nixda

Joined on Jul 20, 2011

Comments

Total: 107, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Donnie G: The a6500 certainly appears to be an excellent EVF equipped, compact APS-C, ILC, at least on paper. Whether or not it can actually do well sales-wise against other APS-C cameras, such as Fujifilm's X-T2 / X-Pro2, Canon's 80D / 7D II, Nikon's D7200 / D500, and others within a couple of hundred dollars of the a6500's $1400 MSRP point is what will determine its success as a "high end" APS-C ILC for Sony.

Sony wants this camera to slot in above the a6300, but if they have to start discounting the camera's price within 3 to 6 months of launch in order to sell it, then all they will have done is created an a6300 replacement. As always, time will tell. Let the games begin. :))

@DNE: the standard Fuji kit lens is the "18-55mm F2.8-4 OIS". OIS stands for "Optical Image Stabilization"

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 00:35 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (814 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nikonandmore: It's a great camera, I just wish was full frame MF. These interim sensor formats like the Leica S, make no sense. And I still don't think it's made by Hasselblad. Someoene else makes it for them for sure.. and the new lenses too. And let's not forget by the time you attach MF lenses to this "small" compact body, it will be a large package.

And can someone explain to me why every imaging product now-a-days is always Xs, Ds and 1s? It's trully appalling the lack of marketing imagination. How many people necessary to come up (and approve) a camera with the name X1D? Hysterical..

The sensor is from Sony; the lenses are from Nittoh.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 12:56 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (814 comments in total)
In reply to:

zodiacfml: Finally, it happened! I also don't see any deal breakers for now except for its image quality.
I don't feel medium format image quality in the sample images. It still doesn't compare to a Phase One IQ180 with a CCD sensor.

The sensor is from Sony; the lenses are from Nittoh.
oops, wrong post I replied to...

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 12:55 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1188 comments in total)
In reply to:

jwilliams: Interesting. It seems to me the real opportunity lost here is not making the sensor a SQUARE format. This would be much more interesting if they had made the vertical height of the sensor same as the horizointal. More coverage adapting existing MF lenses and finally a camera that can ALWAYS be held in one orientation. Since they weren't trying to mimic an old film format this would have been the perfect chance to do this.

Someday a camera manufacturer is going to figure out digital cameras should have square sensors that cover the whole image circle of the lens. I'll be the first in line regardless of the make when this happens.

Um, cover the whole image circle? How so?
Rectangular formats have the advantage of covering more area in the horizontal direction than a square sensor could. As long as photos are printed/viewed predominantly with a non-1:1 aspect ratio we'll continue to see rectangular sensors. Square sensors are mostly reserved for technical applications.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 16:09 UTC
In reply to:

nixda: As usual, whenever there is a report like this, many comments are from people who dismiss a technical achievement, because they believe they would not be able to make use of it or don't need it, and extrapolate from that that nobody else wouldn't or even shouldn't need or want it either.

Someone using only consumer-type cameras to snap pictures of their kids would likely not need a sensor like this one. But as a scientist, I am excited about the myriad possibilities in microscopy and related fields where high-resolution imaging plays a major role.

Stop thinking "what would this thing do if it was in my dinky P&S camera?", and ask instead "what possibilities would this thing open up?". Of course, it would mean that one would be willing to look beyond one's dinky P&S camera. And capable too.

@Erir: that's fine: I was only commenting on some of the responses here that are clearly from people trying to figure out whether this piece of technology would work in consumer-type cameras, whether they would find it useful, and concluding that they are not interested in it and then diss the whole story as irrelevant and ludicrous. It happens all the time, with any story really, because there are many people who cannot or are not willing to see beyond their little sphere.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2015 at 16:20 UTC
In reply to:

nixda: As usual, whenever there is a report like this, many comments are from people who dismiss a technical achievement, because they believe they would not be able to make use of it or don't need it, and extrapolate from that that nobody else wouldn't or even shouldn't need or want it either.

Someone using only consumer-type cameras to snap pictures of their kids would likely not need a sensor like this one. But as a scientist, I am excited about the myriad possibilities in microscopy and related fields where high-resolution imaging plays a major role.

Stop thinking "what would this thing do if it was in my dinky P&S camera?", and ask instead "what possibilities would this thing open up?". Of course, it would mean that one would be willing to look beyond one's dinky P&S camera. And capable too.

Eric: the departments in these companies may or may not communicate with each other. Canon's sensor-development division certainly works independently of the other departments on a lot of projects. This particular project may have nothing to do with the consumer camera department, just like Canon's high-ISO sensor that was announced a few weeks ago. It's possible that they are not putting in a lot of effort into their consumer sensors, but that is probably a different story and not related to the one here. But as mentioned, just because DPR reports on it seems to indicate to a lot of people that it's about consumer cameras, when that may not be the case at all.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2015 at 15:19 UTC
In reply to:

nixda: As usual, whenever there is a report like this, many comments are from people who dismiss a technical achievement, because they believe they would not be able to make use of it or don't need it, and extrapolate from that that nobody else wouldn't or even shouldn't need or want it either.

Someone using only consumer-type cameras to snap pictures of their kids would likely not need a sensor like this one. But as a scientist, I am excited about the myriad possibilities in microscopy and related fields where high-resolution imaging plays a major role.

Stop thinking "what would this thing do if it was in my dinky P&S camera?", and ask instead "what possibilities would this thing open up?". Of course, it would mean that one would be willing to look beyond one's dinky P&S camera. And capable too.

@Cane: With no word did I state or imply that what I referred to is the most important application of photography. It is ONE application.

So wipe the foam off your mouth and continue taking pictures of your loved ones.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2015 at 14:42 UTC
In reply to:

nixda: As usual, whenever there is a report like this, many comments are from people who dismiss a technical achievement, because they believe they would not be able to make use of it or don't need it, and extrapolate from that that nobody else wouldn't or even shouldn't need or want it either.

Someone using only consumer-type cameras to snap pictures of their kids would likely not need a sensor like this one. But as a scientist, I am excited about the myriad possibilities in microscopy and related fields where high-resolution imaging plays a major role.

Stop thinking "what would this thing do if it was in my dinky P&S camera?", and ask instead "what possibilities would this thing open up?". Of course, it would mean that one would be willing to look beyond one's dinky P&S camera. And capable too.

@Cane: a typical response from someone who thinks taking pictures of kids is the pinnacle and sole purpose of photography.

@Eric: who says this sensor is meant to go into consumer-type cameras? Perhaps some very specialized ones down the road, but there is much more to photography than the digital cameras that we typically use every day. One of the problems is that, just by virtue of DPR picking up a story like that, people assume it's about consumer-type digital cameras. Technical sites are full of such reports, and nobody would start bickering about megapixel-races and how big and expensive such a sensor would make a P&S camera, because people know that a lot of photography technology is meant for applications other than taking pictures of cats.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2015 at 14:18 UTC

As usual, whenever there is a report like this, many comments are from people who dismiss a technical achievement, because they believe they would not be able to make use of it or don't need it, and extrapolate from that that nobody else wouldn't or even shouldn't need or want it either.

Someone using only consumer-type cameras to snap pictures of their kids would likely not need a sensor like this one. But as a scientist, I am excited about the myriad possibilities in microscopy and related fields where high-resolution imaging plays a major role.

Stop thinking "what would this thing do if it was in my dinky P&S camera?", and ask instead "what possibilities would this thing open up?". Of course, it would mean that one would be willing to look beyond one's dinky P&S camera. And capable too.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2015 at 13:09 UTC as 76th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: So?! Again, like in Sony's case, just the sensor, no matter how spectacular, is not enough to make a camera. Regardless the brand.

When you say "camera", what do you mean? A consumer-type camera one takes out on a Sunday morning to take pictures of one's kids? or a camera mounted to a fluorescence microscope to take pictures of sub-millimeter protein crystals? Anything else?

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2015 at 12:57 UTC
In reply to:

fz750: The French MEP who proposed the changes, and who said that no one has ever been prosecuted for copyright infringement in the countries that have no Freedom of Panorama should be reminded that not all countries are like France (who selectively apply laws..) and will certainly follow the law to the letter...

We've been dancing for a while now. The music is getting a bit boring.

You say "For works in public space, the copyright doesn't exist, so you can do with the pictures what you want without asking for permission, because there is nothing to ask for."

I say "Copyright does exist, and permission needs to be obtained if one wants to do certain things. For works in public space that permission is already explicitly given, so you don't need to ask anymore".

The result is the same: one doesn't need to ask for permission in either case. The difference is that there is a formal consent in the second case, whereas there is no formal consent in the first.

In other words, you are saying that once a copyrighted object is in public space, the reason to ask for permission (copyright) goes away. I say, once a copyrighted object is in public space, the reason stays but permission is automatically given.

Neither one of us is going to budge on that fundamental distinction, so let's just stop.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 13:37 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T10 Review (497 comments in total)

I highly recommend having the comments here read by your computer. Lean back and enjoy! It's just totally hilarious to listen to all that "Sony is better, Panasonic is faster, Fuji has the best lenses, you suck, no you suck, you have no idea what you are talking about, mine is bigger", and so on.

I would suggest an obnoxious military-style voice. Also try a sultry female voice for extra kicks.

Highly entertaining!

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 03:47 UTC as 73rd comment | 2 replies
On article Fujifilm X-T10 Review (497 comments in total)
In reply to:

jkrumm: That two-headed dog deserves a gold award.

I see three heads even :)

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

nixda: As a scientist, I was immediately intrigued by this sensor and could think of a myriad of applications in various types of microscopy.

I find it annoying that many people here think, because they don't have a use for this type of device, nobody else would have a use either. And then there are even those who think that nobody else SHOULD have a use either. How narrow-minded and ignorant.

@Martian Keyboard: Low light really just means low intensity. It's like taking a picture through an ND filter or with very short exposure time: the scene is the same in terms of color as one with a longer exposure time, just darker.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 04:11 UTC

As a scientist, I was immediately intrigued by this sensor and could think of a myriad of applications in various types of microscopy.

I find it annoying that many people here think, because they don't have a use for this type of device, nobody else would have a use either. And then there are even those who think that nobody else SHOULD have a use either. How narrow-minded and ignorant.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 13:28 UTC as 13th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

fz750: The French MEP who proposed the changes, and who said that no one has ever been prosecuted for copyright infringement in the countries that have no Freedom of Panorama should be reminded that not all countries are like France (who selectively apply laws..) and will certainly follow the law to the letter...

Thank you for finally looking things up - and supporting my point (although you just don't want to see and/or admit it).

Copyright not being infringed, and copyright not existing are two entirely different things.

If the law specifically points out, as you so nicely quoted, that copyright isn't infringed in certain cases, then copyright must still exist ("... COPYRIGHT in such a work is not infringed."). If copyright didn't exist, the law would state that quite clearly.

So, to convince me of your stance, you would need to find a passage that states that guardians/owners/etc. of " buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public" LOSE the copyright (and that nobody else will assume that copyright).

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 12:54 UTC
In reply to:

fz750: The French MEP who proposed the changes, and who said that no one has ever been prosecuted for copyright infringement in the countries that have no Freedom of Panorama should be reminded that not all countries are like France (who selectively apply laws..) and will certainly follow the law to the letter...

@fz750: The copyright very much existed before FoP, as well as in countries that do not have FoP. The countries that adopted FoP have simply made an exception, in certain cases. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_copyright: "exceptions to copyright are provisions in copyright law which allow for copyrighted works to be used without a license from the copyright owner."

Thus, the copyright still exists; it has never been abolished.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 23:08 UTC
In reply to:

fz750: The French MEP who proposed the changes, and who said that no one has ever been prosecuted for copyright infringement in the countries that have no Freedom of Panorama should be reminded that not all countries are like France (who selectively apply laws..) and will certainly follow the law to the letter...

Copyright laws restrict the use of images. FoP is an exception to said copyright law in that it gives people the permission to use these images. Without FoP people would not be allowed to use these images. Therefore, FoP is an active permission for something that wouldn't be allowed otherwise.

There is a big difference between an activity that is not regulated and assuming that it is permitted by default, compared to an activity that is not permitted by default but for which permission has been granted.

The consequences appear to be the same, namely that one can engage in the activity. But whereas in the latter case, the situation is quite clear (there is formal consent, aka, permission), the situation for the former is ambiguous and unresolved: there is no formal consent but it's also not formally forbidden. Usually, courts make up their minds about previously unregulated activities when someone files a suit. Until then, it's unclear.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

fz750: The French MEP who proposed the changes, and who said that no one has ever been prosecuted for copyright infringement in the countries that have no Freedom of Panorama should be reminded that not all countries are like France (who selectively apply laws..) and will certainly follow the law to the letter...

Regarding permission already in place: I am just going to copy text from Wikipedia: "Freedom of panorama (FOP) is a provision in the copyright laws of various jurisdictions that permits taking photographs and video footage and creating other images (such as paintings) of buildings and sometimes sculptures and other art works which are permanently located in a public place, without infringing on any copyright that may otherwise subsist in such works, and to publishing such images".

Do you now finally get that FoP provides the permission you deny exists? Without that provision, or others like it, full copyright laws would kick in instead.

Regarding Google Photos, you had obviously confused the regulations for Google Plus with those for Google Photos.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 14:31 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Some impressive insults here. Spin this as you like; the idea is that if the person taking the picture manages to make money from it, somebody else wants that money. You see, the folks who own skyscrapers are having trouble making ends meet but you, the photographer, can help.

Just as stock photos create a revenue stream, helping Gates and Getty put food on the table.

That copyright law applies only to buildings/art that have deliberately and expressly been photographed as primary subjects. So, in fact, you do have a choice.

If you happen to "accidentally" point your camera at the Eiffel Tower at night, and it occupies the entire frame, then you may have a problem. So, be careful where you point that thing!

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 00:22 UTC
Total: 107, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »