Jacques Cornell

Jacques Cornell

Lives in Kazakhstan Almaty, Kazakhstan
Works as a photographer
Has a website at jacquescornell.photography
Joined on Jul 13, 2002
About me:

I co-founded event photography company Happening Photos in New York and serve clients around the world. I also shoot, print, exhibit and sell fine art travel & landscape photos.

Comments

Total: 167, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

RyanBoston: Why would they use a 70D? Is this a promotion for the camera?

"It's with only purely electronic shutters ... that one doesn't need to try to avoid over-using the shutter."

That was the point of my ironic "question". I shoot mirrorless and do all my landscape work with e-shutter for zero vibration. Pretty soon, mechanical shutters will seem quaint.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 08:44 UTC
In reply to:

RyanBoston: Why would they use a 70D? Is this a promotion for the camera?

"It ... significantly reduces the aging of the mechanical shutter."

What is this "mechanical shutter" of which you speak? ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 08:19 UTC
In reply to:

RyanBoston: Why would they use a 70D? Is this a promotion for the camera?

Menneisyys,
If you want real shadow and highlight detail, the way to go is a 5-frame 1-stop exposure bracket for each shot and merge to HDR. Shooting time wouldn't take appreciably longer, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to do post on that.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 06:51 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 offers 4K video article (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

pocoloco: If it just had image stabilazition...

This is the real advantage of OIS over IBIS - compatibility with high-spec video.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 04:36 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 offers 4K video article (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Verhoeven: "4K Pre-burst records 60 images right before or after release of the shutter."

Huh?

It's the new Tachyon Shutter feature.

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2015 at 17:04 UTC
On Metz mecablitz 26 AF-1 Quick Review article (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

tongki: AAA cells ???

This is considered as a TOY

Size and power don't make something a "toy". I use a 2-AAA flash (Metz 28 CS-2) in my professional event work all the time for grip & grins during cocktail hour. It's one of my all-time favorite flashes because it fits in a shirt pocket and - in tandem with my pop-up flash - gives me off-camera key with fill. At 1/16 power balancing with low ambient light, recycle is instant, and I can shoot 5 frames as fast as I can press the shutter button.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2015 at 06:54 UTC
On Metz mecablitz 26 AF-1 Quick Review article (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

Calvin Chann: Owning several brands of mirrorless cameras, it would have been really nice to have one gun fits all. Oh well.

Alpha - Not a safe assumption. Many small TTL flashes lack an autothyristor mode altogether. Even the very appealing and mid-range Nissin i40 can be use in auto only on-camera, not off-camera.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2015 at 06:43 UTC
On Metz mecablitz 26 AF-1 Quick Review article (70 comments in total)

Lack of swivel is a major handicap. My preferred alternative for the same price is Metz' own 28 CS-2, a slave-only flash you can mount next to the camera or, better yet, hold in your left hand, and trigger with your camera's pop-up flash. It's got five auto and manual output levels going down to ISO 1600 @ f4. This is my "studio in a pocket", providing off-camera key light and on-axis fill.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2015 at 06:38 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

ImagesToo: Quite well explained except for one major mistake. You talk about sensor size as being important. It is only part of the story. The real issue is pixel size. A FF sensor with 4 times as many pixels as a 4/3 sensor is identical in noise performance as each pixel is now only 1/4 the area so it captures the same amount of light.

The other thing which has been omitted is that because of shot noise a raw file only contains about 250 levels of brightness for a pixel which is what a jpg file has. Virtually all the extra information in a raw file is nothing more than digitised noise. You can do the calculations quite easily remembering that noise is the square root of the number of photons.

I used to believe the ideas in the first paragraph, but the consensus of experts now seems to be that sensor size, not pixel pitch, most affects the noise level.

As for the second paragraph, a JPEG has 8 bits of luminance data per pixel. This represents 256 levels of brightness. OTOH, most RAW files contain either 12 or 14 bits of data, which equals 4096 or 16384 levels. Whether this full potential is actually reached, I don't know. But, I think pretty much everyone agrees that RAW files provide highlight recovery and can withstand shadow lifting and tonal stretching far better than JPEGs because there are more levels available.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2015 at 03:36 UTC
In reply to:

DStudio: The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.

However, we still have another problem, in that much of the media is more interested in a story then the truth. And much of the general public - as well as juries themselves - fail to view such video clips with common sense. The whole incident, situation and context must be taken into account. This problem goes back at least as far as the Rodney King incident, where people ignored the fact that King refused to pull over for 20-40 miles, driving at high speed under the influence, and was a big man who then charged officers just as a person under the influence of PCP would. The police had to use batons because their use of firearms (and even tazers now) is restricted. King's skin color and last name made it sound worse.

But the Texas law is an AWFUL response to the public's lack of discernment. There's no place for it!

wetsleet wrote:
"Did you read the First Amendment?"

Did you? And, did you understand it better than the Supreme Court does? Are you such an esteemed Constitutional scholar that we should take your word for it that the Supreme Court has been wrong for decades in repeatedly affirming that the First Amendment protects speech and photography is speech? I might not agree with the Court always, but I'm certainly going to take their word over yours.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

DStudio: The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.

However, we still have another problem, in that much of the media is more interested in a story then the truth. And much of the general public - as well as juries themselves - fail to view such video clips with common sense. The whole incident, situation and context must be taken into account. This problem goes back at least as far as the Rodney King incident, where people ignored the fact that King refused to pull over for 20-40 miles, driving at high speed under the influence, and was a big man who then charged officers just as a person under the influence of PCP would. The police had to use batons because their use of firearms (and even tazers now) is restricted. King's skin color and last name made it sound worse.

But the Texas law is an AWFUL response to the public's lack of discernment. There's no place for it!

dark goob wrote:
"Please quote me the line in the Constitution where it says 'You have the right to take pictures of cops.'"

Please quote me the line in the Constitution that says "You have the right to be a Catholic." Go ahead.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 09:13 UTC
In reply to:

DStudio: The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.

However, we still have another problem, in that much of the media is more interested in a story then the truth. And much of the general public - as well as juries themselves - fail to view such video clips with common sense. The whole incident, situation and context must be taken into account. This problem goes back at least as far as the Rodney King incident, where people ignored the fact that King refused to pull over for 20-40 miles, driving at high speed under the influence, and was a big man who then charged officers just as a person under the influence of PCP would. The police had to use batons because their use of firearms (and even tazers now) is restricted. King's skin color and last name made it sound worse.

But the Texas law is an AWFUL response to the public's lack of discernment. There's no place for it!

"Actually there is no constitutional right to shoot pictures of cops."

The Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment protects the rights of citizens to photograph anything that is readily visible when the photographer is standing in a public place. This right can be abridged only when there is a compelling public interest at stake.

One such public interest exception is that in the exercise of their First Amendment rights, citizens may not interfere in the performance of their duties by law enforcement officers. Pretty much everywhere in the US, there are already laws against such interference, so the new Texas law criminalizes something that's already criminal - interference - and something that shouldn't be - recording from within 15' even when this does NOT interfere. Furthermore, the law may effectively outlaw recording from ANY distance, since a photographer 100' from the scene could be forced to stop if an officer approaches within 15' of him.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 08:05 UTC
In reply to:

jeffc1: Draconian?
If someone is within 15ft they are likely getting in the way of the police officer trying to do their job.
DPReview should stick with reporting the facts and stay out of making editorial comments/conclusions.

Problem is, if an officer approaches within 15 feet, you have to stop recording. In effect, he can force you to stop recording from ANY distance simply by continuing to approach you.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 07:47 UTC
In reply to:

whumber: That seems really cheap for a new top of the line geared head. Isn't the current version 480 GBP?

EDIT: Seems like the load capacity is pretty low at 4KG.

This replaces the 410 Jr., the BOTTOM of the line.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 05:29 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: Since Manfrotto heads and tripods are cheap, that means the effort needed to turn those adjustments will be noticeable. Check how your hands feel after cranking those knurled knobs a dozen or so times. This is why I'd never own a tripod with circular leg tighteners, they KILL the hands after a while.

I find the 410's resistance a bit heavy, but not the problem you describe. However, people with arthritis in their hands or wrists might have trouble with a 410.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 05:27 UTC

I don't know why DPR describes this as a "heavy-weight" head for "weighty" equipment. It replaces the 410, which was always Manfrotto's smallest, lightest geared head, and it holds no more than 9lbs. Also, the XPRO is clearly designed for weight savings, not tank-like construction, and for use on lighter tripods.

Yea! Finally, a geared head for hikers and walkers.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 05:25 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

Digitalis32: As a manfrotto 405 user here I have to say I'm disappointed they chose to "update" the 410 first with all that ...plastic. They can say whatever they want about engineering plastics but I'm not sold on using them to stabilize and secure $10,000 dollars worth of photographic equipment on. Also manfroto: your tiny QR platforms defeat the purpose of using a heavy tripod head in the first place. I'd rather have a broader QR plate that spreads the weight out evenly and has enough mass to help dampen vibrations than a small one that is going to be prone to vibration and easily misplaced.

As a 410 owner and Micro Four Thirds shooter, I welcome this as a 410 replacement. I often leave the 410 behind due to the weight when I go out to shoot outdoors. I've long thought it would be useful to have a lighter geared head for such use with small cameras. And now it's here. Yea!
If you want a heavy head or need bigger plates, there's the 405, which might suit you better than the 410 anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 05:18 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Review preview (485 comments in total)

DPR, would you please include info about the aspect ratio of EVFs? Just reporting the total EVF pixels tells us little about the appearance of 16:9 video and 4:3 stills.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 12:02 UTC as 18th comment
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Review preview (447 comments in total)
In reply to:

thxbb12: That's a shame DPR didn't show a comparison of the EVF size compared to other models (Sony RX100 III, Panasonic LX100 and some other MFT bodies).
It's difficult to gauge how small it is compared to a "regular" MFT body (E-M10, GX7, etc.).

You could say the same about sensors...😄

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2015 at 20:24 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Review preview (447 comments in total)
In reply to:

thxbb12: That's a shame DPR didn't show a comparison of the EVF size compared to other models (Sony RX100 III, Panasonic LX100 and some other MFT bodies).
It's difficult to gauge how small it is compared to a "regular" MFT body (E-M10, GX7, etc.).

Yes, a graphic showing the relative apparent sizes of EVFs, similar to those comparing sensor sizes, would be very helpful.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2015 at 03:39 UTC
Total: 167, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »