXO will be testing more than one sample - 10 or more from different lots would be nice, but, as long as samples are not from tha same production lot, its better than just one. Also happy that someone will provide expert commentary and a real world test of reasonableness. That is lacking in the current setup.
I am a bit concerned. Some of their conclusions regarding lenses just do not seem to be valid.
Vetteran: Who cares? Really. What a frivolous post and insignificant product. Pathetic.
I'd like to see more like this, Barnaby. There is a shortage of decent reviews of camera bags.
I'd also like more information about camera / lens combinations that will safely fit.
InTheMist: Kinda reads like a brochure, but I'm glad PW has some competition.
Its not that I do not appreciate the review, its just that the tone strikes me as being a bit more like a advertisement than the actual technical content. I know its difficult to write a review that suits everyone (from experience), so just consider it as a well intentioned bit of input.
This reads more like sales hype than a review. What types of tests were run? Has it been tested with all flash units, or just one? A test plan that others can reproduce would make it more convincing.
I somehow do not get much of a feeling of confidence in the product from the review.
Keep trying though, something is better than nothing at all.
Sergey Borachev: This is the EOS-M killer!!
This is exactly what is needed by all those Canon owners who have been waiting for a Canon mirrorless camera and who are now giving up on Canon releasing anything worthwhile any time soon.
This Kipon adapter will allow all Canon EOS lenses to be mounted and therefore also stabilised on the Olympus E-M5, since a builtin IBIS should work with any lens.
Who is still going to buy the Canon EOS-M at $1000 apparently for the camera plus the Canon adapter now? How can such a basic camera sell? It was released apparently to target Canon owners who have Canon lenses, since no new buyers will buy such a camera, but this adapter is going to make it very hard to sell even to Canon owners.
What it does is adjust the iris. You still have manual focus. You can already get a old FD lens with iris ring and manual focus to mount on your NEX body. That has not killed Canon, why would this hurt them? Their big profit is in the lenses.
thisisjh: I need viewfinder viewfinder viewfinder....
I call a camera with no viewfinder a point and Hope!