achim k
Joined on
Feb 5, 2012
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |  |
| Green peas by OBellini from Vegetables and Mushrooms | Red Eyed Tree Frog by Tallgrass from Outside macro | Canon workshop by Tamer Radwan from Fashion photography | Young Red tailed hawk by APenza from A big year - birds 2018 | Antigua, Guatemala by peter826 from -Buildings by the water and their reflections- (Full Colours Only) |
BobT3218: While they are at it, how about making it easier to take portrait shots, I don't know, rotate the sensor 90° perhaps. You may not have noticed it but the world is going vertical. According David Pogue's article "Video Disorientation" in the March issue of Scientific American, 72% of millennials take their smatphone pics and videos vertically. I do it and I'm sure you do it as well. Sure one can hold the phone horizontally but that takes two hands, few do it. The media industry has noticed.
by the way: what about watching motion pictures in a cinema? All wrong orientated? Certainly I will not show my videos in a cinema, but otherwise not only on mobile divices.
aegarcia: Just rumor mongering????? Too late, got my Sony a6300 and Lumix TZ110.
yes, too late. Got my Olympus gear meanwhile.
BobT3218: While they are at it, how about making it easier to take portrait shots, I don't know, rotate the sensor 90° perhaps. You may not have noticed it but the world is going vertical. According David Pogue's article "Video Disorientation" in the March issue of Scientific American, 72% of millennials take their smatphone pics and videos vertically. I do it and I'm sure you do it as well. Sure one can hold the phone horizontally but that takes two hands, few do it. The media industry has noticed.
TV screens and PC monitors are horizonzal, usually. I hate vertical smartphone videos on these screens. I never shoot vertical videos. But I would appreciate digital projectors with square panels.
Team Yeti: Obviously the Creative Cloud is helping them rake in the cash. And good for Adobe and their shareholders -- they are running a business, after all. That's capitalism at work.
You know what else is capitalism at work? Me voting with my wallet not to pay for their subscription-based products. Bring back standalone software please.
"What motivation could they have to bring back standalone software?"
...to sell software to people like me, who bought upgrades when I found them worth buying. I don't use Adobe's cloud for storage.
sunilkumar: by the way off topic..today you can buy Velvia 50/100/provia 100f from bhphotovideo at 6.99 usd.i have no affiliation just sharing.
those are not negative films
As far as I can say, the lens seems to be better than that of the predecessor, I exspected the opposite.
Edmond Leung: For professional market, mirrorless is meaningless. For general consumer market, mirrorless can be a complementary product to smartphones.
For me, a "general consumer", a mirrorless system has become more than a supplement to my Canon dslr system. I seldom use the Canon any more!
retr01976: I much prefer lens based stabilization, never cared for IBS.
Tell us why
I'm not sure whether a thief will open a camera bag that he is going to steal and will try if he can switch on the camera or not.
PLShutterbug: I have always thought it weird that, to give someone with whom I am having a video conversation an equivalent experience of being face to face I have to look at the top of my screen, but that means I can’t see that person myself because I am looking at the top of the screen.
If I look instead at the person’s Image on screen they are invariably looking at my image as well, which means they appear to be looking off to the side or with downcast eyes.
It is a strange way to have a conversation.
Having the camera in the center of the screen will enable more natural conversations- provided our images are also both centered on the screen on the other’s phone.
I tried both camera positions. It looks more natural when the camera is on top of the screen I'm looking at. When the camera is beneath the screen it is more obvious that the eyes look in a different direction.
HRC2016: It's not a map. It's a list of logos.
Calling this a map is like calling a list of cities a map.
very outdated. For instance: Konica and Minolta are listed separately as camera manufacturers. Look on the konicaminolta website. No cameras for years now.
Choose 2 images and press C to compare them side by side, click on one to enlarge them both. Good for choosing the better/sharper one.
fantastic images, but in my opinion camera movement all the time is not necessary, if not disturbing.
NYCman530: I checked out the compare mode graph under conclusion and compared it to the Canon G5X and even though the G5X has a one inch sensor, it received a better low light rating due to the slow lens of the G1X lll. Had it been f1.8-4.0, that would have been a significant difference.
you have to set ISO value 4 times higher to compensate the 2 stops slower lens. So the ISO advantage has vanished.
NYCman530: I checked out the compare mode graph under conclusion and compared it to the Canon G5X and even though the G5X has a one inch sensor, it received a better low light rating due to the slow lens of the G1X lll. Had it been f1.8-4.0, that would have been a significant difference.
They want to sell us this expensive model, and that is why Canon did not improve the G5X in terms of speed as they did with the near-identical G7X MARK II (that lacks a viewfinder).
Gil Aegerter: I've owned a couple of the old Nikkor 500mm mirror lenses -- bought the first one in 1986, the only new Nikkor I've ever owned. Image quality could be good in the right conditions, but the basic problem I found was one of steadiness. These lenses are very light for their focal length, and hence very susceptible to shake. I found I had to shoot from a very rigid tripod or put it on a monopod so I could act as an absorber. Maybe newer bodies with stabilization could solve that. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/nikkorcreflex500mm
"IBIS in a SLR doesn't stabilize the viewfinder" that's true, but the best stabilization of today's cameras is the combination of IBIS and in-lens-stabi. Look at Olympus and Panasonic. I know, they both have electronic viewfinders, but nevertheless they use in-lens stabilization and their systems could even benefit with a reflex viewfinder.
Gil Aegerter: I've owned a couple of the old Nikkor 500mm mirror lenses -- bought the first one in 1986, the only new Nikkor I've ever owned. Image quality could be good in the right conditions, but the basic problem I found was one of steadiness. These lenses are very light for their focal length, and hence very susceptible to shake. I found I had to shoot from a very rigid tripod or put it on a monopod so I could act as an absorber. Maybe newer bodies with stabilization could solve that. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/nikkorcreflex500mm
"newer bodies with stabilization"..sadly none of the Canon ones!
You forgot the stunning Olympus M.Zuiko 4/12-100 !
edit : I just read that it was in poll 2016. But available here in Germany 2017. My best (or at least: most astonishing) zoom lens!
jst13: For mft to big..all benefits from Mft are gone , compared to APSC and FF lenses also expensive. Pro Bodys are now massive and lenses too...........and for the new mft price ranges..you can buy much better and less bulky systems..like Fuji or Canon M line and Sony
Jürgen
It reminds me a bit of the "Compact Cassette" audio recording system, once invented to have small, easy-to-use tape-recorders (mono, half the tape speed of the usual system). Audio quality was usable but not great. Later the system was pushed to hifi-stereo, big units, better sound quality, but still too small cassettes and short recording times, huge technical efforts for the changed aims. The disadvantages of the small system - just like mFt today. Nevertheless, I like my OM-D and rarely use my 5D any more.
Stunning video, but I had to turn off my speakers; annoying music