winkalman

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 29, 2005

Comments

Total: 150, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

privater: Great, Now I need to stitch 4 4k monitors to enjoy this video.

I realize you're being facetious, but since you asked...

https://youtu.be/T3agMYfcBw8?t=55s

Link | Posted on May 18, 2018 at 20:16 UTC

This is definitely a positive step for Ricoh/Pentax. I would have loved to see the K3-II and GR-II supported as well though.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2018 at 15:13 UTC as 28th comment
In reply to:

BJN: DJI just released the Phantom 4 Pro 2.0 with a 1" sensor, so the sensor size makes sense. I doubt that the Phantom 5 will show up very soon. DJI is infamous for releasing new models only when a competitor releases a marketable product for the same space.

Whatever the camera it sports, the non-folding Phantom quad platform feels anachronistic.

Perhaps this will be their answer to the Yuneec Typhoon H Plus then...

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 18:01 UTC
In reply to:

Imager of: Please get back to me when these phones have a 1 inch sensor.

Even a good implementation of a 1/1.7" or 2/3" sensor could run away with the "best smartphone camera" trophy easily.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2018 at 15:57 UTC
In reply to:

Imager of: Please get back to me when these phones have a 1 inch sensor.

It's unfortunate that the CM1 is being held up as proof that a 1" sensor can't succeed in a phone. Panasonic put a great camera on a crappy phone; had they put a great camera on a great phone, things might have turned out differently. The other big issue (at least for anyone in the U.S.) is that it was only available as a grey market import for a long time after launch and even when it did get a proper U.S. release, it was never picked up by any U.S. carriers. That meant you had to pony up something like $800 or $900 for an unlocked version on Amazon.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2018 at 15:55 UTC

How these cameras keep showing up without live hdmi out and a shutter release socket is beyond me. They would be vastly more appealing as drone cameras than awkward clip-ons for a smartphone.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 19:32 UTC as 95th comment
In reply to:

Melchiorum: Phone cameras are getting ridiculously good. And I am saying that while shooting full frame. When I snapped a few photos with Google Pixel 2, I at first couldn't believe what I was seeing. By working its computational HDR-stacking magic, this little device gave me pretty much perfectly exposed JPGs with great color and in-freaking-sane dynamic range. There's no way I could get JPGs like that straight out of the camera from my Nikon D750, because I'd need to pull shadows up significantly. No wonder compacts are dead, it's magical.

As long as you don't need to pixel-peep, crop or do serious RAW work, current phones are good enough. Scratch that, they are more than good enough. They are amazing. Their processing and JPG engines are miles, MILES ahead of what is offered by the manufacturers of traditional cameras.

I probably should have qualified the can't print statement. I rarely print but, when I do, I generally only print 11x14 or larger. I'm sure there are some photos that look fine at 11x14 from smartphone cameras, but it starts to get dicey.

"I can't zoom with my dedicated cameras either: i use primes. And some smartphones actually include a zoom lens."

That's your choice to use primes exclusively; you can at least mount the appropriate prime lens for the situation though. Smartphones do not provide anything like stepless zoom. Some have as many as two whole focal lengths to choose from but there are considerable compromises (the telephoto sensor is a fair bit less capable than the 'main' sensor).

"...phones cameras are getting better every year. Dramatically so."

I think it's a stretch to say that they're dramatically better year on year. The current king, the P20 Pro, can't even match a Canon small sensor compact from 2012. There is still a long ways to go.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2018 at 14:34 UTC
In reply to:

Melchiorum: Phone cameras are getting ridiculously good. And I am saying that while shooting full frame. When I snapped a few photos with Google Pixel 2, I at first couldn't believe what I was seeing. By working its computational HDR-stacking magic, this little device gave me pretty much perfectly exposed JPGs with great color and in-freaking-sane dynamic range. There's no way I could get JPGs like that straight out of the camera from my Nikon D750, because I'd need to pull shadows up significantly. No wonder compacts are dead, it's magical.

As long as you don't need to pixel-peep, crop or do serious RAW work, current phones are good enough. Scratch that, they are more than good enough. They are amazing. Their processing and JPG engines are miles, MILES ahead of what is offered by the manufacturers of traditional cameras.

"As long as you don't need to pixel-peep, crop or do serious RAW work, current phones are good enough."

...or print, or zoom, or shoot in low light, or capture fine detail, or shoot with flash, or blur the background in a convincing natural way. You're right that the auto features on smart phones kill what's available in proper cameras though; it would be nice to see some of those features make their way into ILCs and enthusiast compacts.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2018 at 17:37 UTC
In reply to:

winkalman: Get ready for the FF zealots to proclaim that no one needs 100MP* when these sensors start showing up in the Fuji GFX, Hasselbald X1D and Pentax 645Z successors.

*To be fair, almost no one does.

@knappe: Fair enough. I was just attempting to poke fun at the tribalism around here.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 17:59 UTC
In reply to:

winkalman: Get ready for the FF zealots to proclaim that no one needs 100MP* when these sensors start showing up in the Fuji GFX, Hasselbald X1D and Pentax 645Z successors.

*To be fair, almost no one does.

@nickolas84: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

winkalman: Get ready for the FF zealots to proclaim that no one needs 100MP* when these sensors start showing up in the Fuji GFX, Hasselbald X1D and Pentax 645Z successors.

*To be fair, almost no one does.

@knappe duivel: We're still waiting for the successors to the X1D, GFX and 645Z as well. All in due time.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 17:24 UTC

Get ready for the FF zealots to proclaim that no one needs 100MP* when these sensors start showing up in the Fuji GFX, Hasselbald X1D and Pentax 645Z successors.

*To be fair, almost no one does.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 15:01 UTC as 23rd comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

winkalman: I run the IT department at a small private high school. We purchased a lab full of perpetual CS2 licenses in 2006 and have been using them ever since. The educational pricing put us out around $5,550 for 20 licenses. Over that same 12 year span we would have spent $30,000 (minimum 500 seats at $5 per year times 12 years) with their subscription pricing. Would I like to upgrade from CS2? You bet. Will I be signing up for CC subscription pricing? Hell no!

@NetMage Perhaps this is too hard for you to comprehend but Adobe have opted not to offer any good options for schools that don't need hundreds of licenses of their specialty software. The average high school in the U.S. has 752 students, only a fraction of those students have any need for Adobe's Creative Suite. Setting the minimum purchase size at 500 is arbitrary and a pretty clear money grab by Adobe.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 14:36 UTC
In reply to:

winkalman: I run the IT department at a small private high school. We purchased a lab full of perpetual CS2 licenses in 2006 and have been using them ever since. The educational pricing put us out around $5,550 for 20 licenses. Over that same 12 year span we would have spent $30,000 (minimum 500 seats at $5 per year times 12 years) with their subscription pricing. Would I like to upgrade from CS2? You bet. Will I be signing up for CC subscription pricing? Hell no!

"I'd have issues with putting (and paying for) my kid in a private school and being expected to use a 12-year old version of Photoshop"

"You are teaching kids old worthless software versions now? That's not ideal."

Next you'll be telling me you can't learn photography on a 12 year old camera. Anyone who has mastered the concepts on one photo editing program ought to be able to get up to speed on another relatively quickly. We're talking about kids cropping or adjusting exposure on photos for their yearbook. They just don't need content aware fill, smart objects, or automated HDR. In a production environment automated features add value, in education they're often just a crutch.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 13:16 UTC
In reply to:

winkalman: I run the IT department at a small private high school. We purchased a lab full of perpetual CS2 licenses in 2006 and have been using them ever since. The educational pricing put us out around $5,550 for 20 licenses. Over that same 12 year span we would have spent $30,000 (minimum 500 seats at $5 per year times 12 years) with their subscription pricing. Would I like to upgrade from CS2? You bet. Will I be signing up for CC subscription pricing? Hell no!

"...and what do you pay for MS licensing? How about VMWare licensing? Citrix? Oracle?"

We spent about $8K for 200 MS Office 2007 licenses, but that was back when we had 4 computer labs. We'll be down to one lab this summer, plus a chromebook cart, and the BYOD iPads that students are required to purchase. Windows licenses are rolled into the cost of the PC and the handful of Windows server licenses we have are a trivial amount (about $200 per). We run the free version of VMWare and we have no need for Citrix or Oracle. I really don't mind paying for software licenses but Adobe currently just doesn't offer anything that works for our size and use case.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 12:46 UTC
In reply to:

winkalman: I run the IT department at a small private high school. We purchased a lab full of perpetual CS2 licenses in 2006 and have been using them ever since. The educational pricing put us out around $5,550 for 20 licenses. Over that same 12 year span we would have spent $30,000 (minimum 500 seats at $5 per year times 12 years) with their subscription pricing. Would I like to upgrade from CS2? You bet. Will I be signing up for CC subscription pricing? Hell no!

I really don't begrudge anyone who pays for CC individually, but for schools of our size (where we have maybe 20 kids a year who use Adobe software) the subscription model just doesn't work.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2018 at 20:15 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: Why doesn't Adobe take a page from Microsoft's book and give schools and universities the software for free. Get them hooked, and then when they get into the "business world" they'll buy the products. It has worked pretty well for Microsoft. Granted, more people probably use Office than those who would use PS or LR, but still, it's a great way to get people into your system. Of course, those who are paying for subscriptions ultimately pick up the cost of this in the end.

Office 365 was available free to educational institutions for a brief (1 to 2 year span) back when they were scrambling to bring something out to compete with Google Apps for Education. The proper desktop edition of Office has never been free in any form that I know of. If a particular college was giving it to students it's likely that they were eating the cost or rolling it into the technology fee you pay along with tuition or when you take certain classes.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2018 at 19:23 UTC
In reply to:

DavidKennard: I would be surprised if many schools had hardware up to the job of running Adobe's software at a decent speed.

They certainly don't have enough to make use of the minimum purchase of 500 licenses.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2018 at 19:17 UTC

I run the IT department at a small private high school. We purchased a lab full of perpetual CS2 licenses in 2006 and have been using them ever since. The educational pricing put us out around $5,550 for 20 licenses. Over that same 12 year span we would have spent $30,000 (minimum 500 seats at $5 per year times 12 years) with their subscription pricing. Would I like to upgrade from CS2? You bet. Will I be signing up for CC subscription pricing? Hell no!

Link | Posted on May 3, 2018 at 19:15 UTC as 36th comment | 15 replies
On article Sample gallery: Pentax K-1 II (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

winkalman: Still probably the best landscape camera under $2,000.

The Pentax 15-30mm is actually $10 cheaper than the Tamron at B&H right now AND it has Pentax weather sealing. It's not perfect but, if the K1 meets your photographic needs, it's still an incredible value.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2018 at 13:47 UTC
Total: 150, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »