dash2k8

dash2k8

Joined on May 13, 2010

Comments

Total: 910, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

dash2k8: "...banking on the fact that Leica is perceived as a luxury brand versus other big camera companies like Nikon and Canon."

Only in yesteryears. Today, the above sentence needs to have "luxury" replaced with "overpriced and niche" to make sense.

Absolutely. Leica of old was a legendary brand. The modern offerings are like bad sequels to a good movie.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 07:51 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: "...banking on the fact that Leica is perceived as a luxury brand versus other big camera companies like Nikon and Canon."

Only in yesteryears. Today, the above sentence needs to have "luxury" replaced with "overpriced and niche" to make sense.

I think Benz and BMW are luxury car brands in that they cost more but also offer more in terms of comfort and performance. Red and Arri cameras are luxury items in a sense that you pay a premium for their quality when "lesser" cameras like Panasonics and Sonys will definitely suffice, so there's that. I don't think the same could be said of Leica's cameras today, which is why I wrote "only in yesteryears." Nowadays Leica's cost and performance are not remotely relevant. You just pay a lot for a red dot.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 03:17 UTC
In reply to:

zaqfalcon: Nobody 'goofs off' with an A7R II and Sony 16-35mm F4 lens in a Nauticam housing with a Sea and Sea 240mm dome and two Sea and Sea ys-d1 strobes.

Notice I mentioned the rich guy (neighbor) was goofing around. He wasn't making serious video, so your story of the dying man is completely off the mark, I'm sorry. Even he admitted he only bought it because it was a pro-level item, not because he wanted to make pro-level videos (sort of like photo ignoramuses buying top-of-the-line DSLRs because, well, just because). Unless he suddenly started making a movie or documentary of his kids (which he was not), the EX1 was way overkill. That's like you buying a Sony a9 and shooting 20fps pics of your cats. Waste of money or heartfelt investment?

My comment was just a response to the OP's message that some people do goof around with expensive gear. If a rich person wants to blow it on poor buying decisions and is happy about it, more power to him.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 00:18 UTC

"...banking on the fact that Leica is perceived as a luxury brand versus other big camera companies like Nikon and Canon."

Only in yesteryears. Today, the above sentence needs to have "luxury" replaced with "overpriced and niche" to make sense.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 22:34 UTC as 10th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

zaqfalcon: Nobody 'goofs off' with an A7R II and Sony 16-35mm F4 lens in a Nauticam housing with a Sea and Sea 240mm dome and two Sea and Sea ys-d1 strobes.

I know a rich guy who goofs around by taking videos of his kids at the park with a Sony EX1. Complete waste of money but some people can afford it. *shrug*

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 06:48 UTC
In reply to:

stevenbrantley: I have seen seahorses being BBQ'd on a street vendor's grill in South Korea. is that "tragic"?

They do it in other Asian countries, as well. I don't think I'd ever eat one.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 06:47 UTC
In reply to:

genrxr: News flash for the person who said this is so tragic!

Did it ever occur to you that maybe this Seahorse life is much better off because it found that Q tip?

It found a way to anchor itself while travelling and using little energy.

The much more damning and dangerous and well, I will call it tragic, is to elevate a ocean critter to the level of a human being.

Humans actually work to make the oceans better. I do not ever recall a Seahorse working to make the environment better for all man/animal kind!

The world we live in today is much better than it has ever been. Start cracking down on socialist/communist countries like China that pollute and it will be even better!

Idiots.

I'm not sure if the original message was sarcasm because it's really loaded.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 06:47 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: Some modern works, especially video, purposely breaking these rules to create more distinctive (though not always "better") shots. That's the problem with everyone adhering to the rules: sooner or later everything looks the same and it's harder to be creative. Beginners learn the rules, but pros/experts/seasoned veterans constantly look for ways to break out. Sort of like little kids, at first you teach them to talk and walk, then it becomes shut up and sit down.

@BrightSide, indeed, once you master the rules, it becomes boring to abide by them all the time. Noobs have to learn them, old hands think of ways to break them.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 10:03 UTC
In reply to:

BRPWS: is this new format also bringing in raw files and changing them the new format? If so how is the raw file itself protected or is it simply destroyed?

I think HEIC is like JPG and GIF and BMP and TIFF... Just another file format.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 00:52 UTC

<deleted>

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 00:50 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Kung Fu: Rules can only be followed in photography that has the leisure time to allow for more control. None of these can be applied to much street photography where the convergence of a scene is literally found and then over a half second later.

Which is why capturing that magical street scene is even more fulfilling and requires more luck and on-the-fly adjustments.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 00:49 UTC

Some modern works, especially video, purposely breaking these rules to create more distinctive (though not always "better") shots. That's the problem with everyone adhering to the rules: sooner or later everything looks the same and it's harder to be creative. Beginners learn the rules, but pros/experts/seasoned veterans constantly look for ways to break out. Sort of like little kids, at first you teach them to talk and walk, then it becomes shut up and sit down.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 00:46 UTC as 50th comment | 5 replies

Way cool story!

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 22:06 UTC as 69th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

tongki: You can take "a good shot" with a cheap lens and body with flash compare to using an expensive body and lenses without flash

I hear you now, and I agree that using an expensive lens is not get-out-of-jail card when it comes to bad lighting.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 08:54 UTC
In reply to:

tongki: You can take "a good shot" with a cheap lens and body with flash compare to using an expensive body and lenses without flash

Apples and oranges. The quality of flash light is a totally separate entity from the camera. A flash behaves the same no matter what body you put it on.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 05:54 UTC
In reply to:

TSJ1927: Why did the background pickup a warmer tone?

Good call. Looks like an imbalance between ambient light's color temperature and the flash.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 23:16 UTC

I'm not one to bash for bash's sake, but I have to admit that Canon hasn't wowed me in a long time. I like my 5D4 a ton and it works great, yada yada yada, but here comes the D850 that makes the 5D4 look like a mid-range camera. Before that, the Sony a9 came shouting about its 20fps (and a million focus points) that made my friend's 1DX look long in the tooth. Canon's response thus far has been to release some lenses, which while nice, doesn't exactly spell "innovation." I'm still happy with my Canon products (I also own Nikon and Sony gear) and don't plan on getting rid of them (Canon has nice glass), but I agree with this open letter's main notion.

The last time Canon showed tremendous innovation was with its 4-million ISO body. That was truly amazing, but since then things have been quiet.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 23:09 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

dash2k8: I've never used a textured background before and admit my complete lack of knowledge in this area. Could someone tell me the benefits of using a physical textured background versus green- or bluescreen and then applying it in post? Seems to me that for the same amount of work setting up the background (actual background vs bluescreen) a post-produced background is much more flexible (as long as the masking is done right) and you can get any kind of background imaginable. I fail to see the usefulness of this product.

Yes, I discovered that while browsing through their various backgrounds. Will this greenscreen have that green cast issue Cheryl mentioned above?

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 11:57 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: I've never used a textured background before and admit my complete lack of knowledge in this area. Could someone tell me the benefits of using a physical textured background versus green- or bluescreen and then applying it in post? Seems to me that for the same amount of work setting up the background (actual background vs bluescreen) a post-produced background is much more flexible (as long as the masking is done right) and you can get any kind of background imaginable. I fail to see the usefulness of this product.

@cheryl, those situations can really suck and result in horrible aftermaths (known as clients refusing to pay).

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 09:15 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: I've never used a textured background before and admit my complete lack of knowledge in this area. Could someone tell me the benefits of using a physical textured background versus green- or bluescreen and then applying it in post? Seems to me that for the same amount of work setting up the background (actual background vs bluescreen) a post-produced background is much more flexible (as long as the masking is done right) and you can get any kind of background imaginable. I fail to see the usefulness of this product.

I see your point, but my thinking is, it's just ONE background and thus limiting. Not every shot will work with a marble or stone or wood or whatever texture, so the studio ends up having to buy all sorts of different backgrounds for different purposes. Whereas you put in a tad bit more time to set up a proper green screen and you can have infinite backgrounds, that's what I'm struggling to wrap my head around. But thanks for taking the time to reply.

p.s. I know my initial comment suggested that it takes a similar amount of time to set up and I want to correct that by saying it doesn't take long to properly set up a green or bluescreen so the time difference is almost negligible in this equation.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 00:37 UTC
Total: 910, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »