balios

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Jun 25, 2011

Comments

Total: 231, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article DxOMark confirms Canon EOS 1D X II sensor advances (216 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 (216 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For 1950s photographs with an unknown photographer, published or unpublished, the photograph is protected by copyright from the date it was taken +70 years, or 2039, whichever is later.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
In reply to:

barrym1966: Why do canons always use silly white lenses

From Canon's website:

Most EF lenses have black barrels, but a few are white (actually a light grey or beige). The white lenses are all large super-telephotos. There is a good reason for this.

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.

Incidentally, you will find that the manual focusing action of some black lenses allows focusing past its infinity setting (sometimes called over-focusing). This is also to allow for expansion. If the lens is used in hot conditions, infinity focusing will be closer to the end of the travel.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 14:07 UTC

Where did the "Had it" button go?

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 14:01 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

QuarterToDoom: I'm curious, those who say this lens sucks and m43 is not worth it and equivalency is the new god of photography, can you show us using your own photos how this lens and a m43 body would totally fail in taking said photo?

But if you have a 12/1.4 on M43 and 24/2.8 on FF, then with the same shutter speed the FF will be set +2 stops higher ISO. Both sensors will gather the same amount of light. The resulting images will have the same framing, same DOF, same motion blur, and same noise. The images will be "equivalent", hence 12/1.4 on M43 is equivalent to 24/2.8 on FF.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 15:43 UTC
In reply to:

QuarterToDoom: I'm curious, those who say this lens sucks and m43 is not worth it and equivalency is the new god of photography, can you show us using your own photos how this lens and a m43 body would totally fail in taking said photo?

"I think that F1.4 remains at F1.4 light gathering ability"

Theoretically, all F1.4 lenses produce the same "light intensity". Light intensity is energy per unit time per unit area. When you talk about "light gathered", you need to know the exposure time and area. Light gathered = light intensity x exposure time x sensor area.

So when talking about light gathering ability, you can't just talk about the lens. You must refer to the lens-sensor system. The M43 sensor is 25% the area of a FF sensor and will gather 25% the light (2 stops less) for the same light intensity and exposure time. The resulting photos will be the same brightness, but the M43 photo will have 2-stops more noise (as illustrated in DPR's comparison tool) due to receiving less light.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 15:38 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Franiec: Unfortunately, boutique items like the lenses in questions, are still a dream of a few delusional marketing nuts. I cannot imagine the positive impact on brand visibility.
This is the first I've heard of the company or its product. There is no way that 110 lenses (even if sold) could recover the development cost. What a waste of resources.

This appears to be a new German company founded in 2014, which bought the naming rights to Meyer-Optik-Görlitz.

The 110 lenses are "limited edition". There is also a standard version of the same lens sold in unlimited quantities. Their website also has a range of lenses for various systems.

The titanium and gold finish are just plating processes that don't really add to the overall development costs. Based on the pricing, they are more than making up for the cost of the additional plating.

And as you said, these limited editions are really just for marketing, to get the name out there. I knew nothing about the company, but have now checked out their website due to this news. So its working to some degree.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

Shiranai: Who the f... funds these stupid studies?

The majority of the studies like this are done at universities and covered under university budgets. This study was primarily done at the University of Pennsylvania as part of their business and marketing school.

While you may think such information is trivial, it is actually extremely useful from a business and marketing standpoint. Understanding basic human psychology (like whether having a camera at an event enhances enjoyment) can be used to tailor a product to maximize enjoyment by the customer.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 14:13 UTC
In reply to:

Nobby2016: the lens elements show dust.

i worked for a video production company and i did such stuff as CGI in maya,
it´s a mess to do stop motion when you see every dust spot and fingerprint.

so as nice as it looks the dust gives me the creeps.
no way i could have presented that to my former boss.

they should have done most of it as stop motion but do the lens elements as CGI.
im pretty sure canon has full CAD models of this lens so they could have done it 100% animated easily. but i see the reason why they wanted classic stop motion.

it´s just that the dirty lens elements don´t look good.

They could have used CGI to market a perfect CAD model. But they chose to use pure photography to market a photography tool to photographers. I guess they assumed that photographers are more impressed with photographs than CGI.

The imperfections are what makes it clear to me that I'm looking at the real interior of a real lens. And that's what I want to see, not a CAD model of what it should look like.

Maybe they would have used CGI if they were marketing a luxury item, where they are selling the illusion of perfection.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2016 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

jeffcpix: In situ copying of 'masterpieces' -- ridiculous.
I wonder who retouches the off color specular
reflections of the ambient light? Too bad the
camera doesn't generate a color patch which
could be used to calibrate the viewing device for
accurate rendering of colors and contrast.

If this

https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/u/0/asset-viewer/apple-harvest/GgEtbnL6cNOmjg?projectId=art-camera

is the best they've got, I'm not impressed.
And does Google own the copyright on the digital version?
Check out this from the museum at Cornell University

http://museum.cornell.edu/rights-reproductions

Under US law, Google's photo's are not copyrighted.

Per the 1999 ruling in "The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., Plaintiff v. Corel Corporation", it was ruled that exact reproductions of public domain artwork are NOT copyrighted.

This applies to flat artless reproductions (ie. exactly what Google has put on their website).

However, if you take a photo of that artwork at an angle, at some distance, perhaps get something else in the shot, and/or apply some artistic lighting, then the photo is copyrighted.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 19:52 UTC

The Canon 11-24mm F4L requires an external filter systems *or* internal gel filters.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2016 at 16:58 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Firewall00110: Why do the original and the 13" cost the same still?!

There is a $30 difference.

I would expect the manufacturing costs for both products to be about the same. Labor typically costs more than fabric, and there is basically the same amount of labor in both products. There is slightly less fabric, but that probably equates to less than a dollar in actual cost. This is the reason that size small to extra-large clothing costs the same.

So the price should be about the same based on actual production costs, but they instead reduce it by $30. That would be for marketing reasons, as consumers expect to pay less for a product that holds less. The $30 difference equates to 15% difference in price (250/220) for a 15% difference in "size" (15/13). That's something consumers understand.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2016 at 21:54 UTC
In reply to:

kkx: Can they really get the view shown in 1:34 from the ISS?

Agreed. Amazing images in IMAX 3D, I'm sold.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2016 at 21:09 UTC
In reply to:

Howard: Now both of these and TIME magazine can happily go into history's dust bin.

26 million is the readership, not copies sold (most people don't buy the magazine, they read somebody else's copy). This number is simply an estimate.

The circulation (copies sold) is just over 3 million.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2016 at 21:03 UTC
Total: 231, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »