Rehabdoc

Joined on Jan 7, 2012

Comments

Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14
In reply to:

nerd2: Good luck dealing with 2X cropping and resulting 2X resolution loss (per image height)

Yeah that was nonsense. Just getting a longer equivalent focal length lens for your mft camera. Not losing resolution.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 16:27 UTC
On article Canon XC10: What you need to know (237 comments in total)

Looks like one more baby convergence step towards mirrorless... Again with number one priority not being to make a great camera, but to avoid in every way possible, any shred of a possibility of cutting into DSLR sales.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 15:45 UTC as 11th comment
On article Samsung announces NX3000 mirrorless camera (193 comments in total)
In reply to:

steelhead3: Does Samsung have to copy Sony even down to the numbering system

NX line came out before NEX line, wise guy. And the NX models have been numbered #0 for the top end, #00 for middle, and #000 for starter.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 15:16 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II: a quick summary (533 comments in total)

How is that a "cut price" Rebel? Seems more like a full price Rebel. Seems like a big improvement over the first gen G1X which was horribly compromised by AF and lack of close focus, pointless OVF, etc. Priced better too.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2014 at 11:24 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
On article 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail (284 comments in total)

Couldn't you do this better and faster with multiple lesser cameras and lenses on a rig?

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2014 at 11:30 UTC as 12th comment

Perfect camera for moon photos, right? Can do the person standing in front if the moon on a buikding shot as well...

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 12:56 UTC as 7th comment
On article Fujifilm XQ1 First Impressions Review (163 comments in total)

I think it's a nice camera, but it will all come down to image quality... if the image quality is top notch a la almost RX100, they would still have to price this more in the $400 range to position themselves in relation to the RX100.

RX100 made a huge splash, and I think in some ways opened up the "casual consumer's" mind to the issue sensor size in compacts.

Falling behind in terms of both MP and in terms of sensor size, this camera basically has to be SUPERIOR sensor quality to RX100 to really make any kind of big splash in this sector I think.

I might consider buying this camera, but probably at a lower price than $499. With peaking and the fast autofocus, the actual performance of this camera might be really great, and hopefully if it doesn't make a huge splash, the price will be much lower.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2013 at 14:03 UTC as 33rd comment | 2 replies
On article Dpreview Users' Poll: Best Camera of 2012? (1508 comments in total)

Putting 4 sonys and only 2 nikons on the list actually helps nikon. Not that D800 wouldn't win anyway... but some people definitely vote brand.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2012 at 03:32 UTC as 632nd comment
On article Dpreview Users' Poll: Best Camera of 2012? (1508 comments in total)
In reply to:

Daniel0140: Very strange---The camera that got the highest review ratings of all milc's, the NEX-7, is not even on the list---No vote!!

I believe that NEX 7 was a 2011 camera, though hard to find until 2012.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2012 at 03:30 UTC
On article Samsung launches MV900F flip-screen Wi-Fi compact (20 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marcelobtp: WOOOW samsung again copying sony!

Samsung has pretty much caught up with and blown away Sony in every area of electronics except for cameras, and they already have better lenses for their NX system than those for the NEX. They are sitting on more than 3 times the market cap of the badly hemorrhaging Sony, and are committed to surpassing them in cameras, which means they will within a year or two. Its inevitable at this point.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2012 at 02:31 UTC
On article 'No Future in Photojournalism' Interview: Dan Chung (267 comments in total)
In reply to:

ammie: I think it is irresponsible for the authors at DPreview, in using this title, to equate the views of Mr. Chung with the practice at large. Mr. Chung fails to make any serious arguments challenging the journalistic or artistic importance of (stills) photojournalism, merely his own ability to make a living out of it. Therefore his view in my opinion sullies the large number of people around the world who are putting their lives at risk everyday to visually inform us about the planet's state of affairs.

Perhaps a better title for this piece would have been "Dan Chung: No future in photojournalism FOR ME". Maybe in the future, when Mr. Chung realizes he no longer has the talent, desire, or ability to shoot in the documentary, advertising or narrative industries, he will come back and try to convince us that there is no value in capturing moving images either.

Don't take it so personally or to attack Mr. Chung or dpreview. It's just a very legitimate opinion from a guy whose career is photojournalism.

He knows what people are paying for photos, and the trend is not good for making a good living through photojournalism alone, anymore. There does not seem to be any technological or social trend in sight to reverse it either.

Just less money, and tons of competition... from people who are doing it for free. why pay a guy $500 to cover an event, when they're "crowdsourcing" it for free?

Yes a photojournalist can find some opportunities to make money, but they are less and less. So he has to diversify at this point. Video is the natural way to expand your business, given your equipment and skillset. Though that is gettin crowded too.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2012 at 13:39 UTC
On article 'No Future in Photojournalism' Interview: Dan Chung (267 comments in total)

A huge part of the reason that photojournalism is dying is not so much video.

It's that there are so many cameras on the scene in most places a photojournalist might go now. Sure, there's still opportunity to take great and important photos... But the opportunity to have FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT is deeply impacted if a large percentage of your regular money making opportunities are already heavily covered by high quality camera phones and amateur photo loggers with feet and eyes on site.

I think he's emphasizing the diversification into video as a way of surviving financially... (which is of course going to financially squeeze the "traditional news video cameraman" when there are thousands of people who can shoot great professional video trying to scratch out a living)

I bet traditional paparazzi are also gonna by squeezed hard.

Very difficult to make a good living SELLING photos of events, when HALF THE PEOPLE will be bringing an excellent camera.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2012 at 13:03 UTC as 66th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Mssimo: I'll take it for $150

300 mm that weighs 300 grams. And pretty decent minimum focusing distance. You'd actually have a shot at mounting this on a flexible tripod without it falling over.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2012 at 00:43 UTC
On article CES 2012: Lytro Photowalk (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

BradJudy: I haven't seen it mentioned much, but this technology can also be used to generate an image with essentially infinite depth of field, rather than choosing a particular focus point and using a conventional depth of field. That's how it's used in industry (and why it was developed in the first place) to create very large depth of field without super small apertures (and thus long exposures).

Maybe i misunderstand this techZ

Can you produce a higher resolution approximation of this "light field" image today, by programming a high end SLR with good video capability to:

(1) step 1: simply shoot a photo with your camera at a small aperture and very deep DOF to get everything into focus at once.

(1) step 2: shoot full HD video wide open in your fastest frame rate, while smoothly and rapidly bringing focus from infinity to closest macro rapidly, to assign depth and "blur properties" to everything in your frame..

(3) step 3: computer shenanigans.

Or something like that. I'm just spitballing here, but it seems you should be able to do something along these lines.

Amazing tech though. Very cool. I wonder if the tech scales easily to higher resolution or if the difficulties expand rapidly with increased resolution.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 13:23 UTC
Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14