balios

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Jun 25, 2011

Comments

Total: 277, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Marty4650: If there is any bias here then it is economic, and not racial. B&H has a "bias towards making profits and staying in business."

ALL well run companies hire the best candidates who are willing to work for the least pay. This isn't racism.... it is capitalism. If those workers happen to be Hispanic, then that wasn't because B&H wants to exploit them. It is because they are the best workers who are willing to work for the least pay.

Amazon, Walmart, Target, UPS, Toyota and everyone else does the exact same thing. But since they aren't owned by "religious Jews" no one seems to notice it or have a problem with it.

The only employer who doesn't hire the best people willing to work for the least salary is the U.S. Post Office. And this might explain why they are constantly losing money, and why FedEx and UPS are thriving.

"It is pretty common for a union to fabricate or exaggerate charges "

This lawsuit wasn't filed by the workers, it was filed by the gov't. The charges are based on findings by Federal investigators. The gov't was not suing for large sums and to declare victory, it was suing to ensure compliance with labor laws. The gov't only settled the case because BH presented corrective measures that the gov't agreed with. The gov't lawyers get paid regardless of the outcome.

Regarding the restrooms, the charge made by the U.S. Department of Labor was (from their website):

"Relegated Hispanic warehouse workers to separate, unsanitary and often inoperable restrooms."

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

trungtran: The customer pays for it in the end.

The owners of BH are paying the settlement. When a customer voluntarily gives money to BH, it is no longer their money. It immediately becomes the property of BH.

Unless you print counterfeit money, all the money you have was given to you by other people. Those other people aren't paying for what you buy. You are.

There are criminal laws and civil laws. If you break a criminal law then you committed a "crime" and can go to jail. If you break a civil law then you have NOT committed a crime, you cannot go to jail, and you are subject to a fine.
BH violated labor laws, which are civil laws. They have not violated criminal law, have not committed a crime, and the owners should not go to jail.

The former employees had a labor contract and some terms are dictated by labor laws. BH breached that contract and the gov't rightfully forced BH to honor the contract by paying back wages that are rightfully owed.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2017 at 14:44 UTC
In reply to:

trungtran: The customer pays for it in the end.

Well yes. If I buy a camera from BH, some of that money will go towards back wages instead of being profit for the current owners. But I don't see how that effects me as a customer. Where the money goes after I give it to BH is not my concern.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

Rensol: My local camera store does not want to trade it. They told me they do not know how to process it and not even sure if the program is active!
They do not stock A9, etc....
I thought it is time to get an official (USA) version of A9 for $500 discount.
Did not fly that way :(((

I've never done it myself, but a company like B&H will accept trade-in by mail. They give you a quote, then you ship the camera. As long as the camera is in the condition you said it was in, then you get the trade-in.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: Who wants to trade in a camera that has a market value well above 500 US?
They should offer a cashback.

As has been said many times in the article and the comments below, Sony is giving you "trade in value" + $500.

You bring your camera to a participating Sony retailer. The store might offer you a trade-in value for your camera (let's say $600), then Sony adds a $500 bonus off the price of the A9. So you'd get $1100 off an A9 in my example.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: I'm sorry I must have missed the smartphone that takes interchangeable lenses and has at least a 4/3 sensor.

Which smartphone, that can be purchased new in August 2017, can easily be shot at ISO 3200?

That $450 Olympus mirrorless body, albeit with something faster than a kitzoom, sure takes better interior shots of Notre Dame during your summer trip to Paris than any current smartphone.

So many people talking about specs and not economics. If entry-level ILCs "die" it will NOT be because phones are superior, but because its not economical for companies to develop entry-level ILCs due to lagging sales.

Many people on these forums buy an entry-level ILC and put it to amazing use. But DPR members are less than 1% of the market.

The primary purchaser of entry-level ILCs don't know anything about camera specs or sensor sizes. They upgrade from a P&S to a camera with a 'big' lens because it 'must' take better photos. They buy a Canon Rebel at Walmart because its on sale and the guy said it had lots of megapixels. The camera will sit in the closet to be brought out a few times per year for birthday parties and the odd vacation. They'll shoot it on full auto and never ever buy another lens.

When these people realize that their phone is all they really need, they'll use the $500 on something that is better value to them (ie. not a camera).

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

CanonKen: How is the dynamic range?

;)

Better than the equivalent Sony printer.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 22:23 UTC

Thank you DPR for this public service message! I was completely unaware of an official 70mm Imax version (and I'm sure I wasn't alone) . Once it leaves Theatres there will be little chance to see this version. I will now be sure to see the 'proper' version while I can.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 21:18 UTC as 52nd comment
In reply to:

Melchiorum: The video is fake.

The only way this would be possible is if the bird flapped 20 times per second, which birds of this size don't do. Also, the frame rate of the video is clearly way lower than 20 and is kind of uneven. Notice the slow-downs at he beginning when the bird arrives and leaves. That's when the bird would flap slower due to horizontal gliding through the air. Strange?

Nope, not strange. Just fake. So lemme tell you how this video was made: you take the footage and you cut out all the frames except the ones you need (wings down). There, done. And you get uneven video frame rate, depending on the rate of wing flaps.

The process can even be easily automated.

In conclusion:

The video on Youtube is NOT the original video as recorded. I suspect the video was filmed at a higher frame rate. All the frames with the wings in the correct position were cherry-picked and assembled into a 20 fps video. Some frames were duplicated as needed where there weren't available frames.

Perhaps it was filmed at 30 fps, with the bird flapping at about 15 flaps per second. The non-compliant frames were removed, other frames duplicated to construct a 20 fps video playing at about 1/2 speed. This would require approximately 25% of the frames to be a duplicate. I did a very rough count of duplicate frames and that is about right.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 20:39 UTC
In reply to:

Melchiorum: The video is fake.

The only way this would be possible is if the bird flapped 20 times per second, which birds of this size don't do. Also, the frame rate of the video is clearly way lower than 20 and is kind of uneven. Notice the slow-downs at he beginning when the bird arrives and leaves. That's when the bird would flap slower due to horizontal gliding through the air. Strange?

Nope, not strange. Just fake. So lemme tell you how this video was made: you take the footage and you cut out all the frames except the ones you need (wings down). There, done. And you get uneven video frame rate, depending on the rate of wing flaps.

The process can even be easily automated.

The video on Youtube is 20 fps. I went through frame by frame:

1) There are duplicated frames. Essentially in some areas, there are two identical frames next to each other. The majority of the duplicate frames are when the bird enters and leaves the frame.

2) Counting frames, the seconds on the clock are ticking over approximately once per 40 frames (approx). This agrees with the fact the video is 11s long, but 5s pass on the clock. This is clearly NOT the original video but has been slowed down; playing at about half speed.

3) If the video is 20 fps, and there are non-duplicate frames, and the video is at about 1/2 speed, the video CANNOT have been filmed in 20 fps.

4) The camera in question films at 20, 25, or 30 fps (BHPhoto spec sheet). Except there are about 40 fps in the video (based on the clock).

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

Majauskasson: So a picture taken on a tripod with a timer (you didn't press the shutter) does not belong to you? Of course animals can't own a copyright or millions of cat owners would be sued by their cats. And PETA, like all nutbar animal rights groups, this one is as nutty as they get - where is the abuse taking place - a curious monkey checked out a camera on someone's tripod - I would sue the monkey for trespassing on my camera, ha ha. As for Slater, I think he's pulling our chain or he's a bit loony or just dumb. I doubt his story is legit. First, nobody would bother with courts over a pittance few thousand pounds lost earnings. He obviously does not have a proper camera with telephoto so what kind of freelancer is he anyway. Slater caused his own demise wasting money on lawyers (assuming his story's true) and needs to get a full time job in something he's actually good at - something not related to photography or the legal profession, I'd say.

Copyrights exist to protect creative works and allow artists to make a living. To have the copyright for a photo, you must have your creative vision in the photo. It must have some combination of your choice of subject, composition, choice of lighting, exposure, etc. It's utterly irrelevant as to whether you pushed the actual shutter button, used a timer, or got someone else to push the button.

The courts have ruled that because a monkey chose the subject and composed the shots, there isn't sufficient creative input on the part of the photographer and there is no copyright.

I think there is room to debate that conclusion. But to take the court's reasoning to an extreme:

If you were to drop your camera down a hill by accident, and it snapped photos as it rolled down the hill, you wouldn't hold the copyright of those photos. They're "accidental" photos with no creative input and would be in the public domain.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 15:13 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I am not an American and certainly not very well acquainted with your legal system, so I have this question:

If it has already been considered and ruled upon at Federal Court level why do cases keep being sent there?

Is it a case of repeatedly "throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks" in what concerns a possible reverse ruling?

To ignore legal precedent, the lower court judge just has to say the current case is sufficiently different from a previous rulings that it doesn't apply. So if a lower court judge is incompetent or biased towards law enforcement, it is easy for them to ignore legal precedent. They need to find *something* (valid or not) that makes this case special.
In this case, the lower court judge said that the photography wasn't covered because it wasn't "expressive enough" to be covered by the first amendment. That's b.s., but that was the reasoning. Thankfully the photographer had the resources to appeal to the Federal level, who corrected this error.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 19:10 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: I am not an American and certainly not very well acquainted with your legal system, so I have this question:

If it has already been considered and ruled upon at Federal Court level why do cases keep being sent there?

Is it a case of repeatedly "throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks" in what concerns a possible reverse ruling?

Because of incompetent rulings by lower courts. In this case, the lower court ruled that the photography of police was NOT covered by the first amendment because it wasn't "expressive" enough. The photographer appealed the decision to the Federal level and won.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 18:52 UTC
In reply to:

chshooter: Once again very US specific news. Not everyone lives in the US. It is a pity to see that DPreview has become pretty much US exclusive (although a natural development)

Didn't we just have two stories about the Swiss banning photography in a town? It seems that when counties make court rulings on photography, DPR reports on it.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 18:45 UTC
In reply to:

Shangri La: What's the point?

Its all part of their 4 step plan, just a few details have to be worked out:

1) Attach Gameboy to telescope
2) Take picture of the Moon
3) ?
4) Profit

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 17:19 UTC

So $550 retail gets you a lens with no focus or aperture adjustment? The lack thereof is supposed to be a 'feature'? You can get the Canon 35/2 IS lens for that price. The backers will be lucky to get their product before the company folds from the massive retail disaster this will be. .

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 17:11 UTC as 68th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: That was not a clean cut. It was uneven and ugly. And was the guy funny? Not!

Sorry - just had to let it out.

Water jets aren't that great at cutting something that thick and uneven. The parts furthest away from the nozzle tend to be rough and uneven.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 22:52 UTC

I was hoping for wood paneling to match my Hasselblad Lunar.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 13:15 UTC as 25th comment
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2732 comments in total)
In reply to:

jennajenna: Why does Sony feel the need to copy Canon's use of the color white (almost same shade actually) for zoom lenses?

"Lenses contain glass elements. These expand with heat. This is not usually a problem with compact lenses − the amount of expansion is small. But large lenses contain large elements and here expansion can bring a lens close to the limits of its design tolerances. A white surface reflects sunlight, helping to keep the lens cooler." - Canon

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 17:37 UTC
On article Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM sample gallery (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

1Dx4me: while some of these photos look decent, for average joe there is nothing like personal experience with a lens out there on the filed! majority of the owners will be using 1.4x extender with this lens and make it turn into mush ;-) no comparison to canon equivalent, although canon is a lot more expensive!

Bryan Carnathan's website (www.the-digital-picture.com) has reviews for the all the TCs, where he compares cropping vs TC. A TC provides a slight sharpness increase over cropping based on his comparisons.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 15:53 UTC
Total: 277, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »