MaxiMax
Lives in
Somewhere, Norway
Joined on
Nov 19, 2008
About me:
In this world and age, being anonymous is the best thing. |
Comments
 |  |  |
| New Forest pony by Dutch Newchurch from Equines in 2018 | Leader of the pack by Wu Jiaqiu from My Best Photo of the Week | Czech Crown by Tobik from Coins - Macro only |
dlb41: A fan of Sony here. They are at the cutting edge, but it looks like they've edged a bit too far.
Sony should modify or redesign the back-lighted PDAF sensor.
@fmian: Yes, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. all have "premature technology" that still requires testing and fixing. Stick with brands that are more reliable??? You must be joking. Some years ago, I worked as a system tester for a very well-known name in the telecoms industry that sells an item that most people own. Do you know what is the FAT (Factory Acceptance Test) product approval rate that many companies operate with before releasing it for sale? If you only knew that, you would be shocked. Yes, new products will always have bugs, no matter how "reliable" a brand name is. Nikon, Canon and other brands have also made big mistakes in the past.
dlb41: A fan of Sony here. They are at the cutting edge, but it looks like they've edged a bit too far.
Sony should modify or redesign the back-lighted PDAF sensor.
They certainly will, as technological advances are always on the move. The good about Sony is that they do listen to their clients, and this is how they went from "nothing" to "something" in pro photographic equipment in just a few years.
Psychology at work: When trolls attack a product/brand that they don't own, they are just being insecure about the product/brand that they own and don't want to feel inferior. If they felt secure about what they own, they would not even bother to comment.
Nomoreheroes: Why are you mirrorless guys complaining?
This setup has better ergonomics than the Sony A7 cameras
Really??? Good luck with your definition of ergonomics...
There was a time when phones were phones and cameras were cameras. What if you get a call in the middle of a very important "cinematic" filming?
ivan1973: Android users would love these outdated tech stuffs.
I am an Android user, and I would not love these outdated tech stuff. So what is your point?
"...not to mention risky to commercial aircraft". Come on... does the author of this article really believe this? The guy was not launching the drone from a busy airport to chase aircrafts, but from some place in Siberia. What are the chances for an aircraft to collide with a small drone in that airspace? I think it is more likely for a person getting hit by a meteorite than a plane getting hit by this drone in that part of the world.
To me, this is a proof that there are just too many photographers out there taking pictures of the same subject.
It seems that many of the so called "photographers" commenting here just don't understand the intention of some manufacturers trying to make photographic equipment as compact as possible. A huge and heavy camera does not take better pictures, in case they haven't noticed. Adding extra size and weight to a camera (or lens) would be totally stupid. The less weight and size there is in a camera and lens system, the better it is for the photographer who carries it around for hours.
jay jay02: "Wow...mirrorless gear is so light and tiny it will easily fit in my pocket and I don't get back ache anymore like I used to with my big and heavy DSLR πππ"
No one said that a mirror less system would fit in your pocket, but it certainly reduces the unnecessary size and problems that a mechanical articulation can give. The future is definitely going to be mirror less, just wait and see. Even with a big camera you can not hold a lens like this just by holding the camera. You have to hold your lens too. The advantage of having a smaller camera is that you also have the option of attaching a smaller size lens, like an f 4.0, to have a smaller sized camera and lens combination with reduced weight.
aftab: Good thing is that Sony is trying. They didn't give up like Samsung (anyone remembers Samsung's touted 400mm white lens?)
Well, good for consumers. It will be difficult to say at this stage if all these pro directed approach will be good for Sony. Virtually all pro sport shooters shoot either Canon or Nikon at this time. Sony has a long way to go before they become a respectable third.
We will just have to wait and see.
From what I have seen, Sony has already become a "respectable third"...
ovengloves: Hope it's a bit more weather proof than their cameras :-)
The good thing about Sony is that they learn fast and they listen to their customers. In just 5 years they have made a lot of progress. Who knows, but the next a7xx or a9xx could very well be "extremely" water proof.
Huge, heavy, manual, expensive, and still produce vignetting and barrel distortion? Hmmm....
oldfashioned: it's all fair game. The media holds the power of exposing (ok...ridicule) the Agency and the Agency holds the power of arresting you if caught.
That said the charges are ... not accurate. Both sides shouldn't "overdue".
Is fair game and the media is an essential component of our system.
As long as the media don't tell lies.
Typical brain dead leftists... I hope they get a nice fine.
Sometimes, I wonder how do pro's make a living when they have to spend zillions in hardware and software so they do not become "outdated".
Photographers giving away their high resolution images definitely lack brain cells. If they gave away low resolution images, there would be a chance of them being contacted by clients who are willing to pay for their high resolution work. Fortunately, the images in Unsplash are mostly very generic and does not affect the work of professionals who deal with specific requests from clients.
JacquesBalthazar: Letβs be explicit here: what we are looking at is 100% digital.
One is a set of files of digital captures produced through a scanner, the other is a set of files produced by a digital camera.
The first category is produced by capturing via a CCD pre-existing images of a scene as materialised on chemically treated pieces of emulsion, the second is produced by directly capturing actual live scenes via a CMOS. Then both sets are electronically edited, resampled and downsized to fit the destructive DPR publication requirements.
If the analogue chain advantages (tones, dynamic range, grain structure, etc) exist, they will have been dramatically compromised via their digitisation process.
Finally, there are so many effective film simulations available now in the digital processing chain, that you can mimic analogue quite easily for all practical purposes.
Sticking to an end-to-end analogue chain is the only way to witness its unique qualities (via a print or a slide projection).
Totally correct! At the end, we are all viewing this on a limited sRGB color space.
BBQue: If you just flip through the photos not knowing which is which, would you even notice a difference? What makes or breaks the photos is the pose, the expression, the lighting.
I agree. The final image also depends on the skills of the photographer. A fair comparison would be if one photographer used both cameras for exactly the same shots - pixel peeping included.
This is totally crazy.... Kodak embracing a Ponzi scheme.