Dave Oddie

Lives in United Kingdom Chester, United Kingdom
Works as a IT
Joined on Jan 23, 2002

Comments

Total: 493, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Zoom Zoom Zoom: :
425 employees gone? And they were doing what exactly? And how many remain and those, and equally doing what? I didn't even know Kodak exists for any purposeful reason aside from lending their name to cheap Chinese camera manufactures and even cheaper 3rd party products branding. For this you need about 1 employee.

Instead, they could do themselves a favor and bring back Kodachrome that for some few crazy people (like myself) would still throw some cash at them just for that.

There is no other world company that better exemplifies the result of 2 decades making the wrong decisions can lead to than Kodak. They should have long been renamed Godak, then Wentdak, and now they are definitely nothing more than Gonedak.

"425 employees gone? And they were doing what exactly? "

I always wonder this when large scale redundancies are announced at a company. Have they been sat idle for months producing nothing? I doubt it.

Laying people off is the go-to action for companies to try and convince their Masters (the stock market analysts) that they are taking action. It's quick and easy to do compared to having to sit down and work out how to tackle the underlying issues.

They feel compelled to do it though. If they didn't their Masters would not look kindly on them. Ride out the storm? Ask employees to take a temporary pay cut? Too hard. Not decisive enough for their Masters!

I can remember HSBC in the UK laying off 1000 people a few years ago (before 2008) after making £2bn profit because that was lower than expected. They had to be seen to be doing something so they sacked a few people. That's stock market led capitalism for you.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 14:25 UTC
In reply to:

Lea5: People still print? My last printed magazine I bought was in 2008.

It's funny but for me personally only photography has a viable web alternative to print magazines. Even things like magazines on Linux or Windows 10 are stuffing the shelves in the W H Smith bookshoops in the UK. Subjects you would think are more than covered online.

I can't remember when I last bought a paper photographic magazine but I have and do buy paper magazines on other subjects/hobbies and there are literally loads of them available so others must be doing the same.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 14:17 UTC
In reply to:

Koeitje: Leica should work on digital backs. Right now it feels weird paying extra for the quality while the tech will get old real fast. The same can't be said for the A9's en 5D's of this world, because they provide class leading performance.

In the days of film you could always make the case at the technical level for Leica. The "sensor" i.e. film like Kodachrome 25 was equal in all cameras. Nikon, Pentax and of course Leica.

So the results at the technical level were determined by the quality of the lenses compared to similar rangefinder cameras from other makers such as Contax and Voigtlander.

It's only since the "film" you use in a digital Leica become inferior and is soon obsolete the excuses have had to be made.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 18:31 UTC
In reply to:

CaPi: A choice of the heart rather than the mind..
In a world of decent camera offerings and feature madness not to be overcome by the masses of computer aided smartphone photography
A choice that i can only applaud - not follow

" You need to think whether your photographic skills are up to a camera like this -"

Nonsense. You can say exactly the same about buying a high megapixel pro-level FF DLSR. They are also harder to get good results with and so that is not unique to Leica. Doesn't stop people buying them though does it?

I am sure there are plenty of people buy Leica's just like there are those who buy Ferrari's simply because they can. Not because they are David Bailey or Lewis Hamilton in disguise.

"Need" doesn't come into it and if top results are your goal there are easier ways to get them. Which is probably why so few pro's shot Leica's and why I think anyone who says there is a lack of emotional motivation for buying a Leica is kidding themselves.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 18:23 UTC
In reply to:

Darkroom_Fine_Art_Pro: As a person who ownes a lot of gear across several formats including the new D850 and the M10, I am happy to see this is his pick of the year. Early in my career, I would scoff at the price and limitations of Leica M cameras and the main reason was....I could not afford them. But when looking through issues of Nat Geo in the 80’s and 90’s there was simply no denying the amazing richness the images had when compared to their SLR counterparts.

So 11 years ago I had a project that I finally considered Leica for and had plenty of money to spend on it. I went for a simple M6 and 35mm F2 and could not believe the difference in the slides I was looking at, they had so much more presence. And the thing was just so smooth, so everything I needed and nothing I did not. That is exactly what the M10 is, what features it does have are well implemented and with a lens like the 35mm 1.4 FLE, the images simply stand out to me....

"For those who don’t understand Leica..."

What is there to understand? I presume you don't mean "how to use" but something else such as the experience of shooting with one or the results?

It's a handmade camera so costs a fortune, is extremely well built and so to behold the workmanship is bound to inspire pride of ownership. However I find the notion in the digital era that the output is equally esoteric hard to swallow. You could stick a Leica lens on a Sony A7 series and get better results.

I am always reminded of the old Leica postal photography club where members sent prints around for comment. Someone slipped in a few shot on a Nikon. Got loads of comments about typical Elmarit output or whatever. I am convinced you could do the same with digital.

As to the user experience, there is something to be said for a stripped back approach but I am not aware of any others cameras that provide this but I am sure one could be made that did for 1/10 of the price.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 18:09 UTC
In reply to:

Gesture: The whole idea is that RF photography invites the world in versus "targeting" it with SLR. And in a traditional sense, most always quieter, less intrusive. Yes, long lens on one hand or macro on the other need SLR. Otherwise, RF wins hands down.

Back in the days of film I don't think this was true. Olympus made the OM series such as OM1,2,3 & 4 and the shutter and mirror on my old OM2 made a quiet sortof 'phut' sound. They were physically small cameras and Oly made some very small prime lenses that would allow you to assemble a very unintimidating outfit.

You also had Pentax with the MX and ME which were even smaller SLR's

I have never understood the need of physically huge DSLR's . The old film cameras were not only full-frame (obviously) but had much more mechanical gubbins inside than a modern dslr does.

Some dslrs have been small but not FF ones. Sony's original SLT, the A55 was small and fuji and oly today make small camera but they are not FF.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 17:51 UTC
On article Phase One introduces Capture One ambassador program (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

SarahTerra: IMO the main tangible advantage in C1 is that shadow/highlight/clarity filters produce significantly less halo than lightroom does when pushed to extremes, which is quite a feat!
I generally expose correctly to begin with, so...

Realistically, only if you have a significantly blown exposure does C1 offer an advantage. Otherwise lightroom seems superior, particularly for brush edits. For instance C1 has no dehaze filter and they don't even have correction support for all Nikon lenses, this alone can cause hours of wasted time.

C1 shows promise but im not ready to get on the hype train yet. I think many feel C1 is an advantage because their pictures come out "different" so they think this will differentiate them from the sea of lightroom users with some sort of edge in post...

Personally, id rather let my photography skills do that.

If you are an amateur that relies heavy on post processing, you may feel differently.

By next year though, C1 could catch up so ill revisit then.

Coincidentally I started playing with C1 Pro (for Sony) the other night. My first thought was contrary to what seems to be popular opinion that it is not as good as LR for highlight recovery. Felt I could extract more highlight detail in LR.

Now before anyone jumps on me that was my initial impression after very limited use and I am going to delve into it some more but as an amateur I value speed of being able to get done what I need over the ability to do immensely complex PP. Which is why LR met my needs over a full featured editor like Photoshop. I also try and get the exposure right but I often don't yet LR offers me quick corrections for the ones I don't.

Maybe I am not the intended market for C1 Pro but it's quite cheap for a Sony shooter to buy so what the heck, I will give it a go.

I will say though even with about four hours of using it I am impressed with the colour and detail it give me from my A77 raws. The built in profile for that camera works well it seems.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 17:11 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: Panasonic G9 "SH" max fps burst rate:

■ for sports action shooting ...

lasts up to ~max 50 shots*
@ 60 fps ~ 50/60 = max 0.83 seconds duration burst window
@ 20 fps ~ 60/20 = max 2.5 seconds duration burst window

*max 20.2mp compressed raw rw2 (12-bit? or 14-bit?**)

**Panasonic did not explicitly state raw image compression specs

"People buy 400 f/2.8s for the DOF."

Now that has got to ne one of silliest comments I have ever read on DPR. It is not a portrait lens and narrow D.O.F is mostly a disadvantage to sports and wildlife photographers. They want things in focus and not just the eyes of the bird!

Sports and wildlife photographers use F2.8 lenses so they can get a faster shutter speed to freeze the action. The fact a narrow D.O.F that comes with it is a pain in the neck.

This Panasonic lens is aimed at them and by dint of its F2.8 max aperture is going to let you shoot at these faster shutter speeds to freeze the action while having greater D.O.F . A win-win.

Now as to the price.....it's still physically an F2.8 200mm lens so it seems way OTT price-wise.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 14:10 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (769 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: No EVF (or option thereof) and no IBIS and these aren't listed as negatives? Why not?

With regard to IBIS I know many Canon lenses have stabilization built in but a lot do not and the competition is starting to combine in-lens and in-body stabilization.

As regards lack of EVF, I know it's not just Canon who pops out a mirrorless camera lacking an EVF these days but each time this happens whoever makes it I am mystified as to why.

What is your point NicoPCC? The point I was making is I fail to understand why a manufacturer (any manufacturer) releases any mirrorless camera without an EVF these days (or at least the option to plug one in if they want to keep the camera small) .

The fact Canon makes a different camera with an EVF is neither here nor there.

As to lack of IBIS I think Canon, Nikon and Fuji's stubborn resistance to it is totally outdated and should always be listed as a "con" in any review.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 21:19 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (769 comments in total)

No EVF (or option thereof) and no IBIS and these aren't listed as negatives? Why not?

With regard to IBIS I know many Canon lenses have stabilization built in but a lot do not and the competition is starting to combine in-lens and in-body stabilization.

As regards lack of EVF, I know it's not just Canon who pops out a mirrorless camera lacking an EVF these days but each time this happens whoever makes it I am mystified as to why.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 20:25 UTC as 79th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

daqk: Low ISO seems improved however some of us might care more above 1600 which it seems went downhill a bit.
To me usually I find myself in more struggles at higher ISOs.
At the end of day, it depends on what is needed ... rather than what is provided to us by Sony's new R3.
Overall, I might get R3 for certain other benefits when I can justify, but in this particular area I am nurtural.

So why are you making measurements from cameras on or off for different length of times if you think the length of time on or off is significant?

It is basic science to equalise the variables. If you have not done that, your tests are worthless.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 23:48 UTC
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: "The D850 is able to tolerate as much total exposure as the medium format Fujifilm GFX 50S, as we showed here. That's what allows one to get unbelievably crisp, 'medium format-like' like files from a Nikon D810 (just zoom in to 100% on that shot and tell me you're not impressed)."

I presume the 810 is a typo and was meant to read 850 but the question I have is if the maximum pixel DR for the 850 is 13.78 and for the A7III it is 13.63 are we to believe that difference, which is 0.15 of a stop, is the difference between the 850 producing "crisp, 'medium format-like' like files" whereas the Sony can't do this?

What is the magic DR number that gives us "crisp, 'medium format-like' like files"?

"They aren't suggesting any number does that".

They are talking about the DR at pixel level in the context of the 850 delivering medium format quality images. This is with a third of stop more light (ISO 64 on the 850 v ISO 100 on the A7III) yielding a difference in DR of 0.15 of a stop. There is a clear implication in the text that it is this measured performance of the 850 that gives this quality to the images it produces also implying this minuscule difference prevents the A7III from doing so.

If that is not the intention or the case the text is ambiguous., if they really are suggesting this I find it hard to believe this difference is significant outside of a lab or explains the difference.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 21:11 UTC

"The D850 is able to tolerate as much total exposure as the medium format Fujifilm GFX 50S, as we showed here. That's what allows one to get unbelievably crisp, 'medium format-like' like files from a Nikon D810 (just zoom in to 100% on that shot and tell me you're not impressed)."

I presume the 810 is a typo and was meant to read 850 but the question I have is if the maximum pixel DR for the 850 is 13.78 and for the A7III it is 13.63 are we to believe that difference, which is 0.15 of a stop, is the difference between the 850 producing "crisp, 'medium format-like' like files" whereas the Sony can't do this?

What is the magic DR number that gives us "crisp, 'medium format-like' like files"?

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 16:53 UTC as 82nd comment | 7 replies
On article What you need to know about Sony's a7R III (622 comments in total)
In reply to:

cdembrey: All I need to know is that it is Full Frame. Full Frame = BIG/Bulky/Heavy lenses. With the advances in sensor and lens technology you can make 40"x60" prints with a crop camera.

" When I attach my Tamron 150-600 to the A99ii it weighs over 6 lbs so I never use it without a tripod or monopod. "

As you are a Tamron lens fan you could use the newly announced lightweight 100-400 on an A77II and have something that is portable. Same range as your 150-600 on the A99II

I myself just picked up a mint Minolta 100-200 F4.5. It's tiny and very sharp wide open. While a tad long at the short end on APS-C my standard zoom has that covered anyway. Far lighter than your kit yet with 75-300 and much better quality than a one inch sensor particularly as soon as the light goes even slightly.

The point I am making is APS-C is easily portable enough if you put the right lenses on the camera.

You can make any format a pain the lug around, even M 4/3 if you forgo lenses like the 45mm and 16mm F2 primes for some daft F1.2 beast.

The fact Sony has come out with a lighter 24-105 in e-mount makes a nice change from the current trend of super heavy fast lenses.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 15:22 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 comments in total)

Is there a prize for getting the correct number of straw man arguments in this ridiculous article?

The first one:

"To benefit from consistent access of your entire library from every device, as well as AI features to help you manage, search, curate and more (a la Google/Apple Photos), you'll want to go with Lightroom CC."

Why assume people want to use LR for that? Tablets and phones are for viewing not editing for the majority and most people I know who use a cloud based service such as Google to provide photo viewing are showcasing the final product there, AFTER it's been edited. There are many several other similar arguments and outright assumptions of what Adobe will do in the future.

The funniest line is this though:

"Much more likely - and this is just my opinion (and suggestion to Adobe) - would be CC simply offering an option to 'Disable cloud storage. "

How about enabling cloud storage in LR standalone as an option?

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2017 at 11:09 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1628 comments in total)
In reply to:

John Banister: For people who like photo editing software without the cloud, the last version of Picture Window Pro is available for free.

I have used it for years but a bit like a lot of photo editors especially photoshop it does far more than I need. I have rarely had to use its advanced features and this is why Lightroom is/was such a success. It has just about enough editing features to correct the common issues our photos often have. A bit of cropping, the spec removal along with exposure, contrast and sharpening.

PW Pro is set up as an external editor for LR but is rarely used.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 14:35 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1628 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ozstl: I actually love the new Lightroom CC. Before you call me a novice, I can use Lightroom. I take over 10’s of thousands of photos per year. On several 100 I do advanced processing. On the rest they really don’t need much. I love the new clean functionality and the fact that everything is synced across all devices. It is great.
I also don’t mind paying for cloud storage. If you really take a lot of photos, you have drawers full of hard drives. If I add up what I spend on hard drives the subscription is nothing. Have you ever had a harddrive fail? If not you will. The cloud is the answer.

Finally, good software takes money to develop, support and improve. If you don’t want to pay it don’t. But revenue is what causes companies to invest and make products better. For those who want free or cheap, then you have those options.

Great product.. Will keep getting better.

If you lose the ability to pay for your cloud storage then it fails.

For that reason it is just as much a single point of failure as a hard drive. The sensible approach is to keep your images locally but use the cloud as backup. If for whatever reason you can't access the cloud backup down the line you have lost nothing but the backup and can seek an alternative.

Put all you eggs in the cloud basket and if it goes, you are completely stuffed. Your approach is not remotely sensible (pardon the pun). Adobe have you over a barrell and can hike the price or simply go bust and you are screwed.

As to paying for software who has suggested Adobe give away future versions LR standalone for free?

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2017 at 19:37 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1628 comments in total)
In reply to:

FlipUpFlipDown: Talking of alternatives:

- I wanted to download a Trial of Capture One. BUT, I had to register even just BEFORE downloading!

- Then I downloaded an installed Corel AfterShot Trial. BUT, when opening I had to register BEFORE I could use the Software!

Both of this is a NO GO for me! Only for testing Software I DON'T want to register anywhere beforehand!!!

- After a little google'ing I found Cyberlink PhotoDirector which I COULD download AND test WITHOUT having to register!

Looks quite nice! Quite similar to LR5 too... I think I'll give it a try...!

I just tried to use a trial of acdsee and that lasted five minutes. Once installed you are asked to register for a user account. I don't have one with them so filled in the form and it kept telling me the email address was invalid as if it was checking my details against their existing user database. If they can't even get using the trial right then that does not bode well for the subsequent experience.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2017 at 19:28 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1628 comments in total)

When LR came out I thought brilliant, sensibly priced software backed by a big company. Got to be a safe move from what I was using (Imatch) which was developed by one person. How wrong was I !!

I have worked in software developement myself for 35 years. The O/S on the hardware sold today (HP NonStop servers, formally Tandem) will still run software I wrote all those years ago. Corporate users demand this and would never stand for what Adobe is doing here. So called legacy systems still do lots of work.

Adobe can get away with this because most users are not of the size of Lloyds Bank but are individual pro or amateir photographers who on their own, lack clout.

Personally I think Adobe should be the subject of a class action due to effectively taking away the ownership of images unless you keep paying. It's blackmail in my book. There is a difference between a subscription model for software and having to subscribe to access your own assets, the images.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2017 at 19:11 UTC as 54th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: Who says 36x24mm is the only valid definition of "Full Frame"? I thought real portraits were taken on 6x4.5cm at the very least, which is a much fuller "Full" Frame than poxy old 135.

And why, when a 50mm lens is attached to an APS-C sized sensor, do the muppets say it's "75mm equivalent", when they never call a 50mm lens on a Hasselblad 6x6cm camera, "25mm equivalent".

It's time to get over this endless drivel on "Full" Frame vs "the rest". EVERY camera is FULL FRAME for the format it employs.

Brian

I agree. The arrival of digital sensors was a missed opportunity to go back to first principles and decide on a size and format (ratio). There was nothing that said FF should be 24mmx36mm. That format in itself is an accident of history being derived from 35mm cine film out of convenience more than anything.

We use 24mmx36mm not because it's a particular ideal ratio but because the big players had a lot of investment in lenses in 35mm film systems.

Only Olympus which didn't have a large inventory of 35mm AF lenses took a step back and looked at what the sensor size should or could be. Hindsight may say they chose too small a sensor but they did look at this from the ground up and used to say there sensor was "full frame".

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 14:37 UTC
Total: 493, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »