peterwr

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Works as a Webster
Joined on May 10, 2004

Comments

Total: 294, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Zaax: If you love this kind of stuff you really need to see Koyaanisqatsi (1982).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085809/?ref_=nv_sr_2

Can't see any mention of Philip Glass, though, sadly...

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 22:24 UTC
In reply to:

Zaax: If you love this kind of stuff you really need to see Koyaanisqatsi (1982).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085809/?ref_=nv_sr_2

Interestingly, Godfrey Reggio is listed as an executive producer.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 22:21 UTC
In reply to:

I own 128 cameras: They finally ran out of camera scams that they decided to get into phone scams instead.

I was at NAB the year they announced the RED 1 for $17,500 and started taking $1,000 reservations for a camera that would be delivered in 6-9 months. Turned out to be more like 3-4 years.

Then there was the guaranteed to be under $5,000 professional all in one camera called EPIC. It was going to produce stills and 4K video and would be between $3,500 and $5,000.00. Well, that died a slow death when the Canon 5D Mark 1 came out.

Now a cell phone for $1,600 made out of titanium with no details on anything except the screen and the graphics chip. This won't happen. There will be plenty of people who will reserve one, and pay the final price of nearer to $3,000, or it will get dropped all together.

I said it in the beginning, I'll say it again. Snake Oil.

>>
But do you really believe the sensor in a REDproduct is worth the $50K the body costs, not to mention when you get it home it doesn't work until you spend another $10K minimum?
<<

No (though I'd hazard a guess that an 8K sensor is a hellish expensive beast). But then there's a lot more to a professional camera body than the sensor, just as there's a lot more to a professional shooting kit than the camera and lenses. $50K for a body is not that steep in the context of pro movies; the cut-down Arriflex 435 came out at £110K body only (without even a magazine) and people still went for it in enough numbers to make it viable. Production companies - proper, non-cheapskate production companies - are willing to pay the money to hire this kit and (more importantly) the people who can use it.

And as for Panasonic "showing you could do it for $2,000", the same argument applies: the camera body is necessary but not sufficient to make movies.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 22:58 UTC
In reply to:

I own 128 cameras: They finally ran out of camera scams that they decided to get into phone scams instead.

I was at NAB the year they announced the RED 1 for $17,500 and started taking $1,000 reservations for a camera that would be delivered in 6-9 months. Turned out to be more like 3-4 years.

Then there was the guaranteed to be under $5,000 professional all in one camera called EPIC. It was going to produce stills and 4K video and would be between $3,500 and $5,000.00. Well, that died a slow death when the Canon 5D Mark 1 came out.

Now a cell phone for $1,600 made out of titanium with no details on anything except the screen and the graphics chip. This won't happen. There will be plenty of people who will reserve one, and pay the final price of nearer to $3,000, or it will get dropped all together.

I said it in the beginning, I'll say it again. Snake Oil.

> The real point... they are famous for over promising and under delivering.

They may overpromise - what hype-dependent company doesn't (*cough* Apple *cough*)? But that's never stopped people buying their products (or indeed, Apple's). And if they *consistently* under-delivered, they'd have long since gone down the pan. RED has become a industry standard because they give people a lot more than they need for the money they pay.

I'm sure the Super-Mega-Holophone - whatever form it eventually takes - will be well worth having for the people it's aimed at, even if those people are not thee and me.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 08:30 UTC
In reply to:

I own 128 cameras: They finally ran out of camera scams that they decided to get into phone scams instead.

I was at NAB the year they announced the RED 1 for $17,500 and started taking $1,000 reservations for a camera that would be delivered in 6-9 months. Turned out to be more like 3-4 years.

Then there was the guaranteed to be under $5,000 professional all in one camera called EPIC. It was going to produce stills and 4K video and would be between $3,500 and $5,000.00. Well, that died a slow death when the Canon 5D Mark 1 came out.

Now a cell phone for $1,600 made out of titanium with no details on anything except the screen and the graphics chip. This won't happen. There will be plenty of people who will reserve one, and pay the final price of nearer to $3,000, or it will get dropped all together.

I said it in the beginning, I'll say it again. Snake Oil.

5D Mark 1 didn't have video.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 21:54 UTC

Nice to be able to use more types of cards, but I'm guessing ultimate write speed is not too much of an issue of you're shooting a Leica M. ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 20:04 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Donnie G: I'll say this, Canon sure knows how to throw a 30th birthday celebration for their EOS camera system. Everybody gets presents, mirrorless and DSLR bodies, Cinema EOS bodies, and unique Canon lenses everywhere. Sony even volunteered to light the candles on the cake. Happy 30th Birthday EOS! 😎

<< full frame, crop and mirrorless still to come. >>

Don't you mean 'full frame and crop mirrorless'?

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 21:39 UTC
On article Nikon reshuffles management structure (248 comments in total)
In reply to:

wakaba: My phone killed my Nikons. It's networked, does 4k, raw and lasts 1day and costs 500$. I will not buy a Nikon FF anymore. I however would buy a networked, 4k, raw MF body running Android with mirror or mirrorless with glaslrism and as usable as a BlacKmagic cinema. That is worth to me 1000$. Restructuring is just a shuffle and means squat to me as a consumer. Change your product now or die.

<< Really? Maybe the OPs skills are so good that they can achieve what they want with just a smartphone camera? >>

Or maybe so bad that they don't notice the difference... ;-)

I'm all for smartphone photography, and I don't doubt that it can be very good in the appropriate context, and even usable professionally - Tim Clinch has just done an entire cookbook on one, for instance. But if someone is taking photography sufficiently seriously that they need the facilities of a DSLR, they'll likely notice the difference in quality too.

If *you* don't, wakaba, then fair enough - a DSLR is not for you. But then

<< MF and 4-8k and none of what they have today. And they need to come down witheir pricing....massively. >>

probably isn't either. :-)

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 12:32 UTC
On article Nikon reshuffles management structure (248 comments in total)
In reply to:

tomjar: I know zero about corporate management and I know Nikon is involved in different areas of industry. I can only comment as a consumer of let's say cheaper "prosumer" cameras. I have been on a lookout for new cameras to replace my two Nikons, D5000 and P7700 (an exchangeable lens camera and one highly capable and versatile compact camera), since more than a year now. I don't have money to throw around and for trying out this and that. I would love to stay with Nikon since I don't like changing platforms if not necessary, but I don't think I will be buying another Nikon anytime soon. It will be a Panasonic mirrorless camera and a Canon compact instead, most likely and soon.

To me Nikon's decisions in the "prosumer" segment (except for the DSLRs) over the last years look like those of a headless chicken. South Park episode Margaritaville comes to mind...

<< "Prosumer" is a contraction of producer/consumer >>

That's one of its meanings, true - mostly if you're a Toffler/McLuhanite academic - but in the context of photography and photographic equipment it very definitely means "suitable for, used by or encompassing professionals and consumers". To state otherwise is simply at variance with common usage.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 12:16 UTC

Interesting that this thing isn't getting nearly as much hate as a new Monochrom would. And it's ten times the price and only double the resolution.

There's nowt so queer as folk...

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 21:33 UTC as 21st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

jon404: Oh, I wish I had $55,000 to spend on a camera! This Phase One is very, very appealing...

Ten times the price of a Monochrom for only twice the resolution? I'd have the Monochrom and a few lenses myself.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 21:29 UTC

Nice, but needs to be carefully used and the range of material it can be applied to seems quite narrow. The wave disappearing into the surf at around 4:00+ is spectacularly unconvincing, for example.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 08:24 UTC as 4th comment
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (783 comments in total)
In reply to:

GEONYC: Because this lens is a 35mm. I got excited when I read it was a 23mm, then I saw it was
actually a 35mm, because most people write: 23mm (35mm at 35mm Equiv.), more or less. I still don't get why the industry and you guys don't just write, for example,
35mm APS-C/DX. HUH? Wouldn't it be more clear.

The shorthand "35mme" (for Equivalent) is a lot neater, imo. For added clarity, one could write "23mm (35mme)".

... but as an old skool photographer, I really don't see the need. Nobody ever referred to the lens on a Rolleiflex as "45mm equivalent", we just looked through the camera, saw that it would do the job and got the hell on with it.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 07:41 UTC
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1908 comments in total)
In reply to:

mxx: Only 24 megapixels? It's 2017, Sony!

I knew that. :-) But I thought the point was worth making.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 23:59 UTC
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1908 comments in total)
In reply to:

mxx: Only 24 megapixels? It's 2017, Sony!

Interesting that several manufacturers seem to be converging on 24MP. It looks to be emerging as the sweet spot for resolution vs dynamic range vs noise.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 23:50 UTC

Anybody know what the actual image size is? 60x60, maybe?

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 11:11 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (904 comments in total)
In reply to:

peterwr: The best reason for using medium format is because it impresses the client, and they give you more money. Unless you're shooting posters or billboards, the resolution gain is neither here nor there. The ISO invariance thing is getting interesting, though...

Hi Rishi

Well, yes; that's why I said it: experience. :-)

Clients - especially in fashion and advertising - love that stuff. Expensive cameras, big lights, multiple assistants (especially young, good-looking female ones) running to and fro... Naff all to do with the results, unless it's a big shoot, but it makes them happier about the budget. ;-)

I'm sure the GFX is a lovely camera (or will be, once the rough edges get sanded off - I tried one recently) but in the end an 810/5D is more than sufficient to take perfectly good pictures.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 07:31 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (904 comments in total)

The best reason for using medium format is because it impresses the client, and they give you more money. Unless you're shooting posters or billboards, the resolution gain is neither here nor there. The ISO invariance thing is getting interesting, though...

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 22:35 UTC as 92nd comment | 2 replies
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (904 comments in total)
In reply to:

MICHAEL_61: This review is flawed on three obvious counts. First, when talking about IQ it fails to mention the unique MF look advantage which sets this camera above anything with a smaller sensor. Second, it fails to mention the better colours in RAW which set this camera above most FF ones. Third, it fails to mention that quite a number of excellent lenses can be used on it with the adapter, for example Canon 85/1.2 or 200/1.8, or Sigma Art 35/1.4, or 120-300/2.8 even with a 2x TC. No AF with those of course, but useful in lots of real life situations and a big thing in favour of adding it to your existing system. So one would still keep one's Canon or Nikon for sports, using Fuji with same lenses for studio, landscapes, etc.

@piratejabez: << Tell us more about the "unique MF look advantage." >>

That's when you make the client look good because you're packing an MF camera, and he gives you more money.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 22:26 UTC
On a photo in the Nikon D500 Sample Gallery sample gallery (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): Lens seems to have some issues if you look at he woman. Some near-double edges, a sort of odd blooming. The guy looks fine.

I think it's just a crap copy of the lens - at least, I hope it is; I'd hate to think they're all this bad. If you look at the other 16-80 shots, you'll see they consistently have good definition in the centre and are truly appalling at the sides and corners.

Any comments, DPR staffers?

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 22:14 UTC
Total: 294, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »