57even

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

Comments

Total: 542, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

This is a kind of backwards argument. Any subjectively good composition can (and has been) broken down into geometry, but the geometry is not the explanation for our perception, it is merely one way to describe it.

You can come up with similar formulae for kicking a football, or hitting a home run, but it's quite possible for someone with no math skills at all to do both with far more than average consistency through instinct, practice and timing alone.
Bresson, and many others, didn't measure what they saw, they just knew what would look 'right'. If it looks right, then by definition it falls into one of the many aesthetic geometries that have been defined to describe just that.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 20:32 UTC as 91st comment | 2 replies
On article Elliott Erwitt's lost photos of Pittsburgh (17 comments in total)
In reply to:

Arca45Swiss: As far as I'm concerned he's still an unknown. Never heard of him

Says more about you than Mr Erwitt.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 07:31 UTC

I'd say these are pretty good when downsized to 16MP, with better DR than any smart phone. Somewhere between a 1" and 4/3" sensor maybe?

Of course, they are JPEGs, which means you can really get much more out of them by editing. You are kind of stuck with the cameras baked-in algorithms.

As a value proposition, it is way off. For around $400 and shrunk to the size of a smart-phone, it would be a lot more interesting.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 18:37 UTC as 41st comment | 3 replies

Surely, the only 'proof' you need is the original raw file. Unless you are dumb enough to share the raw file on a download site, the infringer could not possibly have a copy.

If the raw file EXIF also contains your copyright data, then it is proof.

Anyone, even someone who steals an image, can apply for copyright. How does the registration office prove it was theirs?

Registration is a nonsense. Anyone can steal data and then claim copyright. It isn't proof. Having the original copies and drafts (unedited) should be ample proof if proof is required.

This is just another pointless irrelevant legal nonsense from people that have no clue about technology.

Do you have to register negatives as well? How does that work?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 18:24 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies

Hardly a surprise. They have some good AF tech in the N1 cameras, so no problem with firmware. New lens mount a given, big enough for FF, with adapters.

I suspect they will go with a 'phone-camera generation' offering first, and offer more serious models if the market is there. They won't cannibalise sales of their FF cams until later, but a nice range of APSC lenses would be a new venture for Nikon.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 19:54 UTC as 149th comment

The dog wanted him to buy the A9 :-D

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 17:53 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Greg7579: I have been traveling and shooting all over the world for the past 15 months with the Surface Pro 4 (the i7, 512 SSD, 16 GB Version which was very expensive at over 2100 USD). The big advantage is it is super light (2 pounds) and runs Photoshop and LightRoom super smoothly and fast. The screen is fabulous for RAW photo editing in LR, but small at 12.3 inches. The pen works amazingly well on the touch screen to move the LR sliders. It is the perfect travel machine for photographers and is surprisingly impressive in tablet mode while photo editing. Sure, I would love to have a powerful 4K 15 inch clamshell, but that is 3 times the weight and much bigger. This convertible tablet-laptop changes the game completely while aggressively traveling and doing post processing on the road.

I run LR on an SP2 i5 8MB. Apart from the initial opening of large raw files, the performance is fine. Perfectly adequate for a portable, and no worse than any laptop without a dedicated GPU.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 20:40 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Why switch? Migration is seldom an either-or scenario. It is quite possible to incorporate a new camera into an existing workflow, and keep the older gear on hand. Using two different cameras is not much of a burden when you get the hang of it. Its not like all Canons have the same control layout (1D vs 5D for instance).

I have seldom seen any photographers at sporting events carrying one body. It is more likely that they may incorporate A9s for some work, while keeping the old Canon and Nikon with the long prime until they either wear out, or Sony produces a replacement lens, or both. There are plenty of pros already using mixed equipment and turnover is fairly rapid.

The real issue is whether there is a job-related motive to use an A9 instead of a D5 or 1DX. Probably, for now, there isn't - but if they start shooting more video at sporting events, that could all change.

Sure, but the 'big sports' are not the only sports, and the argument is over TV rights. Sports that are not widely televised are a different matter. They still may have a large fanbase, just not in the US or worldwide.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 10:22 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Why switch? Migration is seldom an either-or scenario. It is quite possible to incorporate a new camera into an existing workflow, and keep the older gear on hand. Using two different cameras is not much of a burden when you get the hang of it. Its not like all Canons have the same control layout (1D vs 5D for instance).

I have seldom seen any photographers at sporting events carrying one body. It is more likely that they may incorporate A9s for some work, while keeping the old Canon and Nikon with the long prime until they either wear out, or Sony produces a replacement lens, or both. There are plenty of pros already using mixed equipment and turnover is fairly rapid.

The real issue is whether there is a job-related motive to use an A9 instead of a D5 or 1DX. Probably, for now, there isn't - but if they start shooting more video at sporting events, that could all change.

I guess that depends on the country, and the sport.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 17:21 UTC

Why switch? Migration is seldom an either-or scenario. It is quite possible to incorporate a new camera into an existing workflow, and keep the older gear on hand. Using two different cameras is not much of a burden when you get the hang of it. Its not like all Canons have the same control layout (1D vs 5D for instance).

I have seldom seen any photographers at sporting events carrying one body. It is more likely that they may incorporate A9s for some work, while keeping the old Canon and Nikon with the long prime until they either wear out, or Sony produces a replacement lens, or both. There are plenty of pros already using mixed equipment and turnover is fairly rapid.

The real issue is whether there is a job-related motive to use an A9 instead of a D5 or 1DX. Probably, for now, there isn't - but if they start shooting more video at sporting events, that could all change.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 16:12 UTC as 145th comment | 5 replies
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2750 comments in total)

New technology marches on, and old technology can't. It's not a surprise that a camera like this would appear, or that Sony would produce it. I am just glad that they sorted out the human factors that made previous Sony bodies such a chore.

As the review says, the proof will be in the level of professional support that Sony offers to pro sports photographers. For us normal humans, I just hope some of this ergonomic maturity trickles down to Sony's other models.

If I ever decide that I need to go back to full-frame, then Sony is the only mirrorless game in town. And no, I have no intention of reinvesting in SLR or SLT technology.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2017 at 13:51 UTC as 455th comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Trees: The rant against "hybrid stills/cameras" is a bit confounding to me.

As a working professional who lives in both the stills and video world, I'm not sure a lot of the haters "get" how media is created by organizations and the realities of timelines and budgets.

I've shot on video cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They're great when you have the time, budget, and personnel for a big VIDEO project. I've shot stills with film and digital of different formats. Great when you're shooting ONLY stills.

But... When you need to shoot stills AND videos quickly or to document an event easily, I'll take a mirror-less hybrid any day. I've shot around the world and sometimes, you don't want or need a hulking stills or video camera. I'm not the only one who's noticed that smaller/lighter gear sometimes allows you to get better shots because either you blend in or non-professional talent are less intimidated by smaller cameras.

Swiss army knives are popular for a reason...

The pricing policy of camera companies is their problem, but there is no innate reason why you cannot make specialised versions of the same basic components and products, but tune them for different users. Car companies do it all the time. So does Sony with its three full frame models.

90% of pricing is decided by the marketing department. The Df did not have to be expensive. They could have put the same spec parts in a standard chassis and charged less for it. It was the retro-styling exercise that induced the bump in price.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 16:10 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Trees: The rant against "hybrid stills/cameras" is a bit confounding to me.

As a working professional who lives in both the stills and video world, I'm not sure a lot of the haters "get" how media is created by organizations and the realities of timelines and budgets.

I've shot on video cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They're great when you have the time, budget, and personnel for a big VIDEO project. I've shot stills with film and digital of different formats. Great when you're shooting ONLY stills.

But... When you need to shoot stills AND videos quickly or to document an event easily, I'll take a mirror-less hybrid any day. I've shot around the world and sometimes, you don't want or need a hulking stills or video camera. I'm not the only one who's noticed that smaller/lighter gear sometimes allows you to get better shots because either you blend in or non-professional talent are less intimidated by smaller cameras.

Swiss army knives are popular for a reason...

Read the interview with Olympus CEO.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 08:54 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Trees: The rant against "hybrid stills/cameras" is a bit confounding to me.

As a working professional who lives in both the stills and video world, I'm not sure a lot of the haters "get" how media is created by organizations and the realities of timelines and budgets.

I've shot on video cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They're great when you have the time, budget, and personnel for a big VIDEO project. I've shot stills with film and digital of different formats. Great when you're shooting ONLY stills.

But... When you need to shoot stills AND videos quickly or to document an event easily, I'll take a mirror-less hybrid any day. I've shot around the world and sometimes, you don't want or need a hulking stills or video camera. I'm not the only one who's noticed that smaller/lighter gear sometimes allows you to get better shots because either you blend in or non-professional talent are less intimidated by smaller cameras.

Swiss army knives are popular for a reason...

@Under The Sun

So you reckon all cameras should take calls and support messaging and Facebook? Multitools are fine for occasional emergency DIY, but they are not used by craftsmen. I want a tool dedicated to a particular job, not a bucket of features that compromise everything I want to do.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 01:03 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Trees: The rant against "hybrid stills/cameras" is a bit confounding to me.

As a working professional who lives in both the stills and video world, I'm not sure a lot of the haters "get" how media is created by organizations and the realities of timelines and budgets.

I've shot on video cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They're great when you have the time, budget, and personnel for a big VIDEO project. I've shot stills with film and digital of different formats. Great when you're shooting ONLY stills.

But... When you need to shoot stills AND videos quickly or to document an event easily, I'll take a mirror-less hybrid any day. I've shot around the world and sometimes, you don't want or need a hulking stills or video camera. I'm not the only one who's noticed that smaller/lighter gear sometimes allows you to get better shots because either you blend in or non-professional talent are less intimidated by smaller cameras.

Swiss army knives are popular for a reason...

No, my point was that the market is very diverse, but every product out there seems to assume that the only difference between photographers is their budget. This is why the market is in a tailspin. The GH5 is a very good product for those that need it, and a very useless product for those that don't. But all cameras, more or less, have the same set of features. The whole paradigm is working off the same baseline. It's why cameras are not attracting the attention of new buyers.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 15:22 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Trees: The rant against "hybrid stills/cameras" is a bit confounding to me.

As a working professional who lives in both the stills and video world, I'm not sure a lot of the haters "get" how media is created by organizations and the realities of timelines and budgets.

I've shot on video cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They're great when you have the time, budget, and personnel for a big VIDEO project. I've shot stills with film and digital of different formats. Great when you're shooting ONLY stills.

But... When you need to shoot stills AND videos quickly or to document an event easily, I'll take a mirror-less hybrid any day. I've shot around the world and sometimes, you don't want or need a hulking stills or video camera. I'm not the only one who's noticed that smaller/lighter gear sometimes allows you to get better shots because either you blend in or non-professional talent are less intimidated by smaller cameras.

Swiss army knives are popular for a reason...

I think they need to go for more niches, stop being kitchen sink salesmen, and stop using camera forums to design their products for them ;-)

The biggest problem is a fundamental lack of imagination, not technology. Really useful stuff is now peripheral, but it needs to be bundled.

There is so much more potential for inter-operability with phones or tablets for instance. The camera itself could be hugely simplified.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 20:37 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Trees: The rant against "hybrid stills/cameras" is a bit confounding to me.

As a working professional who lives in both the stills and video world, I'm not sure a lot of the haters "get" how media is created by organizations and the realities of timelines and budgets.

I've shot on video cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They're great when you have the time, budget, and personnel for a big VIDEO project. I've shot stills with film and digital of different formats. Great when you're shooting ONLY stills.

But... When you need to shoot stills AND videos quickly or to document an event easily, I'll take a mirror-less hybrid any day. I've shot around the world and sometimes, you don't want or need a hulking stills or video camera. I'm not the only one who's noticed that smaller/lighter gear sometimes allows you to get better shots because either you blend in or non-professional talent are less intimidated by smaller cameras.

Swiss army knives are popular for a reason...

I don't think that has much to do with the enthusiast market, personally. Sure, phones destroyed the P&S market, which was keeping the camera companies afloat, but the real issue is that the technology has barely crept forward in the last 5-6 years. There is much less incentive to upgrade.

If I owned a D7200, why would I want a D7500 for instance? The D7200 had the best performing sensor in the business, for general photography.

Nikon and Canon are just doing the same old thing and expecting everything to get better. I don't think they have any idea what to do, other than keep churning out the same boring black blobs.

And for all Panasonic's expertise in video, it hasn't saved their camera division.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 18:43 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Trees: The rant against "hybrid stills/cameras" is a bit confounding to me.

As a working professional who lives in both the stills and video world, I'm not sure a lot of the haters "get" how media is created by organizations and the realities of timelines and budgets.

I've shot on video cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They're great when you have the time, budget, and personnel for a big VIDEO project. I've shot stills with film and digital of different formats. Great when you're shooting ONLY stills.

But... When you need to shoot stills AND videos quickly or to document an event easily, I'll take a mirror-less hybrid any day. I've shot around the world and sometimes, you don't want or need a hulking stills or video camera. I'm not the only one who's noticed that smaller/lighter gear sometimes allows you to get better shots because either you blend in or non-professional talent are less intimidated by smaller cameras.

Swiss army knives are popular for a reason...

The market is collapsing because nobody is buying cameras. I wonder why.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 17:03 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Trees: The rant against "hybrid stills/cameras" is a bit confounding to me.

As a working professional who lives in both the stills and video world, I'm not sure a lot of the haters "get" how media is created by organizations and the realities of timelines and budgets.

I've shot on video cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They're great when you have the time, budget, and personnel for a big VIDEO project. I've shot stills with film and digital of different formats. Great when you're shooting ONLY stills.

But... When you need to shoot stills AND videos quickly or to document an event easily, I'll take a mirror-less hybrid any day. I've shot around the world and sometimes, you don't want or need a hulking stills or video camera. I'm not the only one who's noticed that smaller/lighter gear sometimes allows you to get better shots because either you blend in or non-professional talent are less intimidated by smaller cameras.

Swiss army knives are popular for a reason...

@Dragonrider - I don't see any evidence that cameras are getting any cheaper, do you?

And no, it is never cheaper to design a system to do two things. It is only cheaper for users to buy one device instead of two, provided they accept the compromises involved. If you don't want the second device, then it isn't cheaper and you have a less optimised device.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 06:47 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Trees: The rant against "hybrid stills/cameras" is a bit confounding to me.

As a working professional who lives in both the stills and video world, I'm not sure a lot of the haters "get" how media is created by organizations and the realities of timelines and budgets.

I've shot on video cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They're great when you have the time, budget, and personnel for a big VIDEO project. I've shot stills with film and digital of different formats. Great when you're shooting ONLY stills.

But... When you need to shoot stills AND videos quickly or to document an event easily, I'll take a mirror-less hybrid any day. I've shot around the world and sometimes, you don't want or need a hulking stills or video camera. I'm not the only one who's noticed that smaller/lighter gear sometimes allows you to get better shots because either you blend in or non-professional talent are less intimidated by smaller cameras.

Swiss army knives are popular for a reason...

The vast majority of camera buyers do not work for media organisations. For them, the emphasis on video is something they are paying for, but don't need.

Video and stills use the same technology, but the way in which they exploit that technology is different. There is no need for a stills lens to focus smoothly and silently, or change aperture continuously. In fact, it just slows the camera down when shooting on the street or at a sports event.

So video lenses and stills lenses, and AF systems, have some very different design requirements which are largely contradictory.

The sensor requirements are not the same either. What is good for landscape still images (high resolution) is not good for video because it requires more processing and interpolation, and increases rolling shutter by increasing readout times.

So there is a market for cameras which are stills biased and don't compromise. We don't all want or need the same thing, but we pay for it anyway. Does that confound you?

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 01:30 UTC
Total: 542, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »