JohnnyLuddite

Joined on Apr 24, 2013

Comments

Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Entropy512: Note that Python is not a requirement to write applications on a Raspberry Pi.

That said, it's a lot easier than C/C++ for a beginner

The trouble is that C/C++ can be both low and high level, and indeed OOP with C++. But that's part of the problem, they can be and are abused so that they are literally unsafe. I do wish they were hidden in (reliable, well coded) libraries, but they're not.

There's a huge amount of unreliable and unmaintainable code out there and it bites us in the derrière in the form of bugs and poor security.

That's not to say that python can't be badly coded, but at least there are some classes of errors that should be removed.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2020 at 20:29 UTC
In reply to:

Entropy512: Note that Python is not a requirement to write applications on a Raspberry Pi.

That said, it's a lot easier than C/C++ for a beginner

The argument about resource requirements is pretty moot these days and primarily reflects poor coding or libraries.

C is notoriously unmaintainable, and worse, in the hands of anything less than the skilled, meticulous and well resourced, extremely dangerous. It does permit low-level access and functions which should only be used by those who have the time and skill to ensure they do not have unintended consequences.

Most people should not be using low-level languages, or C/C++ unless they have to.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2020 at 15:33 UTC
In reply to:

Entropy512: Note that Python is not a requirement to write applications on a Raspberry Pi.

That said, it's a lot easier than C/C++ for a beginner

It's a lot easier than C/C++ for experts too. Those languages have been a disaster for the great majority of coding.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2020 at 09:26 UTC
On article Film Fridays: Kodak Portra 800 review (118 comments in total)

Portra, at any of the iso ratings, is what helped me reconcile myself to the loss of Kodachrome.

It has great skin tones and lovely subtle color grading, and it's very apt for C41 develop and scan.

It also works very well at rated iso with a camera (like my F601) with full AF and good metering - you don't need to complicate acquisition unless you want to.

I do hope comments can steer clear of the tedious film-versus-digital loop. I like both, for cogent reasons.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2020 at 17:55 UTC as 21st comment
On article Film Fridays: Kodak Portra 800 review (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

cxsparc: I still marvel at the enthusiasm written here in the review of a color film.

To me, the images have a strong color cast, don't reflect real colors and could be visually outperformed by most digital cameras.

I simply don't get this retro movement at all, except for having to handle a lot of gear before getting a (inferior) result makes some happy.

There are two aspects of film output:

First, the process, which is different and which some people enjoy.

Second, and more importantly, viewers instantly recognise the idiom, and a lot of people like it - whether that's because of exposure when younger or through movies. The idiom is not successful recreated by digital.

If my viewers like the output, I don't actually care a jot for technical accuracy, and if you took pixel fidelity to its logical conclusion, you'd be confronting people with the demodex mites on their eyelashes.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2020 at 17:48 UTC

"Observing what major technology companies are doing"

"Dense flows of cash in this area"

Follow the money.

Major technology companies are busy milking their "product" aka you, abusing market dominance and lack of regulation, and not paying taxes. Regarding AI and computational photography, what that means for the product is that you will no longer own your images, and augmented reality will be popping sneaky product placements into your pictures. And, doubtless, cute cats.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2020 at 12:55 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

JohnnyLuddite: I just LOVE this scenario when a tiny little camera's surrounded by accouterments to make it work well in particular situations.

It reminds me of the way video tends to go, when people have bought into the notion that the camera is the most important element of acquisition, when lighting, audio, dollies, whatever, are as significant or more so.

Of course, light is the prime mover! The point being that with "normal" cameras, they are bigger and have more built-in support for flash as well as mature systems for off-camera strobing.

The irony is that with small cameras/smartphones it's pointless them being so small if the supplemental stuff you're using is so big, because the small size of the smartphone is by then irrelevant, and the deficiencies of the small packages become more relevant.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2020 at 11:16 UTC

I just LOVE this scenario when a tiny little camera's surrounded by accouterments to make it work well in particular situations.

It reminds me of the way video tends to go, when people have bought into the notion that the camera is the most important element of acquisition, when lighting, audio, dollies, whatever, are as significant or more so.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2020 at 00:23 UTC as 16th comment | 3 replies

Very late to this party, but I can report from personal experience that some people do lust over the Nikon EM. Some blighter nicked ours. Left the Series E 50/1.8 behind, which is lovely.

The good news is that we then enjoyed the F601 ever since that time - because my use rate was low, the high price of entry into FF digital put me off till recently, and very glad I held out. Excellent, reliable camera.

I can also report that to this day, my audience often prefer the film idiom for some subjects over digital, certainly the more processed smaller sensor cameras.

Other likes are the zone focusing Agfa Optima Flash - great as a cheap travel camera. Zeiss Ikon TLR. And the Leica IIIc (also stolen a while ago).

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2019 at 18:26 UTC as 63rd comment
In reply to:

Mateus1: Overpriced with that horrible rolling shutter (useless for video), poor camera control (one of the worst) - without front control weel, back control weel and no joystick (look at Fuji), only UHS-I, poor buffer and touchscreen… For 250$ more you can get today Z6!!! It's almost 2020 and with this drawbacks and competition A6600 is not worth for me more then $800-900.

Indeed, and that's why aps-c pricing is looking very weird in the market right now, in between much better value MFT or FF offerings, where you're not required to pay absurd premiums for IBIS, and you have a great choice of lenses, some pretty economical.

And they all bemoan how the market is shrinking when they come out with hideously expensive incremental upgrades.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2019 at 13:56 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: Overpriced with that horrible rolling shutter (useless for video), poor camera control (one of the worst) - without front control weel, back control weel and no joystick (look at Fuji), only UHS-I, poor buffer and touchscreen… For 250$ more you can get today Z6!!! It's almost 2020 and with this drawbacks and competition A6600 is not worth for me more then $800-900.

"Some people don't want the size and cost of FF."

Then they'd be better off getting a nice MFT system for half the price of this offering.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2019 at 13:35 UTC
In reply to:

mikegt: > The viewfinder is a relatively modest 1.44M dots...at a price ($850)
> where most of its rivals don't include a viewfinder at all.

This has to be one of the most dishonest statements I've ever seen in a review - there are literally dozens of cameras at the same or lower price points that include viewfinders! Not to mention mirrorless cameras at lower prices that feature viewfinders with much better resolution - for example the Panasonic G7 ($533 with lens), G85 ($698 with lens), etc., which were also strangely left off the review's camera comparison chart...

The decline in sales of new cameras indeed does suggest that new cameras are "overpriced and under-specced". I'd say that's particularly true of non-IBIS aps-c cameras/systems.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2019 at 10:32 UTC
In reply to:

JohnnyLuddite: One thing not mentioned in this article is that the annual cost of ownership of a flagship smartphone is actually way higher than the camera it's being compared with. The Pixel 4 ticket price is more expensive (granted it has other functions, but you can get a decent smartphone for a fraction of the price), and I'd estimate it to have half the lifetime of the camera.

@badi, absolutely true, and people emphatically do NOT adopt an accountancy mode (who would?!) - when they're making these decisions, there's a huge amount around status too.

One of the rather dismal features of the 1" space is the stunning prices they are asking for the cameras. After all these years, you'd have thought that a decent 1" could be produced for $300. But, they don't want to do that because it impacts the rest of their product range.

Of course, the high-end smartphones are the same in gouging profit. At least you can get a decent smartphone for a few $100 (e.g. I have the Moto One with 3 years updates).

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2019 at 10:10 UTC

One thing not mentioned in this article is that the annual cost of ownership of a flagship smartphone is actually way higher than the camera it's being compared with. The Pixel 4 ticket price is more expensive (granted it has other functions, but you can get a decent smartphone for a fraction of the price), and I'd estimate it to have half the lifetime of the camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2019 at 22:19 UTC as 78th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

NJOceanView: I still think there is a HUGE missed opportunity here: A compact with computational photography integrated into it.

Can you imagine an RX 100 with its 1 inch sensor and real optical super zoom with the computational wizardry of the Pixel 4? How could that not be a huge game changer in the P&S segment? I'm stunned one hasn't been released yet.

I can certainly see how this would be great, have wanted this for years.

BUT. Sony ain't going to hurt their FF & apc-c ranges by making such a thing, because they make so much money on the systems & lenses. That's their cash cow and they are NOT going to harm it.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2019 at 22:12 UTC
In reply to:

rcl100: The non-full frame market is stuck in the stone age. Does a "family" get more out of this overengineered thing than they would from s decent phone? Sony still doesn't put in something as basic as internal image stabilization. Shoot video? Well, please be happy with mediocre kit lens.

Flagship mobiles and mid-priced mobiles have a high annual cost of ownership - if viewed primarily as a camera - because they have a rough lifetime of about 3 years, the battery isn't economically replaceable most of the time.

IF you "need" a premium mobile for other things,then yeh, the camera does a creditable job, though not at the longer focal lengths where the rx100 shines. The rx100 is a great choice as a family camera which will do you travel including longer focal lengths.

1" sensors are pretty decent and perform well in low light.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2019 at 15:48 UTC
In reply to:

rcl100: The non-full frame market is stuck in the stone age. Does a "family" get more out of this overengineered thing than they would from s decent phone? Sony still doesn't put in something as basic as internal image stabilization. Shoot video? Well, please be happy with mediocre kit lens.

Soccer moms type use illustrate the insanity of a sub-standard MILC.

They would be better off getting an rx100 frankly, which does have IS built right in.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2019 at 10:05 UTC
In reply to:

rcl100: The non-full frame market is stuck in the stone age. Does a "family" get more out of this overengineered thing than they would from s decent phone? Sony still doesn't put in something as basic as internal image stabilization. Shoot video? Well, please be happy with mediocre kit lens.

In lens stablization is a "nice" route to increased cost and weight and complexity. Nice, increases margin for every lens sold.

IBIS means you can get some benefit for all lenses, but then that's be too useful.

Of course, the ideal is both, but that's too much to ask for.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2019 at 19:56 UTC

The aps-c market segmentation is weird and dysfunctional at the moment. Specifically, the continuing attempt to make IBIS a $$$$$ extra, and what therefore becomes overpriced substandard base.

It looks very sick when IBIS is pretty much standard both in FF and MFT, and FF prices are declining and MFT are much better value for money with IBIS thrown in.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2019 at 16:23 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies
On article Sony a6400 review (1242 comments in total)
In reply to:

VincentMike: *#%# camera...at a...*#%# price
Really SONY, really?
No IBIS...no camera...period !!!

Yeh, they wouldn't want to harm their cash cows, would they.

It's just weird the overpriced aps-c segment without IBIS will be eaten by the full-frame alternatives now. It's like the Titanic sailing on with the band playing.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2019 at 21:02 UTC
Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »