Dylthedog

Lives in United Kingdom Worcestershire, United Kingdom
Works as a Storage Software Professional
Joined on Jan 5, 2006

Comments

Total: 148, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

A great example of how framing is in fact the real art of photography, and indeed cinema photography.

Can't wait to see the film!

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 20:01 UTC as 61st comment

OH MY GOODNESS!!!!

DPR disses Apple then uses their laptops in a news story. Inflammator! Balance?

Oh, stock photo. Please ignore. Not at all click bait.

Emergency over.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 19:25 UTC as 31st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Noah Placebo: Boring and goofy.

Only in a group; each taken in isolation is actually pretty creative IMHO.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 18:56 UTC
In reply to:

grock: This is just absurd. If he owned the monkey, would the copyright be his?

I am usually one advising measured responses, and playing devil's advocate on issues, and I'm all for treating animals with care and respect, but PETA can go take a flying F at the moon.

@Bobthearch most photographers would probably admit to being like monkeys that take a lot of shots and only getting a few keepers. And also admit to being lucky on occasion.

I disagree that the photo is a lucky accident; Mr Slater set in motion a series of actions, not unlike a time lapse set, hoping that he would get a few good shots, which he did. Planned randomness has a place in art, which tales nothing away from the artist. And in this case, I consider Mr Slater to be the artist.

And if the law is not about this, it needs updating. Like many other laws that are anachronistic. Legal it may be, right, it is not.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

W5JCK: Lessen learned...use a remote shutter control, or at least tell everyone you did even if you didn't.

100% correct. 'Selfies' are hip though.

He may even have done that. But selling it as a selfie might have looked like a good option at the time.

Even if that's not the case, then I still feel for Mr Slater.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 20:57 UTC
In reply to:

grock: This is just absurd. If he owned the monkey, would the copyright be his?

I am usually one advising measured responses, and playing devil's advocate on issues, and I'm all for treating animals with care and respect, but PETA can go take a flying F at the moon.

@Bobthesesrch What exactly is 'created'? Could the monkey in question go to a store, buy a camera to the right specification, then set up the conditions, which took a long time, to get the shot? Surely the photographer 'created' the conditions to get the shot, all with the intention that the ape pressed the shutter.

It's like setting up a domino fall over a mile, and giving credit/ownership to the entity that taps the first domino.

Ironic then, that the law, as often quoted, is an ass. It turns out an ass has more influence over 'creative' work if it presses a shutter than it does over it does over its own welfare. Where it has hardly any rights at all.

Just because a law says something, it doesn't make it right.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

grock: This is just absurd. If he owned the monkey, would the copyright be his?

I am usually one advising measured responses, and playing devil's advocate on issues, and I'm all for treating animals with care and respect, but PETA can go take a flying F at the moon.

I agree. I'm a vegetarian, and abhor animal cruelty, fur etc. but PETA overstepped the mark here.

By his actions he set up the shot and as no 'animal', anywhere, has intellectual property rights, they should surely default to Mr Slater for his part in this.

Crazy.

And as for Wikipedia, their actions are also despicable in this case. So if I donate, as they often ask, will my money be used to pay lawyers to defend them against genuine people trying to protect their livelihood?

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Oh wow! Groundbreaking news! It's like telling somebody that your car and motorbike need new tires for summer and winter and that they can wear off over time.

Tyres? Nope. It's like running a car at its top speed continuously until it fails, verses total time in normal use. There's a reason Le Mans cars cost more than cars can go equally as fast over a shorter distance...

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 19:47 UTC

Continuous use has a bigger impact than normal use. I think it did well to get close to the estimated failure rate. Imagine the heat for a start...

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 19:38 UTC as 42nd comment
On article Simple demo shows the power of a polarizing filter (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dylthedog: Mobile phones will have this built-in at some point. I actually hope that a camera company does it first, like Sony has a variable low pass filter.

That said it will probably a smaller company first, then Apple will do it and it will be the 'best phone camera ever'...

Scoop! Hold the front page! Stopping light makes images darker. Who knew!

Personally I think it would be cool to have a polariser built-in somehow. The Sony variable LPF has 3 settings, but I guess on or off is all that would be needed then you could use a control wheel to turn it.

Come on tech people, sort it out :-)

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2017 at 10:12 UTC
On article Simple demo shows the power of a polarizing filter (134 comments in total)

Mobile phones will have this built-in at some point. I actually hope that a camera company does it first, like Sony has a variable low pass filter.

That said it will probably a smaller company first, then Apple will do it and it will be the 'best phone camera ever'...

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 21:30 UTC as 28th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Sacher Khoudari: What are the remaining SD-Card alternatives to Sandisk? Transcend? Sony? Panasonic? Samsung? Toshiba? What else?

Any opinion on their quality?

Sandisk are the most counterfeited brand... if you don't buy them from a reputable store, don't blame Sandisk.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 21:24 UTC
On article How do you know you need a new camera? (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

breschdlingsgsaelz: Dont know how I should know when to get a new camera when even an alleged pro photographer who has knows all the newest stuff from testing the gear. I can only say that dpreview and a few forums lead me to buy all sorts of stuff in the years since my first DSLR (a 5D MkII) - they even sold me on the m43 crap I regret most to have sunk my money in. I have wasted a lot of money and by comparison the 5DII (which I thought was so expensive when I bought it) was the cheapest of all over time because it still works best for me after more than 7 years.

But I do know what I would upgrade to when it came out: a full frame Canon with 100MP Sensor which could be made 25MP full frame + 1,6 and 2,0 crop mode (cropped also in viewfinder if mirrorless) and top notch AF in stills and video, articulating display, Not far from what the 5DIV ist now, but with hires crop mode and flip-out display. Don't care if mirrorless or not. Would even buy a Sony if it could drive canon lenses with full speed.

My DSLR is now a generation older, and mostly sits gathering dust. The cameras I use most are:
1: Smartphone
Joint 2nd: Full-frame Compact and M43
4: FF DSLR

The DSLR still comes out when I need the best AF or tracking, or longer lens/highest quality stuff than M43 can achieve (with my lenses being the limiting factor in this case). I may upgrade it when it's two generations old and then I think I'll go for a generation up at a lower price, keeping it one gen 'out of date' but still providing a decent improvement.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2017 at 09:47 UTC
In reply to:

Kona Mike: I'm so tired of people touting the size of mirrorless cameras. Yes, with some lenses it can be a smaller system. But not as small and convenient as a phone.

One of main benefits of mirrorless is getting the glass closer to the sensor. The closer the glass is to the sensor, the better the image can be. Why do you think Canon came up with EF-S? At the time their EF-S 17-55 f2.8 was reviewed as one of the sharpest zooms. All from moving the glass a little closer to the sensor. A a crop sensor didn't need a mirror as big as a full frame lens, so they moved the lens' rear element into the body a little more.

Another benefit more important than size is the auto focus on the sensor. No need to worry about front focus, etc. or micro adjust.

I'm sure as the processor speeds improve and battery life improves the mirrorless experience will improve, but lets not kid ourselves about the size. They aren't going to beat the convenience or pocketability of the camera on your phone.

@Kona Mike I think you are mistaken to say that the lens being closer to the sensor makes a blanket improvement to image quality. It's mostly for overall size that moving it closer is desirable.

Think about a projector - when was the last time you saw one cast a perfect image on a screen from half a metre away? You can get them, but they use a mirror, have a limit on size and are very expensive. The same applies here.

That's not to say that getting rid of the viewfinder mirror and moving the back of the lens somewhat closer will make image quality worse, as others have pointed out, rangefinders do this; but as you get very close to the sensor it will make lenses work harder to overcome physics.

You can't hold up one zoom and claim it's solely down to moving the lens closer to the sensor - by that logic all but the cheapest of EF-S lenses would be better than full frame.

Moving lenses closer to the sensor is for size benefit, make no mistake.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 05:20 UTC

The 'big box of air' isn't all bad from my understanding. Sure, it might make the camera bigger, but the closer the lens is to the recording plane, the harder it is for optics to keep things sharp across the frame, and deal with distortion.

As a MFT user, which has very little air gap, I'm well aware of the sometimes significant in-camera processing done to fix distortion caused by that small gap and compact lenses, and the fact that diffraction can start as early f5.6. I'm willing to put up with this in my second system as a trade-off for size. I'm not sure I'd want it introduced into my full-frame system though...

If the camera manufacturers did dump the air gap, how much real difference would it make? And could full-frame lenses be made smaller? I doubt by much.

I get the focus system design issues, but I suspect body tech will help to get around that with new lenses phased-in. I doubt sports pros will be reaching for the new mirrorless cameras for a while though.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 06:42 UTC as 48th comment | 3 replies

Innovation is needed.

And there's the elephant in the room. Canon doesn't do that, but it's dominant. Others do, and struggle.

Go figure.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 20:48 UTC as 28th comment | 2 replies

If you sample a song and use that to make a new song, you have to pay a royalty.

I don't see this being any different.

And if as said below, she gave permission then I don't see she has a case either. If she didn't give permission, that's different...

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 22:44 UTC as 47th comment
In reply to:

(unknown member): Hmmm, does it mean I will suddenly be bombarded with ads for wrinkle cream and nose hair clippers?

You're confusing Apple with Google.

Apple just want you to buy more of their stuff; it's Google that sell your soul to everyone and their dog.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 21:38 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS 77D (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

kty: To all that blind-minded fanboys that don't even tolerate the slightest criticism:
I ADMIRE CANON MORE THAN YOU GUYS!
Just like many, Canon 300D was THE camera to make me love photograpy. Not only that, it was again a Canon, namely the A1 which inspired me to dive in the world of film cameras. Now after years, i make my living out of these. I have been a keen admirer of Canon for nearly 20 years.
BUT
exactly for this very reason i am frustrated and angry for what they have turned into. My only hope is that they (and you too) will someday realize why Canon is NOT doing right. Before it is too late... Just like Leica, Rollei, Kodak and many other companies which also were making huge profits in their prime days but now are either deceased or shells of their former selfs.

It was the 350D for me. The only game in town back then, for even double the price point. Since then I've had every 5D (except for the IV) and spent £10k on Canon glass.

The 5D Mk IV does the stuff I wanted a few years ago, but Canon lost me a while back if I'm honest. Too slow on sensor development and more compact alternatives is the root of it for me. I fully accept others have different needs that Canon fulfill very well, but this micro segmentation is something I think consumers will find confusing and will work against them in the long run.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 21:26 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS 77D (450 comments in total)

Canon's next press release:
Today Canon announce the 78.5D, which sits between the 81.3333D and the T7.25i (called the 900005D some regions).

Canon says the sensor dynamic range has been extended by a whole percentage point, and can now output video at 3.9K.

The new Mirrorless camera from Canon, the M7, has an extra button but it doesn't do anything.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 09:43 UTC as 76th comment | 3 replies
Total: 148, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »