TylerBreeden

Joined on Sep 27, 2012

Comments

Total: 84, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mikethephotographer: Further to this, also look at D.13 of the agreement: You grant us and our affiliates a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any data, content, and other information made available by you or on your behalf in connection with your use of our Platform. This license survives even if you stop using the platform feature.

Long story short, these rights grabs are a huge overreach. This ruling needs to be challenged at a higher court, further to this is photographers globally should join their respective photo organizations if they want fair representation to combat these invasive and unfair claims against our work.

What about the clause that says a photo is no longer sub-licensable if it’s deleted off the platform? Are these new terms or do they apply differently?

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2020 at 23:47 UTC
In reply to:

locke_fc: I just love how all of the most popular replies choose to side with the two big corporations instead of the photographer. Weird, callous times.

Instagram should definitely change these terms that allow third parties to use photographers' work for free.

Are you saying that views of that embedded image didn’t count as views or “metrics” on her IG profile? That, to me, is where the rubber meets the road, because people are willing to give up rights to their photos on IG, purely in exchange for exposure—so if further exposure occurs via an IG imbed, then as long as it’s view is reflected in the photographer’s metrics, it’s hard to see their case in this instance.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2020 at 23:45 UTC
In reply to:

camerosity: Really cool to see Canon adopting the new HEIF/HEIC image standard that Apple adopted for the iPhone. Seems like its finally time to move away from JPG. Wonder if Nikon can introduce a firmware update for their latest cameras to do the same. HEIC uses much less space than JPG and offers better image quality to boot!

This is the biggest new feature on this camera, imo. I would love to see an HEIF/HEIC option become standard on all new cameras from every manufacturer. Why has JPEG continued on this long anyway? Im pretty sure the last 3-4 generations of Intel and AMD processors (and the ARM processors used in smartphones) have in-built support for HEIF/C files.

They’re either the same size with 10-bit depth, etc., or they’re half the size with the same old 8-bit sRGB glass tube television technology.

If people still want to shoot in JPEG, fine, but using a real camera and lens combination shouldn’t penalize you with lower bit-rate files (and larger sizes) than the phones you take with your cellphone.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2019 at 21:04 UTC
In reply to:

apsc4ever: Lol the sony fans are like mosquitoes squatted against the front of a B-52 Stratofortress.

Why do moderators even approve comments like this? Can’t we pretend every once in a while that the photography community isn’t made up of six year-olds who peg their self worth and pride to a favorite box of toys? In fact, if I had a six year-old I’d probably expect a little more out of him or her.

This comment would probably be funny if commenters on this site hadn’t proven themselves to truly be this petty and immature. Mosquitos stuck to a B-52? XD

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2019 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: New Photograph Samples from these new Sigma Lenses hereby:

45mm f/2.8 image samples
http://qicai.fengniao.com/535/5357221.html
35mm f/1.2 image samples
http://qicai.fengniao.com/535/5357219.html
14-24mm image samples
http://qicai.fengniao.com/535/5357220.html

Real Size of the Sigma ART 35mm F1.2 Lens onto the A7 III, and the "sexy" 45mm F2.8 into Comparsion:
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Fengg.jpg
As everyday lens, the Contemporary 45/2.8 Sigma does make a great look on a A7 Series Body. (A7 III on the picture)

Links found via SAR. ;)

Good Light, and a fine Sunday.

In some shots the 35mm f/1.2 looks like it was shot in fluorescent light. The green tint to the skin and colors are a bit odd. I definitely don’t think this is the lens... just some funky light.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2019 at 14:01 UTC
In reply to:

rjx: I remember back when Sigma and Tamron were nice alternatives, but had quality control issues (especially Sigma).
Now days, Sigma and Tamron makes great, very reliable, quality alternatives to the Canon / Nikon / Sony offerings. especially the Sigma Art lenses.
The Sigma Art line should NOT be overlooked.

I believe the transition that Tamron and Sigma (especially) have made is even more dramatic than you suggest. If you put Sigma’s Art lineup against Canon or Nikon’s DSLR lens equivalents, at many focal lengths Sigma makes the best performing lens, period. Where there are exceptions, like the Canon 35mm f/1.4 II, the margin is really quite small—and Canon’s price is almost double what Sigma charges. There are also focal lengths that neither Nikon or Sigma make as fast as Sigma (14mm f/1.8). And Canon’s 50mm f/1.4, a pretty common lens, isn’t even in the same league. Sigma bests both Canon and Nikon with their Art primes more often than not.

So, in my opinion, I would be more likely to choose a Sigma prime than Nikon or Canon’s option—even with price taken out of the equation. Unfortunately, Sigma is aware that they can charge more for their lenses now, and the “bargain” pricing is going to start slipping away. You can that with the recent 28mm and 40mm lenses and the new 35mm f/1.2.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2019 at 13:57 UTC
In reply to:

David610: I have the SP 35mm F/1.8 Di VC USD Model F012. It is half a stop slower, has a 67mm filter size, weighs 450g, Macro magnification ratio 1:2.5, 78mm length and Vibration Compensation. My copy is really sharp. I don't know why half a stop brings so much bulk and reduced function?

An f/1.8 lens is 2/3 of a stop slower than f/1.4. I agree that the price you pay is disproportional to what you get, but for many people that 2/3 stop seems to be worth it.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2019 at 13:07 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Last time I listened to Lenny Kravitz was twenty years ago.
It ain't over 'til it's over.
So he is still alive. Good.

Jesus cares about him.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2019 at 13:41 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 100 pre-production sample gallery (160 comments in total)
In reply to:

PictureTakerPhotoMaker: Mhh. Must be fun like driving a Porsche within city limits at 15mph.

Or said differently - guys, these images can be taken with a smartphone, time to step up your game of test shots with such a camera!

Photographers can be such petty creatures...

Link | Posted on May 23, 2019 at 08:07 UTC
In reply to:

turvyT: This lens seems like an outstanding lens (comparable to the best Leica glass) and the pictures in the Ricoh/Pentax webpage observed at full resolution are just amazing. But let's not forget that it's not only the lens, but the camera behind, the great K1, the two factors responsible for that top high quality. Despite dpr and despite many Pentax haters who have never tried one.

Who hates Pentax? It’d be like getting angry at a sloth for being slow or taking up too much space. Sloths are unique and beautiful creatures. They’re also pretty harmless as far as I can tell. I’m sure they get into fights occasionally. I’m sure there’s a sloth somewhere that’s badly scratched another sloth during a “fight.” But they seem quite peaceful. And they’re doing something right since they aren’t extinct yet...and don’t at least 1,000 species of animals and or plants and insects go extinct every day? Can anyone imagine if the sloth went extinct? Or Pentax? Look at their new lens. It exquisite. It’s also unbelievably ugly, sort of like a sloth. It’s so ugly that you can’t help but like it, especially with such an incredible “inner self.” You can’t judge anything by its cover except for covers I guess. Pentax makes nice cameras. They’re kind of like how Subaru used to be. Quirky, lovable, unique and well made.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2019 at 10:41 UTC
In reply to:

photomedium: The lens that nobody will buy for the camera no one uses. Perfect.

@(unknown member) What’s a “pseudo-photographer? Someone who takes photographs but has no memory card or film to load? :/ Images are all taken while hopped upon real day-quill? I feel bad for this guy or girl photographer.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2019 at 10:17 UTC
In reply to:

57even: I really don't think phones are the primary cause for the decline in the ILC market, except possibly at the volume end. This will have a disproportionate impact on total units, but less impact on net income.

The fact is, sensor tech has plateaued. A 6 year old DSLR is still a useful device, so unless it is broken, there is no incentive to upgrade. Since 2012, the major changes have been sensor AF tech and high read-out rates, primarily for mirrorless cameras and video. IQ has not really changed appreciably.

So, if people only upgrade high-end cameras when they wear out, and the volume market is declining, it is hardly surprising that ILC sales have nose-dived.

However, if people upgrade less frequently, they can also afford to invest more in each upgrade. Lower volume, but higher net-income per unit. Back to the 1970s.

ILCs will not die, but the current business model will.

Cameras aren’t a durable good. They aren’t like a pair of overalls or gloves. They are a lot like luxury cars. Is there any necessity for luxury cars to exist? Nope. But innovation, new features, status, the excitement of being able to go faster/take more photos per second, etc. drives sales. A luxury car can be used as “A to B” transportation, but that’s rare (unless you live in Florida or Arizona). A camera can be used a an image creation device capable of sufficient resolution and color, but that’s also rare. Look at all of CaSoNikon’s L or GM or “gold ring” lenses. A cheaper version can do the job for much less. But the super expensive lesnses still sell. Is the a9 *necessary* or is it an exciting leap, capable of new things, that has some useful qualities, also? The carefully maintained Toyota Camry of the Camera works is a D90 that “still takes great images.” Which is fine, but get on eBay and see what the market thinks it’s worth, and you’ll see what really drives the industry.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2019 at 04:03 UTC
In reply to:

ttran88: It’s only going to get worse folks.

Yes, the motto and model for cable “news,” and it can be applied to everything, even one’s outlook on life.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2019 at 03:51 UTC
In reply to:

User3366538285: 99% of "photographers" shoot and display photos for Instagram. All you need for Instagram is a 4 years old iPhone.

And 99% of people don’t buy art, print their photos, dedicate time to learning about photography, etc. Photography has never been a mass movement. Capturing an image on the fly with no though dedicated to the process per se, and done only to remember a moment, isn’t photography. It’s taking a snapshot. There’s some crossover, but they are two different things.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2019 at 03:46 UTC
In reply to:

aftab: Not surprising. Two big boys didn't release any DSLR during or before the holiday season. They can't add anything interesting at this stage. And MILC is the only trick left and it has its limits.
Smartphone and matured technology are the killers.

Everything has its limits. Almost every trick a smartphone can pull, a company like Sony can execute with a larger sensor. They sells their own smartphones and photo sensors to many other smartphones makers.

The photo industry has been slow, and in the case of some companies, absolutely opposed to change. That almost never, ever works in any industry. You innovate or you don’t exist. What Zeiss has shown us with their ZX1 prototype is just the tip of the iceberg WRT what’s possible with “cameras.”

Cameras will loook different and function different, but there will always be a market for them, no matter what smartphones do. Photographers *want* to own cameras—it’s part and parcel of the hobby/profession/pursuit. And a smartphone will never be as good a camera as a dedicated camera. The rules of equivalence work there as well, in a more abstract way.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2019 at 03:42 UTC
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: Here's what's ironic: the smartphone has taken over the photographic world largely due to usability and practicality winning out over absolute performance specs. Obviously larger sensor cameras with all sorts of options and lenses will outperform a smartphone camera.

Yet in the world of camera reviews and camera nerds (and I proudly count myself as one of them), what do we do: we still focus on those features that have proven to not matter to most or move the market, namely esoteric tech specs, and tend to ignore what does move the market, which is ease of use, simplicity, ease of sharing, etc.

So we obsess over a half stop of DR, or what type of 4K video, when the vast majority of people don't know and don't care about all of that. They say give us something easy to use and fun.

@Zdman What you’ve said isn’t true. Sony created the new the type of camera that is driving growth right now. And now everyone except Olympus and Fuji have jumped aboard. Where would we be today has that innovation not taken place? If the last five years had just been more DSLRs with a few new features, I think the numbers and trends would look a lot worse now.

Sometimes companies (in any sector) can create new demand by creating an exciting product. Industries don’t ourely live and die in a vacuum. Canon sees digital camera sales cut by 50% in two years... and I bet that will become their reality. They are a company driven by committees and focus groups.

Video, as it’s been implemented by every manufacturer (beside Canon) is a huge driver of sales. YouTube basically prints money for Google. In a sense, that’s where TV is actively heading.

Canon can starve their “photo cameras” of video features and write their own obit, but will only apply to them.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2019 at 03:34 UTC
In reply to:

BostonC: It's like BM bought all the Fisher-Price cams from ToysRus close out and paint them black.

I’ve always thought Arri’s digital cameras looked like Fisher-Price designs. Not in a cheap way, but how large and simple and clear the buttons are laid out. The weird colors too. Of course what it is ends up influencing how you see it, and if you’ve spent time shooting with an Arri you’ll think I’m on crack. But first impressions, I thought big, simple toy. Best looking large sensor camera? Maybe an F55, with matching crazy expensive batteries that match the chassis. The Varicam isn’t bad. DVX-200 in a Ford Fiesta ST sort of way. Oh, wait, the Venice. Sony, like them or hate them, have always (decades and decades) had the best *looking* stuff on whole. Their Trinitron TV’s were untouchable. Their remotes were always leagues better. Their stereo components, walkmans, discmans, you name it. Even the cheap, crappy receivers they make now, *look* good. Anywayyyyy

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2019 at 03:15 UTC
In reply to:

Zoom Zoom Zoom: :
All these grips look horrible. They all look like a box below the camera instead of properly designed stock integrated body. Is just a box, absolutely horrendous and amateurish.. all of them. On top of that this completely defeats the purpose of this being a compact "pocketable" camera (that was already poorly designed to start with). Now its just pure non-sense.

What else could/should a battery grip look like besides “a box below the camera”?

There’s the look of Blackmagic products, and there’s the function.

Looks matter to *some* degree to most people, though it varies widely. I personally think BMD products started out great—simple, clean and minimal—but now look almost comically Eurotrash.

However, cameras are tools above all else, and I can’t remember “looks” ever meaningfully factoring into a ratings breakdown. What hasn’t changed with Blackmagic, from their first camera until their latest, is the incredible image quality they deliver for the money. There have been (and are) issues, delays, fixes and more delays—but absolutely nothing comes close to what you get for $1,300. The software alone was always priced at $1,000, and it would still sell well at $1,000. The camera simply has no equal. You must treat it like a professional tool, and have the knowledge to get the results, but there’s almost no project at any budget it couldn’t do.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2019 at 03:00 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: These lenses weren't created for amateurs or still photographers. While they can easily be modified for EOS mounts, they all come with PL mounts. You have to wonder why any amateur or still photographer would buy these lenses but I suppose it is still nice to have that option.

Obviously.... there is big money in cinema lenses. And nice profit margins too. So Canon is shoring up their bottom line by creating more products for very high end users. You really have to give Canon credit for doing something that smart.

Djdn

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2019 at 11:12 UTC
In reply to:

QuarryCat: and these glasses are coming for EOS RF too?
1.4/20 mm
1.4/24 mm
1.4/35 mm
1.2/50 mm already
1.2/85 mm announced
2.0/135 mm? No 1.8/135 mm for extender use???

so, beside 1.4/20 mm - business as usual - nothing to wait for - for me.

Sony’s new top end Venice takes E-mount lenses, as does its FS5 and FS7, as well as the FS700. Considering the Loxia line, and Sony’s new GM lenses, it seems like a smart way to go. It’s actually the reason I went with an FS7 over the F5. You can always put a sturdy PL mount on a mirrorless mount, but not the other way around. I’ll be really surprised if the C300 III doesn’t use the RF mount. Well, knowing Canon, take out the “really.” :)

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2019 at 10:41 UTC
Total: 84, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »