57even

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Joined on Jul 16, 2012

Comments

Total: 646, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

As a non-pro, I haven't been enthused with Canon's prosumer models for a while, but this is a very nice, well engineered camera with a decent sensor (Canon's glass has never been a problem).

I also think Canon's dual pixel AF architecture is a much more elegant solution than Sony's masked pixel technique, and seems to work at least as well.

They took their time, but they seem to be finding their stride. Good job Canon.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2020 at 16:13 UTC as 52nd comment

Clearly the term 'smart'phone is relative to the person using it. Perhaps Apple and Google can add animal recognition software to warn people who are less smart than their phone to keep their distance?

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2020 at 14:44 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

57even: It is indeed amazing how much technology is used to make images from a phone look half-way decent.

@DrewRick

What kind of output medium could reproduce 25 stops of DR in a way that looked vaguely realistic? Even the latest HDR TVs only reproduce 12 stops and the average print is less than 8 stops, so what would you do with the rest?

To produce comparable output to a full-frame sensor, you need to stack the same number of images in proportion to the area difference. So, for a single shot on FF you would require about 30-50 frames on a phone. Good luck trying to do that without any motion blur.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2020 at 19:22 UTC
In reply to:

57even: It is indeed amazing how much technology is used to make images from a phone look half-way decent.

@DrewRick

It isn't needed in a real camera. That's kind of the point.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2020 at 14:54 UTC
In reply to:

57even: It is indeed amazing how much technology is used to make images from a phone look half-way decent.

Well Thomas, we can only hope ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2020 at 14:51 UTC

It is indeed amazing how much technology is used to make images from a phone look half-way decent.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2020 at 04:55 UTC as 21st comment | 14 replies

For me, it was a negative scanner and an early edition of Photoshop. Digital cameras came a few years later, but it was about 6 years before they matched my scanned images.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2020 at 08:08 UTC as 60th comment

I was yearning for one of these in 2003 so I could hang on to my much loved Dynax/Maxxum 7, but alas it was not to be. I bought a Pentax *istD and sold all my Minolta gear for peanuts to help fund it.

Is there really a market for this now? Everyone who wants digital convenience owns digital camera, and owners of film cameras made the deliberate choice in order to use film.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2020 at 22:35 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
On article Fujifilm X-T200 review (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

Oiche: My house has copper wiring, why is this technology only being discovered now for cameras?

Copper cannot be deposited directly on silicon, but requires a channel, usually silver coated, to keep them separated. This makes copper more expensive, but the conductivity improvements allow for narrower wiring channels and better fill factors.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2020 at 22:08 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: To me, this proves that Fuji completely lost the plot with the X-Pro3. Clearly they could have implemented a similar arrangement with the LCD rather than that stupid thing they came up with.

Agreed 100%.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2020 at 19:45 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T3 vs X-Pro3: Which one's right for me? (236 comments in total)

The Xpro2 was a far more practical camera. With the Xpro3, the OVF is less functional, and the rear screen cannot work properly on a tripod, or with a leather half case.

If they had simply kept the VF the same and put a reversible screen on it, it would at least have retained the all-round practicality of the Pro2 and would still look cool.

As it is, the Pro3 is a second camera, not a primary camera.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2020 at 08:34 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

forpetessake: Fuji was plagued with manufacturing issues with every new camera. More so than any other camera manufacturer.

Fuji have had a few manufacturing issues, yes. But camera for camera and lens for lens, my defect rate for Fuji is far less than Nikon and Pentax.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2020 at 15:10 UTC
In reply to:

Idontseegraininreallife: This is the best comment section yet!

People, it's $9.99 per month. Grabe for your oxygen masks!

That's $120 per year. It would take you 5.5 years to equal the stand alone price from the last stand alone version of several years ago. Upgrading your software twice in a decade is not abnormal. Only old people that still have a 15 year old laptop, a 20 year old car and a 70 year old wife cry about this math. Get over it.

You all worry about ownership for life. Half this place will be pushing up daisies before the next decade anyway. How long you really think you got?

@razadaz

"They had already paid up front, and the cost of upgrading was minimal to them".

The cost of upgrading LR on it's own was OK. The cost of upgrading LR and PS, or the whole creative suite, was punitive as a one-time hit, even with the discount.

Now, if I only needed LR, it would not be such a good deal. In that case, I would look for alternatives, but for LR+PS and Bridge, it works out to be cost effective, which I think is one reason for it's continued success.

For people buying in for the first time, an initial payment of £10 is more manageable than a one-off cost of £700. In the age of credit, it's just keeping up with the times.

Plus a vast proportion of personal copies were pirated. Only businesses paid for licenses it seems.

With my Fuji I get C1 Express for free and a cheap upgrade to the pro version. Same for Sony users. I have alternatives if I decide to quit.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2019 at 05:35 UTC
In reply to:

hammarbytp: If I ran a photography buisness, CC would be a no brainer. Its industry standard, you a guaranteed updates and there is minimal support need. However the big con Adobe has done is convincing the hobbyist photographer that they need CC. Generally they don't because they are going to only use a small subset of the features, do not need the regular updates and it costs a lot over its lifespan.

I see some people saying it is only a the cost of their monthly mobile phone contract or a few starbucks, but there is one point they are missing in that analogy. When you stop paying you lose access to the software, so any files that rely on it will not be accessible. May not be important now, but someday you may have to make the choice between paying that subscription or something else. In that way the analogy is more akin to a drug habit

So if you know you need it great, but also look at the alternatives. And remember a CC subscription is not just for Christmas....

@mandm

Photography is a relatively cheap hobby compared to boats or motorbikes, and some people change their motorbike every three years once the shine wears off. There is no rhyme or reason much of the time, but people like owning stuff that gives them a kick, and they can afford it.

Hobbyists have always liked owning top-end equipment. It's a combination of peer-group respect and the shiny jewelry syndrome. The first time I joined a camera club with my 'new' second-hand Canon AE1 in the 1980's, hoping to learn from the pros, I learned that 35mm was only acceptable to 'serious photographers' if you owned a Leica, otherwise you really needed MF. I didn't learn much and left after a few meet-ups.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2019 at 05:17 UTC
In reply to:

hammarbytp: If I ran a photography buisness, CC would be a no brainer. Its industry standard, you a guaranteed updates and there is minimal support need. However the big con Adobe has done is convincing the hobbyist photographer that they need CC. Generally they don't because they are going to only use a small subset of the features, do not need the regular updates and it costs a lot over its lifespan.

I see some people saying it is only a the cost of their monthly mobile phone contract or a few starbucks, but there is one point they are missing in that analogy. When you stop paying you lose access to the software, so any files that rely on it will not be accessible. May not be important now, but someday you may have to make the choice between paying that subscription or something else. In that way the analogy is more akin to a drug habit

So if you know you need it great, but also look at the alternatives. And remember a CC subscription is not just for Christmas....

@mandm

Yes, but camera companies provide ready-made excuses for people that need to justify it to themselves. I think it's called "marketing" ;-)

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2019 at 00:34 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Funny how people resent paying for Adobe software and their profit margins, but worship Apple and happily pay far more every month for an iPhone.

People are weird, though I do wish Adobe would test their software before releasing it. Mind you, could say the same about OSX and Windows10.

I find all the responses even more ironic.

I never said Apple or Adobe were right or wrong, only that many people seem perfectly happy to make regular payments for some services, but not Adobe software.

Clearly, it works for them so it's unlikely to change, in which case all this belligerence is a waste of time and energy when there are plenty of very capable alternatives you can buy outright.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2019 at 00:26 UTC
In reply to:

jmknights1954: Greedy monster.

Why are they more greedy than Microsoft, or Google, or Apple...?

If you don't like paying for stuff, use RawTherapee.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2019 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Funny how people resent paying for Adobe software and their profit margins, but worship Apple and happily pay far more every month for an iPhone.

People are weird, though I do wish Adobe would test their software before releasing it. Mind you, could say the same about OSX and Windows10.

Except that most people don't buy outright, and upgrade their phone whenever their contract is up. I don't hear them complaining.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2019 at 19:19 UTC

Funny how people resent paying for Adobe software and their profit margins, but worship Apple and happily pay far more every month for an iPhone.

People are weird, though I do wish Adobe would test their software before releasing it. Mind you, could say the same about OSX and Windows10.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2019 at 19:04 UTC as 107th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: The beauty of this camera is that it actually is designed to compete against the main competitor to all camera companies, the smartphone.

This is designed to entice someone who wants more than their smartphone. And that is increasingly someone looking for a better and different experience.

I know a few younger people who really love this design. One actually uses film cameras in addition to her smartphone. Another shoots Sony, likes the output but doesn't like the experience.

This camera is for someone who wants to enjoy the experience of using a camera. In a way this has been Fuji's appeal all along.

They already did that with the Xpro2. They didn't need to make the LCD unusable on a tripod and downgrade the OVF to 'improve' it.

OTOH, most of it's biggest fans seem not to have been interested in the Xpro2, and a lot of Xpro2 users are very disappointed with the Xpro3. They basically took a great camera, removed some controls, and made it harder to use.

And yes, it looks really retro hipster with that little film window on the back of the part-time LCD. Me, I'm more interested in a camera I can use daily.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2019 at 17:37 UTC
Total: 646, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »