OremLK

Joined on Sep 20, 2017

Comments

Total: 174, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

deep7: I believe we are in a transitional phase in terms of camera equipment. What we essentially have now is a number of manufacturers holding on to a basic camera shape, which was designed to accommodate two film spools and a mirror/prism assembly, neither of which are actually included! Then they try to make this design work as a high quality video camera, while keeping it small and light. This is the true downside of a competitive marketplace, where manufacturers compete on specifications, not usability.

The surprise here is that people expect miracles that push the laws of physics but don't, apparently, want to give up the dinosaur camera design (which is NOT the ideal for stills either!).

What would be very interesting would be a comparison test to see how the large Panasonic S1H, dedicated video cameras and these lightweights fare in heat management under the same conditions. Can dpreview provide that?

You make some good points. I feel like it's past time for some camera manufacturer to come out with something like an ILC version of the DJI Osmo line, a camera body designed around a built-in gimbal. Imagine the stability and the relatively compact form factor (compared to using a large external gimbal) you could achieve by combining a built-in gimbal controlled by in-body software and coupled with both IBIS and OIS. Also, the ease of use of never having to balance anything, provided you use first-party lenses. Would be a great option for filmmakers.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2020 at 21:59 UTC
In reply to:

Badison: This is a great explanation of the analysis. It’s working as designed, but that may not fit use cases or expectations of some it sounds like.

The one thing I think is interesting is why this issue is such a big deal hype wise in the industry. Other companies have released products with significant controversial issues. Is it because of the nature of the issue? The fact these are high end models? Does it have to do with the larger user base of Canon users and anticipation? Is it related to how Canon marketed and created hype (since they put a large effort into it clearly given the PR done leading up till now and after)?

It’s a very interesting topic and product, but I’m wondering if there’s something unique about this product launch compared to other controversial camera launches. (Maybe many are locked in more due to the pandemic? Haha)

I wouldn't be surprised if there's something going on with the software that's causing the excessive "cooldown" time, that could be addressed in firmware. It seems overly long for how long it should actually take for the camera to physically cool down.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2020 at 21:53 UTC
In reply to:

Badison: This is a great explanation of the analysis. It’s working as designed, but that may not fit use cases or expectations of some it sounds like.

The one thing I think is interesting is why this issue is such a big deal hype wise in the industry. Other companies have released products with significant controversial issues. Is it because of the nature of the issue? The fact these are high end models? Does it have to do with the larger user base of Canon users and anticipation? Is it related to how Canon marketed and created hype (since they put a large effort into it clearly given the PR done leading up till now and after)?

It’s a very interesting topic and product, but I’m wondering if there’s something unique about this product launch compared to other controversial camera launches. (Maybe many are locked in more due to the pandemic? Haha)

@Edwinrudolf: Sony has absolutely been plagued with issues similar to this for a long, long time with both the A6xxx and A7 series.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2020 at 21:48 UTC
In reply to:

sohus: The bottom-line is very simple:

Canon made a mistake. They went for the marketing headlines of "8k video" and now everybody just focuses on the overheating.

Apple would have never implemented a feature like this. Either something works reliably, or it doesn't. They should have stuck with the video modes that work well and make sure they are extremely reliable.

I can see the market for 8K but no way there is a need for that now on a primarily photo oriented camera product.

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

Typical manifestation of Canon's philosophy: product features dictate the product, not the user experience (which is leading at Apple, Google or any other Silicon Valley company).

No. It's absolutely better to have a feature that works well some of the time than not to have it at all. As long as said feature does not compromise the other capabilities. As I said, if it's not ready for reliable, professional use, you can always add a warning and/or bury it deep in the settings. Saying it should be left out is like saying you don't want a gift of $10,000 because it's not the $20,000 you were expecting.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2020 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

sohus: The bottom-line is very simple:

Canon made a mistake. They went for the marketing headlines of "8k video" and now everybody just focuses on the overheating.

Apple would have never implemented a feature like this. Either something works reliably, or it doesn't. They should have stuck with the video modes that work well and make sure they are extremely reliable.

I can see the market for 8K but no way there is a need for that now on a primarily photo oriented camera product.

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

Typical manifestation of Canon's philosophy: product features dictate the product, not the user experience (which is leading at Apple, Google or any other Silicon Valley company).

Speak for yourself, I'd rather have the option. The marketing was the mistake, not the inclusion of the feature. Perhaps they could mark it as "Experimental feature, use at your own risk" in the menu system.

The Apple mindset is toxic. Taking away useful features that a small percentage would make great use of just because they aren't friendly enough to the rest of the userbase.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2020 at 19:30 UTC

Just an unfortunate narrative. They're some of the best cameras on the market for stills with the bonus of being pretty great for doing some light, hobbyist video work on the side. And the R5 appears to be perfectly acceptable (with some of the best IBIS) for video work in line-skipping mode for, say, a hybrid wedding shooter, or somebody just posting videos on YouTube. But because of Canon's poor marketing decisions the whole narrative is about the overheating.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2020 at 13:44 UTC as 196th comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon D6: initial sample images (124 comments in total)

Is it just me--and I say this as someone who couldn't care less about brand loyalty or brand fights--or do the colors on these sample images look pretty... bad...? After a week of staring at R5 & R6 sample images?

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2020 at 13:32 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

idahodoc: Based on Canon's specs, the 8K performance is not serious as per professional or business use. Those saying they just shoot small clips miss the point, the recovery is abysmal. They might have to schedule 1 hour between shoots, again, according to Canon's own data and recommendations. If you keep shooting 8 minutes, you can get 36 minutes of video per hour. In small segments.

But it sounds like it is a great low-frame-rate 4K camera. My beef would be the presence of the AA filter. Why am I tossing resolution? And as we all suspected, physics will not be denied. 8K video generates HEAT!

For a professional shoot, throw on an external recorder. Relatively small expense compared to the cost of the camera. Unfortunate that you have to do that, but it's still a pretty great deal overall compared to the cost of other 8k RAW cameras.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2020 at 09:09 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: "Interestingly smartphones are mostly used in situations that don't involve a client present at the scene. 58 percent use the smartphone to take photos that support their own business, for example, website photos or social media posts. 20 percent use phones for behind the scenes type of work."

This strikes me like a chef who serves eight-course meals to his customers but eats McDonald's himself.

Well, but appearances must be maintained. You do a professional shoot on a smartphone, clients might (erroneously) start thinking "Why am I paying someone, I could just do this myself on my own phone".

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2020 at 21:21 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: "Interestingly smartphones are mostly used in situations that don't involve a client present at the scene. 58 percent use the smartphone to take photos that support their own business, for example, website photos or social media posts. 20 percent use phones for behind the scenes type of work."

This strikes me like a chef who serves eight-course meals to his customers but eats McDonald's himself.

More likely, it's because website photos, social media, etc, do not require the image quality an ILC provides, being that they'll rarely be viewed above 1080p and virtually never above 4k. So it's fine to lean on the convenience of your smartphone.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2020 at 20:56 UTC
On article Sony a7S III initial review (1620 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dons1000: I am not a professional photographer. Why is more than 12 MP necessary in still photography if most of the devices the photos are viewed on - phones, tablets and tv’s (4K tv is still 8 MP) - have less than 12 MP ?

For making large prints or for being able to make huge crops. Hot take: If you aren't interested in either of those things (and you don't mind the ergonomics), then yeah, you might as well be shooting on an iPhone.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2020 at 04:12 UTC
In reply to:

Barty L: It's an important step toward further improvements in flexibility and image quality.

The ergonomics and user-experience will still be garbage.

Sure. Get out the stilettos and leather!

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2020 at 23:09 UTC
In reply to:

Barty L: It's an important step toward further improvements in flexibility and image quality.

The ergonomics and user-experience will still be garbage.

@Barty L: Because it's a ridiculous analogy that doesn't even make sense! You could've said "walk around in shoes a size too small" or something sensible, but for whatever reason "whipped convict" was your analogy of choice.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2020 at 22:53 UTC
In reply to:

Barty L: It's an important step toward further improvements in flexibility and image quality.

The ergonomics and user-experience will still be garbage.

Why do people insist on using such ridiculous hyperbole/strawman arguments? Taking a photo on a smartphone is the equivalent to being roped to a frame and whipped?? Good god...

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2020 at 23:54 UTC
On article What you need to know about the new Nikon Z5 (304 comments in total)
In reply to:

JE River: All I needed to know is that it doesn't have a fully articulating screen. Wish we had more FF options with FAS. In looking back at all of my best photos in the last 15 years, the most creative ones were from my cameras with FAS, regardless of sensor size or lens quality. I could always put my camera where it needed to be without any compromise in my ability to frame and focus the shots.

Quite a shame, as the IBIS and dual card slots are amazing features for the price point. Ughh.

I prefer tilting screens to fully articulating ones. I like to shoot fast and it just takes so much longer to adjust a fully articulating screen by comparison.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2020 at 23:42 UTC
On article What you need to know about the new Nikon Z5 (304 comments in total)

Love the design language on the Nikon Z series, especially this one and the Z50 (for some reason). I know you don't buy a camera for the looks, but it sure does get me more excited to shoot when I glance over at my camera and it has an appealing design.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2020 at 23:40 UTC as 28th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Thoughts: Seems Sony A7 III will have a hard time. Great news for all.

To those saying the A7 III is a substantially better camera, what specs sheets (which is all we have to go on for this camera) are YOU looking at? On the ones I'm seeing, almost all of the specs for stills photographers are about the same, with the only major exception being that the A7 III can shoot a lot faster (relevant if you shoot certain genres, not so much in others). Cameras are a lot more than their spec sheets. But again, we don't know how the Z5 will perform real-world yet... because it's not out... Video's another story too, of course.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2020 at 10:54 UTC

Curious how good the 24-50 kit lens will be. Looks at first glance like it might be the smallest zoom lens out there for full frame. If the optical quality can support the full 24 megapixels, that's an intriguing travel package.

The camera itself seems very similar to the A7 III, for $300 less. That's a potentially powerful combination for Nikon. I wouldn't doubt Sony can sell the A7 III for less and still make a profit though, so I won't be surprised when they drop the price.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2020 at 10:46 UTC as 146th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

LoSPt1: I felt comfortable reading through this interview until I hit the part where Kenji Tanaka is asked what he thinks of computational imaging.

"glass has a lot of advantages" "glass will still be superior" - He lost me right there. Computational photography is not meant to compete with traditional cameras' great hardware set, rather it should COEXIST with them to improve the image quality even further.

Some of AI-assisted image processing can especially benefit cameras like A7S series where the sensor resolution is greatly sacrificed to maximise light sensitivity. For instance, intelligent image stacking resembles Sony's Pixel Shift and can increase the effective resolution by cancelling out Bayer pattern, but also work with handheld and compensate for subject movements at the same time... all done precisely at RAW level, so it should be more than suitable for most "commercial" works. What if you don't like it? Just turn it off! Having options is never a bad thing for us end consumers.

When you talk about a 600mm prime lens you're talking about something extremely specialized that only a tiny fraction of photographers even have any interest in. Fine, Mr. Elite Wildlife Photographer has little use for computational photography. How about the rest of us?

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2020 at 18:01 UTC
In reply to:

Pixel Pooper: If people really wanted small slow lenses, Olympus might not be in so much trouble right now. Unfortunately I don't think that is the case. People don't by FF to use slow lenses. Good luck trying to sell any primes slower that f/2.8 or zooms slower than f/5.6.

@Pixel Pooper: I would. Landscape photography often involves long, difficult hikes. Any amount of size and weight you can save is beneficial. And since shooting off a tripod with long shutter speeds is common, faster lenses aren't that important unless you really need to freeze motion or you have a specific scene that would benefit from intense background blur. Those situations are rare though. I'd rather have the lighter kit, personally.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2020 at 05:42 UTC
Total: 174, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »