BJL

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 17, 2002

Comments

Total: 295, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Trundling: Gonna take a loooong time. 45% is not a majority. Everyone wants Leica but few want a minority stack.

Update: the CEO Kaufmann's family owns the other 55%

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 02:32 UTC
In reply to:

Trundling: Gonna take a loooong time. 45% is not a majority. Everyone wants Leica but few want a minority stack.

30% can be enough for control if the rest are scattered amongst small holdings, but I believe that the rest of Leica is mostly in one large holding.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 01:33 UTC
In reply to:

photoholiko: If a private equity funds gets a hold of Leica you will see lots of junk with the Leica name on it. It will be sad to see that.

The current 45% owner Blackstone is a private equity company. Do you mean if such a company gets a majority share rather than 45%?
The good news is that so far Blackstone has not pushed to either break-up or dumb down Leica.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 01:29 UTC

In response to a "push question" that essentially demands agreement with the idea of a Nikon full-frame mirrorless, this curmudgeon for whom the Df is not old-fashioned enough so he had his customized his back to the early 1960's replies:
"we must consider doing full-frame"
which only says that this option must be _considered_, even if mirrorless Nikons in the more mainstream DX format are also offered, or if in the end only DX format is chosen.

So where does the headline get "it must be full-frame" from?
UPDATE: "must be" is from a human translation. I trust that the computer translation did not spuriously add the word "consider" and suspect that the human translator overlooked it, maybe out of wishful thinking.

P. S. definitive news about future products does not come though back-door chatter like this!

P. P. S. Or maybe this curmudgeon is from the part of Nikon management which thinks that "D850 users must be male".
UPDATE: he is retired, so yes: a nostalgic curmudgeon.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2017 at 15:56 UTC as 196th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: Soooo many new cameras (which is always the case, isn't it...)! It's really come to the point (for awhile now) that most cameras by all brands are capable of superb imagery, and what divides them among users are the types of features and small improvements they may bring. And the arguments will go on as to what and who is best - sigh... And for those of us who shoot with a variety of systems, we can appreciate what each brings to the table.

Having said that, as an E-M10 Mk II user, there is nothing in this model (which looks exactly the same) which would cause many of us (IMO) who own the II to upgrade. There will be some though that must have the latest and greatest. Now is the time to look for the E-M10 Mk II version as the prices come down on that model. It will still be a very relevant camera.

New "Mk x" models are not usually aimed at people who already have the immediate preceding "Mk x-1". More likely customers are people buying their first camera at this level (maybe coming from a fixed-lens compact, or a phone, or a non-EVF MFT camera), or who have a model from further back in the series, like the original OM-D E-M10 in this case.

Updates like this are a matter of staying competitive with other brands, not with the company's own recent products.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: This article nonsensically dismisses the obvious ILC advantages of telephoto reach and low-light handling by blustering that "smartphones are already well on their way to solving those problems", without offering the slightest evidence, or dealing with limits set by basic physics.

The low light handling of sensors is within about one f-stop of fundamental physical limits (photon detection is already about 50% or better) and sensor resolution is not far from fundamental limits, because pixel pitches are down to about twice the wavelength of light. So for example, phone-camera focal lengths limited by pocketability to around 8mm and constrained to similarly small entrance pupil diameters will never match what even a fairly light-weight and compact zoom lens reaching a modest 150mm can do. If you try to argue that a heavy crop (say to about 1MP) is enough with a phone-camera, then cropping to the same pixel count from a modest ILC telephoto zoom lens will still reach far further.

@keep calm, the article predicts the _death_ of entry-level ILCs, but the two most popular ILC lens types are standard wide-tele zoom and telephoto zooms, so my point is that there are many users of such cameras who do care about telephoto reach and better low light/action handling than a phone-sensor will ever be capable of. Those numerous ILC users will not abandon them for phone-cameras with background blurring software, so the "$500 ILC" will not by any means become extinct.

Those who use just wide-angle primes might be vocal in forums like this, but are a small fraction of all users of entry-level ILCs. (Also, a lot of them are gear snobs who would never embrace fake-bokeh software or cameras without an eye-level viewfinder!)

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 20:28 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: This article nonsensically dismisses the obvious ILC advantages of telephoto reach and low-light handling by blustering that "smartphones are already well on their way to solving those problems", without offering the slightest evidence, or dealing with limits set by basic physics.

The low light handling of sensors is within about one f-stop of fundamental physical limits (photon detection is already about 50% or better) and sensor resolution is not far from fundamental limits, because pixel pitches are down to about twice the wavelength of light. So for example, phone-camera focal lengths limited by pocketability to around 8mm and constrained to similarly small entrance pupil diameters will never match what even a fairly light-weight and compact zoom lens reaching a modest 150mm can do. If you try to argue that a heavy crop (say to about 1MP) is enough with a phone-camera, then cropping to the same pixel count from a modest ILC telephoto zoom lens will still reach far further.

entoman Interpolation does not add detail (that is, it dos not increase angular resolution, as a longer focal length or smaller photosites do); it just smooths out data. And despite the caption, that Light L16 does not have any "150mm f/2.4" lens: such a lens would require a front element diameter of at least 150/2.4 mm = 62.5mm. It probably has "150mm equivalent FOV", but for example an actual 150mm lens on MFT has "300mm equivalent FOV" and the far larger 4/3" sensor can have more pixels than phone sized sensors, allowing more cropping to an even longer "effective focal length".

None of the examples of computational photography magically add greater angular resolution: the "portrait mode" instead blurs backgrounds (actually reducing resolution) and the so-called computational zoom seems to be about imitating effects like shallower DOF and different perspective relationships between foreground and background, not adding any actual fine detail.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 20:06 UTC

This article nonsensically dismisses the obvious ILC advantages of telephoto reach and low-light handling by blustering that "smartphones are already well on their way to solving those problems", without offering the slightest evidence, or dealing with limits set by basic physics.

The low light handling of sensors is within about one f-stop of fundamental physical limits (photon detection is already about 50% or better) and sensor resolution is not far from fundamental limits, because pixel pitches are down to about twice the wavelength of light. So for example, phone-camera focal lengths limited by pocketability to around 8mm and constrained to similarly small entrance pupil diameters will never match what even a fairly light-weight and compact zoom lens reaching a modest 150mm can do. If you try to argue that a heavy crop (say to about 1MP) is enough with a phone-camera, then cropping to the same pixel count from a modest ILC telephoto zoom lens will still reach far further.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 21:54 UTC as 152nd comment | 4 replies
On article Nine new lens adapters announced for the Fujifilm GFX (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: The adapters must contain a glass element to enlarge the image circle to 645 crop format. (except for the Fringer which takes native 645 lenses).

Adaptors for many MF mounts are already available
https://fotodioxpro.com/collections/lens-mount-adapters/gfx
These just cover even more options

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 12:48 UTC
On article Nine new lens adapters announced for the Fujifilm GFX (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tom_A: I would have expected adapters for vintage medium format system lenses, to aboud any corner vignetting.

Lots of MF lens systems are already covered by adaptors announced earlier. For example:
https://fotodioxpro.com/collections/lens-mount-adapters/gfx?page=2

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 12:39 UTC
On article Nine new lens adapters announced for the Fujifilm GFX (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: The adapters must contain a glass element to enlarge the image circle to 645 crop format. (except for the Fringer which takes native 645 lenses).

Lenses for 36x24mm usually project a circular image of at least 43.2mm diameter (the diagonal length of the 36x24mm frame) but often the image circle is larger than this bare minimum. In particular, longer focal length lenses often have an image circle of diameter far larger than needed, not much less than their focal length—those images are then "cropped" by the 36x24mm sensor. Also, the image circle is not a hard boundary; there is often just a gradual decline in image quality and brightness for some distance beyond the 36x24mm frame.

So there might many lenses that cover the 44x33mm frame (55mm diagonal) with at worst slightly weak corners, and for the rest one can still crop to various shapes. For example a 4:3 shape of about 35x26mm or a square of 30x30mm both fit in the same circle as 36x24mm.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 20:00 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: There is a great misunderstanding in many posts here. Many here think he just has copied images and claimed he is the photographer. And indeed - if he had done that - he is a simple thief. But no - that is not what he has done.

Look at the image above. It looks like an Instagram post made by rastajay92.

So what Prince has done is combining an image, by Donald Graham with an Instagram frame that says rastajay92 and then adding a text he finds suitable. A kind of transformation, which is what he also claims.

So - the judge is wrong when he says that Prince has done no alteration. 100% wrong. So, indeed, if that is the motivation why to convict Prince, it is totally wrong.

What the judge needs to show is that the altered image breaks the Copyright law. If he cannot show that, Prince should go free.

@IR1234 Of course I am not the slightest bit surprised that yet another online discussion is guided more by tribal loyalty than attention to the facts of the case—this is one of the most pervasive bad side-effects of modern hyper-factionalized online communication, where people can choose to hear mostly only echoes of their own opinions and priorities, and join a virtual mob to shout down dissenting views.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 22:22 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: There is a great misunderstanding in many posts here. Many here think he just has copied images and claimed he is the photographer. And indeed - if he had done that - he is a simple thief. But no - that is not what he has done.

Look at the image above. It looks like an Instagram post made by rastajay92.

So what Prince has done is combining an image, by Donald Graham with an Instagram frame that says rastajay92 and then adding a text he finds suitable. A kind of transformation, which is what he also claims.

So - the judge is wrong when he says that Prince has done no alteration. 100% wrong. So, indeed, if that is the motivation why to convict Prince, it is totally wrong.

What the judge needs to show is that the altered image breaks the Copyright law. If he cannot show that, Prince should go free.

@Roland Karlsson OK, I agree on that: a lot of posters here either have very poor reading comprehension and/or just jump with tribal loyalty to take the photographer's side.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 18:43 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: There is a great misunderstanding in many posts here. Many here think he just has copied images and claimed he is the photographer. And indeed - if he had done that - he is a simple thief. But no - that is not what he has done.

Look at the image above. It looks like an Instagram post made by rastajay92.

So what Prince has done is combining an image, by Donald Graham with an Instagram frame that says rastajay92 and then adding a text he finds suitable. A kind of transformation, which is what he also claims.

So - the judge is wrong when he says that Prince has done no alteration. 100% wrong. So, indeed, if that is the motivation why to convict Prince, it is totally wrong.

What the judge needs to show is that the altered image breaks the Copyright law. If he cannot show that, Prince should go free.

"Prince never have claimed that he did. Prince's claim is that the image is a part of his piece of art."
This does not change the fact that one generally needs permission to reproduce another's work even if used as part of another creative work. How does this differ from a creative work like a book that reproduces photographs and adds new creative material in the form of commentary on them or poems inspired by them, or such?

P. S. I do not dispute that Prince has created a new work; just that he should "pay his suppliers".

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: There is a great misunderstanding in many posts here. Many here think he just has copied images and claimed he is the photographer. And indeed - if he had done that - he is a simple thief. But no - that is not what he has done.

Look at the image above. It looks like an Instagram post made by rastajay92.

So what Prince has done is combining an image, by Donald Graham with an Instagram frame that says rastajay92 and then adding a text he finds suitable. A kind of transformation, which is what he also claims.

So - the judge is wrong when he says that Prince has done no alteration. 100% wrong. So, indeed, if that is the motivation why to convict Prince, it is totally wrong.

What the judge needs to show is that the altered image breaks the Copyright law. If he cannot show that, Prince should go free.

Roland, I read what you said: as far as I can tell, the image itself was _not_ transformed (in contrast to other derivative works, like some by Andy Wharhol and Shepard Fairey, where significant color manipulation was done). Instead, the original photographic image was duplicated intact, with other stuff added _around_ it. This is the reason for my "picture reproduced in a book" comparison, and probably for the judge's observation that "Prince has not materially altered the composition, presentation, scale, color palette and media originally used by Graham."

Aside: in the case of Shepard Fairey's "Hope" poster based on a photograph of Barack Obama taken by Mannie Garcia, the copyright claim was more or less conceded in a settlement, even with Fairey's significant manipulations of the image itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: There is a great misunderstanding in many posts here. Many here think he just has copied images and claimed he is the photographer. And indeed - if he had done that - he is a simple thief. But no - that is not what he has done.

Look at the image above. It looks like an Instagram post made by rastajay92.

So what Prince has done is combining an image, by Donald Graham with an Instagram frame that says rastajay92 and then adding a text he finds suitable. A kind of transformation, which is what he also claims.

So - the judge is wrong when he says that Prince has done no alteration. 100% wrong. So, indeed, if that is the motivation why to convict Prince, it is totally wrong.

What the judge needs to show is that the altered image breaks the Copyright law. If he cannot show that, Prince should go free.

He reproduces images (unmodifed, as the judge notes) and adds some text and such below and around them. This seems little different from reproducing the original images in a book and adding text nearby—and that usage requires permission of the photographer (or other rights-holder.)

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

vegasdood: I posted this in a local bicycle forum as well....bikes now run in the same prices as expensive cameras and are also targets for this type of fraud.

The Venmo-enabled scammers picked up the cameras in person in at least some cases.
Venmo is at least liable as an enabler: if using it for sales is not allowed, why does it let they buyer/payer who violated this rule get the money back as well as the product? So the scammers said to Venmo "I made payments that are against the rules, so give my money back and stiff the person who received payments"?? More strange given that the payer acted in a highly suspicious way, making multiple small payments.

Anyway, the moral is: do not accept an online payment through a medium you do not know!
Or at least hold the goods "till the check clears"—money transferred to your bank account.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 20:49 UTC

The sensor is 32x24mm, so why not call it that instead of the inaccurate "Full Frame" which means 36x24mm — except when it means 54x42mm for medium format fans!

By the way, 32x24mm has the advantage that it can be made without on-chip stitching, with the needed fab equipment having a maximum field size of 33x26mm. And the squarer 4:3 makes more sense for astronomy.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 19:43 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

tkbslc: Considering RED makes professional products that aren't really intended for mass market, I'm going to assume this product isn't targeted at most of us.

That said, I can't really imagine a director or cinematographer wanting a film rig that required snapping a phone into it in order to use it.

Steve jobs had a good description of a smart-phone back at the iPhone launch event. He teased that he was about to announce three products:
- The first one: is a widescreen iPod with touch controls.
- The second: is a revolutionary mobile phone.
- And the third is a breakthrough Internet communications device.
If there had been third party iPhone apps from the beginning, he could have added:
- And one more thing: a computer that fits in your pocket.

If Red phone models stick with the same form factor and USB-Cinterface, it might make sense to use them as the touchscreen I/O, CPU, WiFi and uplink module of a high-end modular camera system.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 18:11 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Great 4k video!

Microphone port No
Headphone port No
EVF optional (for how much?)

@dante; you are not educating me: I am well aware of Leica's efforts with SLRs, both film and digital. My statement was simply that Leica has a very long and respected history with mirrorless cameras, not that they have only ever made that sort of camera.

P. S. I do not know of any video cameras that lack an eye-level EVF, so even if you are not interested in video (nor am I), it seems hard to deny that for the now wide-spread use of "stills-first" camera for video benefits from having the option of an eye-level VF—and for video that must be EVF, not OVF. In fact, Leica even makes an accessory EVF for its recent CMOS-sensor M cameras!

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 15:36 UTC
Total: 295, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »