Photomonkey

Lives in United States CA, United States
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Oct 28, 2002

Comments

Total: 822, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

noflashplease: With only contrast detection, the X-A3 won't be any autofocus speed demon. However, it's worth remember that the X-A(x) series has sold well specifically because of its conventional Bayer sensor. If only Fujifilm had dropped the X-Trans sensor concept for their entire product line?

Speedy focus is relative. This camera will focus just fine for the target audience.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 16:30 UTC
On article Godox to launch AD600 battery-powered mono-block heads (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

AngularJS: How do these strobes compare to B1?

The same was said about Japanese products.
If the specs meet your needs the products are great.
I have been using Godox in a production environment even day for two years and no failures.
As for duration, this is a meaningless spec for almost all photographers much like the need for f1.2 lenses.

As for saying the Chinese cut corners, they do in many products. Godox is a solid brand with performance that matches its claims.

Reliability is paramount and so far I have seen no reason to doubt the Godox products.
They certainly are far more durable than my Quantum products that required regular service. They are, so far, more reliable than my Hensel strobes and my Bowens strobes. Both brands held in high Euro-centric esteem.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2016 at 19:05 UTC
On article Godox to launch AD600 battery-powered mono-block heads (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

AngularJS: How do these strobes compare to B1?

Much cheaper. Not as hip.
They have a family of strobes with the AD360/180 and 850 and 860 Speedlights that all have excellent 2.4 Ghz triggers integrated into them.

Profoto has the B2.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2016 at 01:34 UTC
In reply to:

Truebar: I'm Canon shooter, I am not a landscape photographer. And even if I was I would still get this Nikon D5 over Mark II. Purely photographically speaking, a top of the range AF like this in D5, is on a very top of the list before everything. It really is a game changer and will deliver bounds over Mark II. Canon wins on looks tho and Canon knows that lots and lots of people will buy into their system because of that. That, plus their current market share gives them the leverage not to be the leader in innovation, but to always be one step back behind the latest and the greatest in terms of the camera technology.

No one will be able to see a nickel's worth of difference between these cameras. What makes the difference is whether the user feels comfortable with the tool.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 23:51 UTC
In reply to:

22codfish: These cameras are out and above my league. However, since it is a comparison between manufacturers' expensive, flagship cameras, I would expect the Pentax 645Z should be included.

If it is a comparison of flagship cameras, they missed a few flagships.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 23:49 UTC
In reply to:

MadManAce: A click bait article if I ever saw one. Comparing spec sheets and making grandiose claims without any side by side testing, that is sinking to a new level. How about doing getting some PROs to compare the AF in different real life situations with lighting conditions and some repeatable dark studio tests. Lastly, I know very few situations that any PRO would use Dynamic Area Auto 3-D Select Focusing that reviewers are so keen on the D5. How the heck can one be satisfied with the camera making the decision on what to focus on. Now, I am not saying the Canon will win, but given these parameters, I would like to see the true results, not some spec sheet speculating article design to create controversy.

Let's see.
Lots of info, no pop-ups, never see the phrase "what comes next...",

Yeah, its a real article. And worth twice the price I paid for it.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 23:46 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

Perfectly good ideas.
But when Disney et al. get their lawyers going the laws are changed to suit their interests.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 16:08 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

People win lotteries sometimes.

Sadly, we have not figured a better way.
We owe the whole fining thing to you Scandinavians. ;)

From Wikipedia "The earliest written law from what is now Sweden seems to be the Forsaringen, an iron ring from the door for the church of Forsa in Hälsingland, which carries a runic inscription, long thought to be from the high Middle Ages but more recently dated to the ninth or tenth century. The inscription's precise meaning is uncertain, but seems to list fines, with the fine doubling for each new offence.[7]"

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 02:58 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

Jail would be great for the malefactors. The problem is that this is a civil case and the defendant is a corporation.
One of the great fears of permitting the operation of corporations in the 16th and 17th centuries (and resistance to granting them charters) was that there was no accountability in a concept of limited liability.
Thus we see no one going to jail for egregious financial crimes.
We also see incentive for officers to take risks that a sole proprietor would not take.
Thus we have the only alternative left and that is heavy financial consequences. Perhaps the judgement would be enough to liquidate the firm. That may be the determination of the judge if he or she determines that it was criminal intent on the part of the officers.
The court would be taking the only legal path available to them.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 18:10 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

One can attribute motives to lawsuits all the time. Trump uses them as a weapon. Some use them for extortion.
Some use them for exacting legal compensation for injury.
Irrespective of your opinion, she is engaging in a legal process available to everyone. In this society, the process is slow and laborious precisely to ensure that capricious outcomes do not happen.
Likability should have no bearing on the case.
The scale of the lawsuit is consistent with the scale of the alleged offense.

If proven, the law provides for just those damages. The plan for these damages were written by legislators in consultation with the creative and IP community.
The fact that you don't like the possible penalties means that you would most likely be deterred.

It seems they have stepped in it well and truly and they will spend a very large sum to escape those penalties if at all possible.
I am betting that they will see serious problems and offer to settle.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 03:09 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

@Roland Karlsson, it is not about revenge.
It is about creating barriers to wrongdoing.
Getty will not be fined out of hand.
If they go forward with the suit, a court ill hear arguments on the merits of their position.
Then a judgement will be rendered.
A judge may modify the judgement as they see fit consistent with justice.
Absent this system, we have nothing.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 11:20 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

@Roland Karlsson. A system that permits companies to steal and cheat for the price of a wrist slap creates a business model for cheating.
Note that banks created a massive crisis in the world by criminal financial activity yet no one went to jail. Heavy fines were assessed but were insignificant compared to the impact on families who lost jobs, homes and lives to suicide. They are still doing the same things today.

So, yeah, I have scant sympathy for a company that feels they can bully their way to prosperity and if caught, pay a fine and carry on.

As so many say, If they didn't want to lose their company, they should not have tried to screw people.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 04:17 UTC
In reply to:

Neez: What i think happened is some low life copied images from the library of congress and sold them to Getty, pretending they were their own.

Getty assumed they had the copyright and charged people money for them. Even serving cease and desist orders.

If that were the case you can be certain that Getty will have that individual's info and will have a squad of lawyers waterboarding him as we type.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 20:02 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So, she donated her pictures away to the Library of Congress. That is very fine indeed of the lady. Then comes Getty and messes it up by selling her photos and also "forgetting" to give due Copyright notice. Bad, bad Getty. They probably do fully know what they are doing, and that it is wrong. So, suing them seems appropriate.

But. $1 Billion? That is unreal. How can this misbehavior have caused the photographer damage of that amount?

Because she registered the images with the Copyright office and is entitled to the statutory damages as permitted by the law.
The entire purpose of the law is to deter and punish those who would steal copyrighted material in precisely this manner.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 19:59 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (417 comments in total)
In reply to:

Graham: Great review, but I am puzzled that RAW performance is tested using ACR, not DPP. The package consists of the camera body, a battery, RAW conversion software and accessories. The camera is tested with the supplied battery, not a third party substitute, so why are RAW files evaluated using third party RAW converters?

I attended a presentation of the new camera by Andy Rouse, who explained that his lovely high ISO images of kingfishers had been processed in DPP, that he could not achieve similar results with ACR or Lightroom, and that DPP seemed to be performing some kind of magic not available to Adobe.

Maybe that has changed since the beta version of the camera and ACR has caught up, but would it not be a more valid comparison to test ISO performance with the software supplied by the camera manufacturers instead of, or as well as, a RAW converter made by a third party? After all, everyone buying the camera will have the maker's software, but not everyone will have ACR.

Because it normalizes the comparisons.

In addition so many people use LR that it becomes a relevant metric.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 13:28 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (417 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stefan Keller: and disappointing again: ISO auto is not possible with flash!!
instead ISO is set to 400 with flash, a wonderful value outdoors in sunshine :-(((
only exception:
"in <P> Mode using bounce flash ISO will be set automatically between 400 and 1600"
(see manual page 165)
Canon, why ?????

Firmware update

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 13:26 UTC
In reply to:

eazizisaid: I honestly don't know why people are still starving for wide aperture lenses especially in longer focal lenght just because "bokeh" ! This is the route Sony is following ! I wish they offered a 2.8 lens lineup from 18mm to 135mm, it will be cheap and light !

Speed for dark environments is the best reason for fast lenses and was the original reason for their development.
Today, the fashion is shallow DOF.
In studio I rarely use an aperture larger than 5.6 on my 100 macro ($300). However, when I used to shoot weddings I was wide open on the fastest lenses I could lay my hands on. The greater distances in that environment gave me better DOF but I cursed the close ups of couples as only one would be tack sharp.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

mermaidkiller: Fluorine coatings ?
Using the most aggressive halogen (which is a gas) as coating ?? F2 gas will attack glass instantly.
Probably fluoride (with a d) is meant.

OT: No VR for a lens of this price range ? Furthermore it should be an excellent low-light lens with 75mm aperture. Ideal for astrophotography when vignetting and coma at full aperture f/1.4 is not too bad.

Some low priced lenses have VR some expensive lenses don't.
I doubt it will hurt sales.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 15:48 UTC
In reply to:

Nikonandmore: I have the feeling, just about all lenses now are "Leica" and MF price range. Sony, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon.. amazing! I don't understand how these manufactures survive to sell enough of these or how people manage to have money to feed this price frenzy. It will only take cell phone sensors, lenses and technology to get a bit better FOR ONE to buy DSLRs anymore. This market is dead and at these prices, sinking faster and faster. Costs 10 grand (or more) these days to buy a pro/enthusiast grade body and 2 or 3 lenses. Sorry, but this and it's pricing momentum is all becoming absurd. And mind you, these new lenses are all mass produced in 3rd world countries and with more and more dubious quality control. Long gone are the "Made in Japan" days with solid products made with extremely qualified manual labor, excellent quality control AND real long-term post sales support! Indeed Leicas start looking really affordable..

The companies are chasing profits where they can in a market rapidly commoditized by phones.
The market is not dead at all as evidenced by the interest here and across the web.
As for pricing, premium 35mm class lenses have been expensive for a long time.
I bought my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS used in 2003 for $1500. New list price was $1999 when introduced in 2001.

The manufacturers are very aware that a market exists for premium lenses for two reasons.
1. People demand them
2. They sell them

GAS is common and, like drugs, desensitizes us to expense. I used to think a $200 lens was the outer edge of affordability in the 70's. Now the Canon 11-24 at $3000 looks pricey but justifiable for my work.

As a working pro I choose carefully the lenses I buy so as not to blow up my business model. My hobbyist friends with grown children all have collections of gear that dwarfs mine.

They are the market.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 15:45 UTC

This will be an instant classic.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 15:29 UTC as 37th comment
Total: 822, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »