Ken Phillips

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Nov 26, 2001

Comments

Total: 112, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article CP+ 2015: Canon shows off prototype 120MP CMOS sensor (250 comments in total)
In reply to:

rj conklin: 120 mp matches the human eye!

Regarding the DR of the human eye, it's nowhere near what has been listed here on an instantaneous basis! There certainly is an upper limit to brightness recorded - your eyes will close when you point them at, say, the sun! Also, eyes must undergo that chemical change that makes them more sensitive to low light, a change that is "undone" by bright light. (For those with the type of minds that notice such things - I do - the human eye in very dim light produces a lot of noise, certainly more than an old 1Dinosaur at ISO 3200!)
So on a 1:1 comparison - a quick glance, a single shot - I'd bet that most DSLRs would beat the human eye in dynamic range.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 16:32 UTC
In reply to:

mais51: Typical Nikon charges you heap more for not so much change. Just like the D800/D800e twin -$300 extra for removing a filter.

Actually, the D800e has an ADDED filter, to cancel the AA filter, just as Canon's new DSLR has.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 13:01 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I wish all of the camera manufactures realized what Canon has already figured out. Canon knows that if you get the word out there that your cameras are the “best” then it will take a long time for the general public to figure it out if that no longer is true.

Basically Canon is still riding high on their PR campaign from more than a decade ago. They still sell some cameras simply because most people don’t even realize that Samsung, Olympus, and Panasonic even make cameras.

I hate to say it but the other camera companies better start investing more into Advertising and getting their entire line of cameras in stores like Best Buy. It doesn’t matter how good your product is. Not enough people will buy it if they don’t even know it exists.

Canon still sells cameras because it's all about the glass. Cameras come and go, and the difference between the best and worst isn't all that great. (Shoot transparencies for a decade, and the DR issue becomes moot, for example.)
So if you have $20K in Canon glass, you'll deal with whatever cameras they release - and then, only if the improvement over what you have is great enough.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 15:21 UTC
On article High-end full frame roundup (2014) (595 comments in total)
In reply to:

WayneHuangPhoto: I'm seriously considering selling all my Canon lenses and my old 5D mkI to finance the purchase of a D750 and one really good super wide angle lens. What do you all think?

I'm considering selling some of my Canon stuff and getting an EOS-5Ds R plus that new 11-24L mega-wide lens. Should cost ~$7K or less.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2015 at 20:15 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: I've been earning my living from created works since about 1987 - photography, graphic design, computer programming and web site design. So I have a vested interest in preventing copyright theft.

But for goodness sake, does this guy think that because he published a photograph of a basketball player with his legs split in 1985, he owns every photograph of the same thing? Utterly ridiculous.

Actually, making a near-likeness of a photo (or painting, etc.) to avoid paying for the use of the original is a copyright violation.
The only issue here is the 30 years of non-enforcement.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 14:01 UTC
In reply to:

JRFlorendo: This is a SLAM DUNK class action law suit, an engineering flaw by Nikon engineers, can't get any easier than that. Nikon just needs to slow down, it seem like they are coming out with a new FF camera every six months, at that rate, something is bound to get neglected. Sony and Toshiba already providing you with top grade sensors, slooow down and get the engineering and quality control right.

Actually, there's little "damage" for folks to collect (as the issue isn't usually apparent) and the only folks that will benefit will be the shysters. So I'll assume that you are an attorney.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 16:45 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Sounds good. I know they want to sound prestigious but I don't think I would have chosen this name.

Bill & Melinda Gates used their names on their foundation.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 13:55 UTC
On article First Hasselblad in space goes to auction next month (84 comments in total)

How is this NOT property of the citizens of the USA? Was it merely lent by Hassy, and then changed hands a few time? Curious minds want to know.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2014 at 13:09 UTC as 14th comment | 3 replies
On article Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

47872Mike: I would love to understand the point of such a lens.

Hmmm ... it's the best performing 85mm lens to fit our DSLR's. The BEST. And it costs more, of course - the best of something is always priced to what the market will bear. So some of us will buy it, as we want the best 85mm lens on the planet. And you will not.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 23:27 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Kudos to the ESA - grabbing all the interesting space headlines this summer!

Brian

Yeah, but here in the USA we have Obamacare!
Seriously, I'd like to see NASA's budget go up; perhaps something we can check on our tax returns: "Send $10/100/1000 to NASA? Y/N"

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2014 at 13:27 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: Gimmickry, not photography.

In the same way that Ansel Adams' stuff was gimmickry, as it also didn't reflect what was captured by his cameras.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2014 at 12:08 UTC
On article Dronestagram contest winners announced (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bernard Carns: Interesting points of view.

But the images are really flat.

Where's the dynamic range?

These are the poorest quality images I've ever seen National Geographic endorse.

Maybe National Graphic has become the drone....er zombie....

Hahaha.

But, again, the points of view are somewhat interesting.

I wanna see the picture of the eagle chasing the guy on the ground controlling the drone...

Generally speaking, you cannot tell the actual dynamic range of the scene in an image from looking at a monitor or print (unless it contains, say, the sun, the moon, and some stars, all properly exposed!)
In terms of "flatness", it could be your monitor; they're OK for me. Save one and up the contrast if it pleases you.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 21:04 UTC
In reply to:

Ken Phillips: I have used a mirror with a "window" sash pattern and real curtains taped on the thing for indoor portraits, 'cuz the light coming through the window is never quite right (or, like me, your studio has no windows!)

I needed a much sharper projection; the image of the window was part and parcel of the shot (a girl sitting on a bed reading a book.)

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2014 at 11:54 UTC

I have used a mirror with a "window" sash pattern and real curtains taped on the thing for indoor portraits, 'cuz the light coming through the window is never quite right (or, like me, your studio has no windows!)

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2014 at 13:43 UTC as 32nd comment | 2 replies
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zoron: 2014 is transition year to 4K, and this is the last chance for Nikon to milk money from 1080p, in 2016 when D900 is released with 4K.....D810 will be obsolete..

I have a 39" Seiki Quad HD television that I use as my monitor, so I'm 4K ready. For $500, you just gotta have one. Slower data rate due to the ancient version of HDMI it uses (limits QHD to 30 FPS) but as I am cinema-oriented, I'm good with that. Darned good monitor for ancient eyes, as well.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 11:46 UTC
On article Nikon announces full-frame D810 with no OLPF (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: Huh. 2014 and no built-in WiFi, when every point and shoot has it already?!

And they still continue to play games. 5 fps at 36 mpix means that sensor and processor are able to produce 7.2 (not 6) fps at 1.2x and 11.2 fps (not 7) at DX crop. Artificial limits on a $3200 camera. Huh.

Actually, it's likely that the entire sensor may need to be read for each frame - a finite time; and at one point you'll run into the physical limitations of the moving hardware. The only time you save is from not processing the entire frame.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 11:22 UTC

The ultimate setup: Curved tri-layer sensor (RGB layers) that will also take care of chromatic aberration without special correction. Very, very simple lenses (essentially a monochromatic camera at that point, times three!)

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 12:58 UTC as 80th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

vroy: This is very useful for morons that wouldn't protect their costly lenses by filters.

I've never used a filter unless I needed it to alter what was hitting the film or sensor. I have damaged exactly one lens (out of hundreds!) in 40+ years, and that I did by tossing it! Filters not necessary for an image capture may do nothing, may hurt the image, but they cannot help the image.
Otherwise, which filter would you recommend for my Canon 600mm F4L? I think it needs to be 170mm or so in diameter.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2014 at 11:41 UTC
On article A travel-sized large-format 4x5 camera? (219 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cheng Bao: Since when digital photography review drops 'digital' from name?

Funny you say that. In the late 1980's my father (a professional photographer / film maker) urged me to "go digital". Back then, it meant some sort of rather unobtainable scanning system, and grotesquely expensive software! I've scanned all of my 4x5's ... much more convenient for printing, and no "spotting" of prints needed.
A scanning back on that little plastic camera would be much more fun.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2014 at 22:02 UTC
On article Camera from NASA's moon missions sold at auction (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: Now, the billionaires ask to lower taxes on them, put more tax load on middle class and poor people. Seems like they have way too much money as it is. :)

The wealthy subsidize everyone with a taxable income under $110,000.00 as it is. Give us a break.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2014 at 14:23 UTC
Total: 112, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »