balios

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Jun 25, 2011

Comments

Total: 241, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Throwback Thursday: Fujifilm X100 (114 comments in total)

Another nostalgic throwback from the days of yore. I can remember people using the X100 like it was almost yesterday. A simpler time when photography was about photography and a camera didn't need all the doohickeys and thingamajigs of today's cameras. Sure, maybe it took 5 minutes for the camera to find focus. But gosh darn, we just dealt with it. No need to be in a rush like the kids of today.

;)

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 16:16 UTC as 11th comment
On article F is for '4th': Hands-on with Fujifilm X100F (308 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tapper123: I'm probably buying one. Never owned any X100 but have always been interested. My only gripe is lack of weather seals, but apparently Fuji claims they couldn't add it without a redesign of the lens. Maybe next model?

They could have at least weather sealed what they could. Some weather sealing is better than none because its not just about taking photos in the rain, but keeping dust out. It seems the diopter adjustment allows dust into the viewfinder on x100 cameras, seems like an easy fix?

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 14:45 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

HarryLally: Rather a 'rave' review - could almost have been written by Canon. The Photozone review (using the same camera) is more balanced IMHO. The lens still gets an excellent review, but it's rather less gushing.

Consumers have been conditioned over decades to think that the word "plastic" = cheap, poorly made, & breaks easily. They feel that plastic is only being used to reduce cost and that an equivalent non-plastic product is always superior.

Therefore people use the word "engineered plastic" to refer plastics that are designed to excel in certain applications and give specific engineering benefits (other than cost) in their use.

This would be the same reason DPR feels compelled to include words like "robust"; to disassociate the assumed negatives from the word plastic.

SABIC would not use the term "engineered plastic" because its a general term that conveys no actual technical information to their intended clients (ie. the engineers who will be specifying SABIC products in their design).

However, many companies that buy from SABIC will use the term when selling their end product to consumers.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 22:56 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Canon EOS M5 quick look video (262 comments in total)
In reply to:

G-D: It's a good video from DPR, but we're disappointed anyway because DPR should have produced videos like this 2 years ago. ;-)

And the video would have been more exciting if shot in 4K.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

bokane: No concrete criticism other than: "DPAF isn't the kind of function that's necessarily going to grab the attention of a potential buyer. Like – say – 4K video might. Or a super high frame-rate mode, or slow-motion movie capture"

Most users, I imagine, are are not that concerned about the video specs. Basically a pointless article.

I have to agree. The article is basically summarized as: "spec sheet not exciting to gearheads because no 4K".

The reality is that their sensor PDAF implementation is far more useful to the average photographer than 4K, which is perhaps used by 2% of users (being generous). But to the vocal majority on DPR, who view spec sheets like Pokemon stats in their never ending brand-war, PDAF just doesn't stand out like 4K.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 14:30 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1597 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looks like a decent enough camera but, yet again, we have a fake SLR style. No mirror means you can put the viewfinder in the corner and have a more compact and more comfortable body but it looks like marketing has dictated this one (the buyer is convinced this is a "real camera like a 1DX")?

With my DSLR, my nose is just to the right of the LCD and I have no real issue. It's not ideal, but as a left-handed & left-eyed person, I'm used to compromise when it comes to ergonomics in a right-handed world.

With left-side viewfinders (eg. my X-Pro 1), my nose mashes against the LCD. In summer its annoying having to constantly wipe the oily sweat off the LCD. I often force myself to shoot with my right eye with such a camera, but it doesn't feel natural and by habit I'll end up using the left eye again. But I do appreciate that it works well with the right eye.

On page 3 of this preview it shows the reviewer shooting with his left eye. That's how I'd see myself using it, with my left thumb on the screen. Not sure how practical that is for the majority right eye shooters (not sure if you can still access the screen with the left thumb).

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 14:50 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1597 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looks like a decent enough camera but, yet again, we have a fake SLR style. No mirror means you can put the viewfinder in the corner and have a more compact and more comfortable body but it looks like marketing has dictated this one (the buyer is convinced this is a "real camera like a 1DX")?

I believe the intention was to have your right thumb on the thumb rest to aid in holding the camera securely while you use your left thumb on the lcd.

Screen size just isn't about about the UI. You thumb size is fixed and some people have large thumbs. When selecting an object to focus and shoot, a larger screen will allow you to do that more consistently.

This is also the same screen as the 1DX II and 5D4, and I suspect that was the primary driving force in selecting this screen for this camera.

You're also assuming that Canon thinks that center viewfinders are inferior to left side viewfinders and have purposefully put the viewfinder in an inferior position to maintain the DSLR look.

I respect your preference for left side viewfinders, but perhaps Canon just believes this is the best place to put it. As a left eye viewer, I personally prefer the center viewfinders.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 22:45 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1597 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Looks like a decent enough camera but, yet again, we have a fake SLR style. No mirror means you can put the viewfinder in the corner and have a more compact and more comfortable body but it looks like marketing has dictated this one (the buyer is convinced this is a "real camera like a 1DX")?

They could have put the viewfinder in the corner, but that would require a smaller rear LCD touch screen. The PDAF / touch-screen system is one of the main selling points of the camera. A larger touch screen is easier to use than a smaller touch screen, so its just not about marketing, but ergonomics.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

vagtanklan: 11-22mm
22mm

Even the 18-55mm kit-lens is outstanding.

Oly can match the 22mm with the 17mm, but still, IQ from the M3 (and thus M5) is IMO simply more appealing. M-series are very very good cameras if you are not in a hurry ;) Hopefully the M5 fixes that latter bit.

I'm getting one to complement my A7II, sold my A6000s because they just don't have an attractive 35mm equivalent that small and affordable.

* Multiplied wrong number. M43 is 68% of APS-C.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 17:16 UTC
In reply to:

vagtanklan: 11-22mm
22mm

Even the 18-55mm kit-lens is outstanding.

Oly can match the 22mm with the 17mm, but still, IQ from the M3 (and thus M5) is IMO simply more appealing. M-series are very very good cameras if you are not in a hurry ;) Hopefully the M5 fixes that latter bit.

I'm getting one to complement my A7II, sold my A6000s because they just don't have an attractive 35mm equivalent that small and affordable.

The illustration isn't really conveying the important aspect, which is sensor area. The illustrations that match the lower-left corners better illustrate the difference in area.

The M43 sensor is 63% the size of Canon's APS-C sensor (374mm^2 vs 593mm^2). That means that the M43 sensor gathers about 40% less light than an APS-C sensor.

At higher ISO settings that is not insignificant, as illustrated in DPR's studio comparison tool. Given similar technologies, the M43 sensor will always be about a stop behind APS-C sensors.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 14:48 UTC
In reply to:

petr marek: "Kinda crappy" is this Canon promotion video. I am sure that lower ISO on A7S with S-log would bring better image. My opinion, of course...

There's no need to debate hypotheticals. He shot a similar video with an A7s and the link is in DPR's article (click the highlighted text " a few low light projects"). Watch both, make your own decision.

IMHO, this Canon camera is in a different league when it comes to low light video.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 19:54 UTC
On article Canon announces new flagship EOS C700 cinema camera (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: I would really like to know who was the genius that came up with the term global shutter when it was invented.. I know what it does but why did they use a term like global ... Same with the term mirrorless .. Why are they calling it what it doesn't have.. Oh one more nag I was flying the thing they call drones 6yrs ago when they called them multicopters and you had to build them your self or have a pro build them...

We say "mirrorless" for the same reason people called automobiles "horseless carriages" at first. Both are referring to what makes it distinct from the norm.

When the norm changes, the term will go away.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2016 at 14:06 UTC
On article DxOMark confirms Canon EOS 1D X II sensor advances (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

photomedium: These are respectable numbers but we need to see how linear DR is with iso.
I forget who was doing such plots but I have seen them before.

At least it shows that they haven't thrown in the towel.
Canon must be prepping the sensors tech for the next 5D, it would be embarassing otherwise. I don't think they plan to beat Nikon D750 on raw sensor numbers but they will kill them with video.

The DR vs ISO plots are on DXOmarks webpage.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 20:31 UTC
On article DxOMark confirms Canon EOS 1D X II sensor advances (217 comments in total)

Let's hope the 5D4 sees the same level of improvement.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 17:25 UTC as 39th comment
In reply to:

AprilW: Not a penny until he promises to put the photos into the public domain.

He doesn't have that power. He owns the rolls of film. But the original photographer(s) hold the copyright to the photos on the roll. The minute the camera shutter closes, the image on your SD card or roll of film is protected by copyright.

For 1950s photographs with an unknown photographer, published or unpublished, the photograph is protected by copyright from the date it was taken +70 years, or 2039, whichever is later.

So when the photographs are published, the original photographer(s) could come forward and make a copyright claim against those copying his/her work. Technically, he is violating copyright by simply developing the rolls.

Ultimately, anyone copying the photos is assuming a legal risk, hoping the photographer is either dead or doesn't care. IMHO, I think that its a worthwhile risk since the alternative is the photos being lost forever.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 21:26 UTC

Is it possible that Sony is manufacturing the older models (eg. A7) as "entry level" systems?

At BH I see the A7 is back-ordered for $1k. A7ii for $2k... $1k for a new FF camera is a decent price and might capture the market segment looking for a good deal.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 20:55 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Why is the talk about photography deliberately dumbed down to a current technology? The future of cooking is "probably the microwave"; now who wants to say that? For what we have seen in the last 150 years is that photography is immune to tech fad and it develops as it goes; nothing is worse than nail it down to the empty talk of advocates of a certain tech.

"Most all cameras made today, except DSLRs, are mirrorless."

You do realize that when people (including the article above) refer to mirrorless they mean MILC cameras and not simply lack of mirror? Not having a mirror isn't a technology.

"if mirrorless is not the future, the only alternative is for "mirrored" cameras to be the future."

The alternative is that the future is parallel technologies, just like it is right now. As the OP said, saying one technology is the future may be no more informative than saying whether stoves or microwaves are the present or future.

The future may be various technologies that lack a mirror, with MILC being one of those, and DSLR cameras with hybrid OVF that can overlay digital images and information from a high resolution metering sensor.

As to which is the most popular, it will likely be camera phones. Does that mean camera phones are the future?! If so, Hasselblad is on the wrong foot!!! (sarcasm).

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 13:38 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

tech_head: Here in America that means nothing.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act requires them show that the modification lead to the failure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act

So if the dial falls off they cannot void the warranty because you used different software. If they can prove the malfunction is dues to third party software, then and only then can they void the warranty.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act protects you from "tie-in" sales. ie. Forcing you to buy their brand of parts and service in order to maintain your product. But that's not blanket protection.

If you remove the diagnostic ports from your car and say you have an issue. You car won't even get diagnosed because its not their job to reinstall the ports. If you weld the hood of your car closed, then say your engine is sputtering, they'll refuse. Its not their responsibility to plasma cut your hood open.

If you give any electronic device that has hacked firmware to the manufacturer, they may refuse to even evaluate it. They will claim the unknown software renders them unable to diagnose the issue and fixing that issue (the hacked firmware) is not their responsibility.

So unless your issue is something obviously physical, like a failed battery door, then good luck in court.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 19:51 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

ItakumaI: FYI: Press release says warranty voided totally (I'm Japanese), not just voided for repairs necessitated by third-party firmware...

Aftermarket car parts are protected by the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act via the prohibition of "tie-in sales" requirements.

Owning a car requires that you replace parts occasionally. A manufacturer can't force you to buy those parts from their dealer. So Ford (for example) can't make you buy Ford-brand air filters for your car as a condition of warranty.

*BUT* you are required to install parts that are direct replacements, ie. are functionally the same.

Hacking the software in your camera is a *modification*. That doesn't fall under your protection against tie-in sales. So for example, if you install monster tires on your Ford, Ford may refuse all warranty work.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 17:28 UTC
In reply to:

TSJ1927: Remember, It weighs nothing in space.

In space, maneuvering a 70 lb mass at arms length means that you will moving almost as much as the lens moves. Pointing this at your subject will be an exercise in gymnastics.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 14:14 UTC
Total: 241, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »