BJL

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

Comments

Total: 410, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Wye Photography: I would rather use a Seagull

You are probably in luck: most likely this is a "badge-engineered" and hacked Seagull!
Given the low price and the complete shutdown and liquidation of the assets of the real Rollei a few years ago, this will have no connection to actual Rollei expertise in design and manufacturing.

I am getting so sick of deceptive photographic nostalgia, particular when it deceives by using the licensed brand-name of a formerly great company (Kodak, Polaroid, Hasselblad and all those old German lens brands) — why not just buy some real classic film camera equipment on the second hand market?!

P. S. My mistake; it is probably a Mint https://mint-camera.com/tl70/

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2018 at 20:32 UTC

P. S. I was misinformed; it seems that no working examples of the revival version exist. But the design work is finished! And only 15 blades.
Definitely a lot of goofy marketing hype for a product that is about the image and self esteem of the owner more than the images produced, but that makes it no worse than jewelry or expensive watches less functional than my Casio

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2018 at 13:55 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply

Though I do not have any interest in these recreations of obsolete lens designs, they do seem a good fit for Kickstarter: a product that can be delivered (working samples exist) and that is no worse than harmless fun for people with “certain tastes” and enough spare cash.

But the 16 blade diaphragm sounds interesting for its bokeh; I would just like that with a modern optical design in front.

P. S. For the tiny number of Four Thirds users who might want this, there are mount adopters. But maybe someone should start reproducing classic lenses for Olympus Pen “single frame” cameras!

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2018 at 13:34 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

BJL: Never mind the small size—why the 3:2 shape? The 4:3 shape dominates in both compact digital cameras and the stills from camera-phones (even if the screens are a far wider "HD" shape for the sake of video).

I doubt that the main target market for this printer is users of APS-C or 35mm format interchangeable lens cameras, which are about the only ones using 3:2 as the default image shape.

P. S. Medium format digital is 4:3 too, but I doubt many MF users are looking for such a printer.

@Karroly, sorry for confusing you with PhozoKozmos!

I guess that you and I just move in very different photographic circles, with my friends and relatives mostly sharing online and not much interested in doing slide shows on HDTVs, or maybe you are speaking from the perspective of someone who does not have much involvement with that great majority of people who use a smartphone as their only camera.

Because I browsed through a few hundred photos from many friends and relatives on Instagram and Facebook, and from a lot of people that I barely know who post in various Facebook groups for local businesses, cultural organizations and such that I follow, and:
- the clear majority were 4:3 (or 3:4, meaning verticals),
- all but one other were square,
- and that other one was a 2:1 panorama (a marketing image by a professional).
So none were 3:2 or 16:9.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2018 at 03:24 UTC
In reply to:

PhozoKozmos: modularity = Canon (strikes again!)

why get a camera that's designed specifically to make prints (fujifilm-instax/polaroid)

when one can use ANY Digital Camera (image files) that prints from a Canon IVY module that works with digital cameras seamlessly?

note: i'm not into prints of any sizes; i prefer high-rez light displays instead

@photokosmos "never assume all photos on a mobile device are taken by mobile devices" Agreed; because I am not assuming that!

It is not a matter of "all"; what matters is that the great _majority_ of photos printed from phones to these very small format printers are likely to be either from that mobile phone, or from a friend or family member's mobile phone, or from a fixed lens "compact" digital camera, most of which have 4:3 shaped sensors — and most of the files to be printed will be 4:3 shaped.

Are you really in denial that 4:3 has become the overwhelmingly dominant format shape for "popular photography" in terms of the number of cameras and users and the number of photos taken and shared — even if a larger proportion of more "serious" and professional photography is in 3:2 shape?

Looking outside the "photographic enthusiast" audience of this site to photography as a whole, SLR's and mirrorless system cameras are now in a small minority. As you say:

"get over it"

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2018 at 20:31 UTC
In reply to:

PhozoKozmos: modularity = Canon (strikes again!)

why get a camera that's designed specifically to make prints (fujifilm-instax/polaroid)

when one can use ANY Digital Camera (image files) that prints from a Canon IVY module that works with digital cameras seamlessly?

note: i'm not into prints of any sizes; i prefer high-rez light displays instead

@PhozoKozmos we are talking about a _printer_ which works by printing from _mobile_phones_ via Bluetooth, using iOS and Android apps. So the fact that you and I hardly ever print is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the desires of the intended users, and they will mostly be phone-cameras users, whose standard image file shapes are 4:3 and some 1:1. Do you believe that a majority of the time, they then want to crop to 3:2 shape? I do not know of a phone that even offers a 3:2 crop mode for taking pictures. Maybe the greater popularity of verticals ("portraits") makes 3:2 less popular with phones than with SLR users.

P. S. It is interesting that you have retreated from the previous claim that "3:2 is universal" to "sensor aspect ratios ... are irrelevant to image dimensions [which] vary with user preferences". And yet you still seem convinced that for the 4:3 and 1:1 files from phone-cameras, those varying shape preferences are best served by cropping for 3x2 prints!

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2018 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: Never mind the small size—why the 3:2 shape? The 4:3 shape dominates in both compact digital cameras and the stills from camera-phones (even if the screens are a far wider "HD" shape for the sake of video).

I doubt that the main target market for this printer is users of APS-C or 35mm format interchangeable lens cameras, which are about the only ones using 3:2 as the default image shape.

P. S. Medium format digital is 4:3 too, but I doubt many MF users are looking for such a printer.

@Karroly, I agree with you that "3:2 prints match 3:2 sensors"

On the other hand, the sensors in mobile phone cameras — and the vast majority of compact cameras — have 4:3 aspect ratio, so my reasoning is the same as yours: "4:3 prints match 4:3 sensors".

Are you seriously denying that the great majority of usage of ZINK printers will be from those 4:3 format sensors in phones and such?

For a reality check, look at how Amazon markets ZINK printers, and the dominance of the words "iOS and Android"
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Zink+Printers&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AZink+Printers

Sure, there will be other uses, but 4:3 is clearly dominant in this case.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2018 at 15:04 UTC
In reply to:

PhozoKozmos: modularity = Canon (strikes again!)

why get a camera that's designed specifically to make prints (fujifilm-instax/polaroid)

when one can use ANY Digital Camera (image files) that prints from a Canon IVY module that works with digital cameras seamlessly?

note: i'm not into prints of any sizes; i prefer high-rez light displays instead

@PhozoKozmos, 4:3 has emerged as the dominant shape for "casual still photography", as done on phone-cameras and compact cameras. So when you say
"3x2 is quite universal _I_ have no ..."
you are talking about yourself, but not the photography universe.

The sensors in mobile phone cameras — and almost all compact cameras — have 4:3 aspect ratio, and the default still image format for those cameras is 4:3 shape, with square the main alternative on phones (thanks, Instagram!). So the vast majority of still photography these days is in 4:3 format, especially in the more casual "snapshot social sharing" market that these tiny printers are aimed at.

I agree that if printing for photo albums, 6"x4" can make sense, even though it requires cropping files from camera-phones and compact cameras. But ZINK paper is 3"x2", not 6"x4", and I doubt that many ZINK prints are going into albums. Are there even photo albums with 3"x2" slots for prints?

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2018 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: Never mind the small size—why the 3:2 shape? The 4:3 shape dominates in both compact digital cameras and the stills from camera-phones (even if the screens are a far wider "HD" shape for the sake of video).

I doubt that the main target market for this printer is users of APS-C or 35mm format interchangeable lens cameras, which are about the only ones using 3:2 as the default image shape.

P. S. Medium format digital is 4:3 too, but I doubt many MF users are looking for such a printer.

@impulses, you completely misunderstand me with this comment: "Just because you view smartphone photography as some inferior echelon doesn't mean it's any more or less deserving or better matched to the quality of ZINK output."

My point is exactly the opposite (I often share photos taken with my phone's camera and where did I disparage phone photography?). My complaint about the 3x2 shape is that phone-camera users interested in a printer like this deserve something that will print their photos without requiring either a crop to 3:2 or leaving white space at the sides of an already very small print. Even if some of the images printed from phones are downloaded from other sources, the dominant other source is likely to be ... other phone-cameras! Like ones belonging to friends and relatives, with the images shared through Facebook, Instagram, text messages and so on.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 23:04 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: Never mind the small size—why the 3:2 shape? The 4:3 shape dominates in both compact digital cameras and the stills from camera-phones (even if the screens are a far wider "HD" shape for the sake of video).

I doubt that the main target market for this printer is users of APS-C or 35mm format interchangeable lens cameras, which are about the only ones using 3:2 as the default image shape.

P. S. Medium format digital is 4:3 too, but I doubt many MF users are looking for such a printer.

@impulses TO your question "More to the point, who even brought computers into this? Why are you suggesting a 16:9 crop would require one?"
That comment of mine was about something that Karroly said, not you.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: Never mind the small size—why the 3:2 shape? The 4:3 shape dominates in both compact digital cameras and the stills from camera-phones (even if the screens are a far wider "HD" shape for the sake of video).

I doubt that the main target market for this printer is users of APS-C or 35mm format interchangeable lens cameras, which are about the only ones using 3:2 as the default image shape.

P. S. Medium format digital is 4:3 too, but I doubt many MF users are looking for such a printer.

This is for printing photos from phones, not printing from APS-C or 35mm format ILC's or form computers of images previous edited for displaying on TVs! It is if I had criticized the general idea of a 3:2 format printer rather than this particular device. (A 6"x4" compact printed is fine for a lot of people still making photo albums.)

from the article:
"Like all the other portable printers on the market, the IVY uses an app to sync with your **smartphone**. In this case it's the Canon Mini Print App"
From the press release:
"For **smartphone** photographers seeking to stay portable and on the go with their devices, this sleek and compact portable printer has an extensive list of standout, user-friendly features through the Canon Mini Print app"

Why is anyone confusing this with a product for printing photos from an ILC, or for photos that one has edited for display on a TV?

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 19:06 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: Never mind the small size—why the 3:2 shape? The 4:3 shape dominates in both compact digital cameras and the stills from camera-phones (even if the screens are a far wider "HD" shape for the sake of video).

I doubt that the main target market for this printer is users of APS-C or 35mm format interchangeable lens cameras, which are about the only ones using 3:2 as the default image shape.

P. S. Medium format digital is 4:3 too, but I doubt many MF users are looking for such a printer.

@PhozoKozmos

One more time: it is the shape of the *image file* than matters, not the shape of the sensor (which is probably 16:9 in mobile phones these days, for video).
- A 3:2 printer will force a crop (or whit space at the sides) on any of the 4:3 or 1:1 still image files that phone-cameras (and other compact cameras) produce.
- a 4:3 printer would avoid that crop/wasted space for standard phone-camera format.
- a 1:1 printer like the one from Fujifilm avoids a crop/waste when "Instagram-friendly square mode is chosen.
- I do not know of any phone-camera that offers a 3:2 mode, but maybe they exist.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: Never mind the small size—why the 3:2 shape? The 4:3 shape dominates in both compact digital cameras and the stills from camera-phones (even if the screens are a far wider "HD" shape for the sake of video).

I doubt that the main target market for this printer is users of APS-C or 35mm format interchangeable lens cameras, which are about the only ones using 3:2 as the default image shape.

P. S. Medium format digital is 4:3 too, but I doubt many MF users are looking for such a printer.

@impulses: you might have hit on a big part of the answer: ZINK makes the special paper, stickers and such, and Canon is just going with what it can get from them.

But are you seriously in any doubt that phone-cameras users (plus some compact cameras users) will vastly overwhelm the ILC amongst customers for a toy like this? Are you unaware of the overwhelming dominance of phone-cameras in snap-shot photography these days?

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 16:19 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: Never mind the small size—why the 3:2 shape? The 4:3 shape dominates in both compact digital cameras and the stills from camera-phones (even if the screens are a far wider "HD" shape for the sake of video).

I doubt that the main target market for this printer is users of APS-C or 35mm format interchangeable lens cameras, which are about the only ones using 3:2 as the default image shape.

P. S. Medium format digital is 4:3 too, but I doubt many MF users are looking for such a printer.

@impulse and @Karroly, you seem to be overlooking some facts:
- This printer is aimed almost entirely at camera phones (not ILCs): it relies on a bluetooth connection, etc.
- The standard shape of camera phone photos is 4:3, with square also popular (Instagram!), NOT the shape of the phone's screen.
- The prints from this device are 3"x2", not 6"x4".
So:
- The shape of images from APS-C and FF ILCs is irrelevant.
- The shape of phone _screens_ is irrelevant; the 4:3 or 1:1 shape of phone _photos_ is what matters.
- Albums with sleeves for 6"x4" prints are also irrelevant: these prints are far smaller!

P. S. Fujifilm makes a square mini-printer; that might make more sense with the Instagram-inspired rise of taking square photos on phones.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 01:42 UTC
In reply to:

BJL: Never mind the small size—why the 3:2 shape? The 4:3 shape dominates in both compact digital cameras and the stills from camera-phones (even if the screens are a far wider "HD" shape for the sake of video).

I doubt that the main target market for this printer is users of APS-C or 35mm format interchangeable lens cameras, which are about the only ones using 3:2 as the default image shape.

P. S. Medium format digital is 4:3 too, but I doubt many MF users are looking for such a printer.

These are tiny 3"x2", and some are stickers. Do not confuse them with 6"x4" album photos.

Anyway, the cameras (phones) that this printer is for are taking 4:3 photos, so does it make sense to keep cropping every printed image to fit 6x4"? That shape made sense last century when people were printing snapshots from 36x24mm format film cameras, but I do not see that it makes sense with phone cameras.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 20:14 UTC

Never mind the small size—why the 3:2 shape? The 4:3 shape dominates in both compact digital cameras and the stills from camera-phones (even if the screens are a far wider "HD" shape for the sake of video).

I doubt that the main target market for this printer is users of APS-C or 35mm format interchangeable lens cameras, which are about the only ones using 3:2 as the default image shape.

P. S. Medium format digital is 4:3 too, but I doubt many MF users are looking for such a printer.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 17:51 UTC as 23rd comment | 21 replies
In reply to:

goshigoo: what is the benefit of this lens @ fuji vs
200 f/2.8 @ D850?

Thanks @Thorgrem!
To say it another way: for photographers who can benefit sufficiently from the GFX and its sensor with both more and larger photosites than 35mm format cameras (and the likelihood of a 100MP model in a while, using sensors already in Sony's roadmap) this lens has value—even though for a great majority of ILC users the trade-offs point to a smaller, lighter, less expensive kit in a smaller format.

It is strange that so many people understand and even make this argument in comparisons of 35mm format vs APS-C vs 4/3" vs 1" ... vs phone cameras, but then ignore or reject it when discussing formats larger than 35mm.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2018 at 20:12 UTC
On article Blackmagic Design announces Pocket Cinema Camera 4K (406 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pinionist: I'm wondering how they can achieve 13 stops of dynamic range with 4/3 sensor ? Isn't this like a bit too small sensor for such depth ?

Due to its video aspect ratio, this sensor is wider and less high than typical MFT sensors: 18.96mm x 10mm, so 4.63 micron pixel pitch. The same as for 10.5MP in the typical 17.3x13mm Micro Four Thirds cameras, or 40MP in 36x24mm.

Specs at https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera/techspecs/W-CIN-12

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2018 at 23:59 UTC
In reply to:

Pooya Rastin: How is it possible that the speed of these cards are 3 times the speed of my Samsung 960 pro SSDs ?!

@Enders Shadow The first generation of CFExpress uses 2 lanes of PCIe 3.0, but the standard allowed for up to 8 lanes in the future, and a theoretical max of about 8GB/s.
https://www.compactflash.org/assets/docs/cfapress/cfexpress_family_pr_160907.pdf

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2018 at 23:36 UTC
On article Blackmagic Design announces Pocket Cinema Camera 4K (406 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pinionist: I'm wondering how they can achieve 13 stops of dynamic range with 4/3 sensor ? Isn't this like a bit too small sensor for such depth ?

At 4096 x 2160 its pixel size is about as for a 10MP Four third still camera, so larger than any recent 4/3" format stills camera; that helps with per pixel dynamic range. Similar to the 10MP Panasonic GH5S with its (different shaped) 3680 x 2760 sensor.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2018 at 23:23 UTC
Total: 410, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »