whyamihere

whyamihere

Lives in United States Philadelphia, United States
Works as a Higher Education IT
Joined on Apr 8, 2012

Comments

Total: 261, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Ergo607: Did we really need confirmation?

The problem with the 1 series was not the quality as such, but Nikon not giving mirrorless the attention it deserved, just because they didn't want to canabalize on their DSLR line-up. Meanwhile Fuji and especially Sony have shown the way to do proper mirrorless and now Nikon has some catch up to do...

As Fuji is wont to point out, they didn't have another camera system they were afraid of overlapping. They just made good cameras while simultaneously acknowledging it's not their primary income. Sony is the same, where the SLT cameras are probably not their main source of revenue; they could afford to muck about until they finally produce a winner.

With that said, I think Canon and Nikon are finally realizing a lost sale is a lost sale, regardless of which product line someone purchases from versus another. Brand loyalty isn't what it used to be, and only those with a huge collection of lenses or work for an agency with pro support really care about the next big DSLR. If they want new customers or crossover appeal, they need a worthwhile product in a category that has room to grow. Mirrorless is probably still years away from saturation and reaching its fullest potential, and Canon and Nikon are waking up to that.

Now, if Pentax would wake up and make a mirrorless 645 camera...

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2018 at 18:11 UTC

As a photographer who also holds a degree in political sciences, I think it's worth highlighting the following phrase from Krages' quote: "As a case at the District Court level, the decision does not serve as precedent in other cases." Read: Don't panic.

With that said, it should also be acknowledged that "copyright" and "fair use" are eternally squishy concepts, politically speaking, both in the US and internationally. How far do you have to alter an original work to call it your own unique work? Who sets those standards, and how can you assure they're uniformly applied? Where can you exhibit design and art work without subjecting yourself to "fair use"? How do you properly delineate the difference between free speech and an imposition on personal economic gain and property rights?

I highly expect that people will argue in favor of the copyright holder, but I'm prone to accepting that it's relatively arbitrary, hence why these cases make it as far as they do in the first place.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2018 at 20:21 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Astrotripper: How hard would it be to mod one of them old TLR cameras to use Instax film?

A serious question.

You're in luck. Someone solved that problem about 5 years ago:

https://petapixel.com/2013/03/04/hacking-a-rolleiflex-tlr-to-shoot-fujifilm-instax-instant-photos/

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2018 at 21:12 UTC

There are so many better ways to do this:

Imagine a Rollei instant camera that uses the Instax Square format. It has a f/3.5 taking lens that can be stopped down to f/5.6, f/8, and f/16. It has a light meter, but you don't have to use it. If you don't use the meter, you don't need a battery. "But how does the camera eject the film?" you ask. A clever mechanism that resembles the film advance crank of a traditional Rolleiflex is on the side, which pushes the film out of the top.

*That* is worth US$400.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2018 at 21:09 UTC as 100th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

hypnotictortoise: Re the contention that converting to mono is cheating: regardless of medium, you are ultimately converting from colour to B&W. Converting in post is simply shifting where in the process the conversion takes place, and permits greater flexibility in that conversion process.

Is it cheating if I pre-visualise for B&W output, but convert in post?

I would also observe that colour photography only gives the illusion of reality, and similarly to the contention in the article, you could equally say something like 'if you are not acheiving your desired result in camera then you are cheating'.

Disclaimer: I mainly produce colour.

I have to agree here, at the very least, on a technical and philosophical level. All digital sensors are, essentially, converting color into greyscale tones, as none have the inherent ability to record color values. Arguably, one could consider putting a Bayer, Foveon, or X-Trans filter in front of it as "cheating" -- you're telling a sensor that it "sees" color that it really cannot. Putting in predetermined instructions into a camera's processing pipeline to interpret colors is "cheating" even further.

"Cheating" is just a way of avoiding the fact that photography and art, in general, is all about interpretation and abstraction. You like what you like, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean doing something different is bad or wrong. It's just different.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2018 at 20:25 UTC
In reply to:

PhozoKozmos: far too many digital camera shooters, whether they had extensive film camera experience or not, have been too easily taken in with unrealistic look of high contrast look of film era look

worse when looking to unnatural exaggerated over-blackened shadows in bright sunny daylight shooting using slide film (positive transparencies)

so for digital, too many are mimicking the unrealistic look of color film (kodachrome, ektachrome, fujichromes)

whilst colorful higher vibrance/vividness saturation has universal appeal for certain types of scenes in digital, the unreal fakeness of non-existent black sunshadows have made too many digital shooters embrace improper exposure choices (resorting to unnecessary excessive gain where none is needed) as well as improper post-processing of a colored scene; this results in very confused b&w digital shooting, where exposures are all non-optimal for any post-processing

mfrs play a big part in NOT addressing more realistic in-camera visual RAW feedback

As a photographer and artist who has, in a relatively short period of time, shot with many formats, both film and digital, I must ask...

What exactly are you complaining about here? The idea that people are trying to mimic styles and genres that came before them? That digital is trying to appear as film? That images are not realistic enough for you? That, somehow, manufacturers are complicit in this conspiracy against realism? That raw files are somehow photos?

Funny. Last I checked, photography was an art form that has no chance of appearing realistic, so long as people view photos in two-dimensions -- whether on a screen or as a print -- so long as "color" is interpreted by a color filter or a chemical treated plastic, so long as raw files are nothing but containers of processed code joined to a pre-programmed integrated circuit's interpretation of what "color" was present, and so long as people will prefer whatever they prefer because, well... art.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2018 at 20:06 UTC
In reply to:

whyamihere: Wondering out loud: Does anyone know what the target market is for the photo filter effects? As someone who lives in North America but follows photographers of various demographics and skill levels, I don't see these sorts of filters being used all that much. I mean, I'll see the occasional "selective color" or black & white conversion, but I've not seen anyone use things like "pinhole" or "tilt-shift" in a long while.

I ask not to criticize, and I'm not anti-filter (and, please, don't respond with a "this camera is for dummies who don't know any better, so why are you asking" statement -- that would be unnecessarily degrading and glib), but I ask because I wonder why Olympus keeps ladling on filters, when that ROM space and processing power could possibly go to something else.

dr.noise: I disagree. Even outside of the core photography market, using filters for IG has fallen out of style. I suspect the "filters are for the Instagram crowd" is a misconception that only photo enthusiasts hold to be true.

Jonathan F/2: Interesting, and it makes sense, based on what I know of Asian photography culture.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2018 at 14:44 UTC
In reply to:

arbux: Hurray!

Another recycled product in olympus lineup:
- old sensor
- old stabilisation (3 axis only)
- poor AF-C
- same evf

but a new price

@arbux : "Ok, 'new' sensor with the same old quality."

I disagree. I once owned a GX1, and that 16MP sensor, while good for the time it was released, pales significantly in comparison to the modern 16MP Four Thirds sensors. Sony have released several iterations of this sensor over the years, and Olympus & Panasonic have likely updated their processing engines to match.

I don't understand your pessimism. Just say, "This camera is not for me," and move on.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 19:58 UTC

Wondering out loud: Does anyone know what the target market is for the photo filter effects? As someone who lives in North America but follows photographers of various demographics and skill levels, I don't see these sorts of filters being used all that much. I mean, I'll see the occasional "selective color" or black & white conversion, but I've not seen anyone use things like "pinhole" or "tilt-shift" in a long while.

I ask not to criticize, and I'm not anti-filter (and, please, don't respond with a "this camera is for dummies who don't know any better, so why are you asking" statement -- that would be unnecessarily degrading and glib), but I ask because I wonder why Olympus keeps ladling on filters, when that ROM space and processing power could possibly go to something else.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 19:46 UTC as 33rd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Sezano: Can anyone tell me with some degree of authority, what’s the correct pronunciation of bokeh?

Honestly, it doesn't matter how you say it. Even native Japanese speakers pronounce it differently, as I'm lead to understand, because of regional dialects.

Of course, native English speakers can't even pronounce "Nikon" the way a Japanese speaker would, so I don't quite get why everyone gets all flustered over mispronouncing "bokeh."

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 17:49 UTC

Albert's story is yet another reminder for me regarding all photography, including portraits of human subjects:

No matter your level of technical skill with a camera or lights, how pleasing your final image will almost always come down to your ability to engage and understand your subject.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 21:30 UTC as 37th comment
In reply to:

whyamihere: This story is anecdotal, but I think it's an allegory for what happened within Samsung Electronics, in regards to their camera division:

I have a colleague who visits International CES every year. After CES 2015, I asked him if he found anyone to speak with about Samsung's NX series of cameras, because he and I were both interested in their development strategy.

"I did manage to find the camera division on the [show] floor, nestled in the middle of the booth. They had engineers there, they knew how the cameras worked, and they were excited to show their stuff.

"The sad thing is, every time I asked them a question, they'd get five words in before someone in the background turned up a TV too loud, drowning out the conversation. And you could tell this was the life they'd resigned themselves to, because at least one of them would audibly sigh and slump a bit each time that happened. You couldn't help but feel bad for them."

@HowaboutRAW : Sure, I guess. I don't know what your experience was like, I wasn't there, so I have no basis to confirm or deny.

My point was that Samsung Electronics, which is just one of many arms of Samsung Inc., saw their camera division as just more consumer electronics, which, in turn, did nothing to ease tensions with prospective camera buyers -- at least in the USA, anyway -- that they were anything more than that.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 22:01 UTC

This story is anecdotal, but I think it's an allegory for what happened within Samsung Electronics, in regards to their camera division:

I have a colleague who visits International CES every year. After CES 2015, I asked him if he found anyone to speak with about Samsung's NX series of cameras, because he and I were both interested in their development strategy.

"I did manage to find the camera division on the [show] floor, nestled in the middle of the booth. They had engineers there, they knew how the cameras worked, and they were excited to show their stuff.

"The sad thing is, every time I asked them a question, they'd get five words in before someone in the background turned up a TV too loud, drowning out the conversation. And you could tell this was the life they'd resigned themselves to, because at least one of them would audibly sigh and slump a bit each time that happened. You couldn't help but feel bad for them."

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 21:41 UTC as 61st comment | 7 replies
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (406 comments in total)

I'm in the market for a premium compact or small ILC for travel, but, quiet honestly, I can't get past the aperture range for this camera. Any advantage the larger sensor brings over the newer RX100 cameras and the (admittedly older) LX100 is thrown out the window by pairing it with a pedestrian lens.

If the disadvantage of a smaller sensor is more noise at higher ISO, then pairing it with a brighter lens should help to recoup most practical differences between it and larger sensor with a darker aperture.

From what I can tell, based on previous reviews, not only can the newer RX100's and LX100 gather similar light (or more, depending on where you are in the zoom range) as the G1-X III, but they are equally as compact and lightweight, if not more so. If the intent was to make the camera as compact as possible, I'd say, in the name of that mission, they've failed to make a product any different than what's already available, besides on paper. (Which doesn't mean much in practical use.)

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 16:54 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On article Video: DxOMark's smartphone rating system explained (40 comments in total)

There was a time I felt DxOMark was presenting me with useful information, and that was typically with their field maps for lens sharpness.

Since then, I've discovered Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals does a much better job at presenting impartial lens data by removing any camera from the equation, testing multiple copies (and, by proxy, determining how different lens copies might vary), and by stating things like, "You'll never notice this in real life, by the way."

Nowadays, I find DxOMark is largely irrelevant. If I want to see how much I can push/pull highlights or shadows with a particular camera, I just read DPR's analysis. If I want to know how a lens performs, I just watch a few reviews on YouTube by people who photograph subjects I want to shoot and maybe read Lens Rentals for the fun science-y content. There's nothing about the DxOMark score or analysis that I find useful or even interesting.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 16:07 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

The Davinator: My clients never could tell which camera was being used for which shot they got...because if the final result was good, they were happy. I've done enough side by side comparisons posted in the forums here over the years comparing noise, etc, and no one could tell the difference unless one approached the extremes. It normally takes a two format change in size to really see much of a difference. I'm sure this will be argued by the DXO webexperts and pixel measurebators without ever doing any tests, and gracing us with their empty galleries.

Agreed. I "downgraded" from a full-frame Nikon to a D500 nearly a year ago because the benefits of that camera (for me, anyway) outweighed the slight differences in depth of field and tonality. Nary a client has said, "Your photography got worse, and I'm not willing to pay you anymore."

When even the 40-year industry veteran who's currently mentoring me in studio fashion photography can't tell what format I'm using -- and this is a person who insists on using medium format for *everything* -- it just goes to show that most people, including me, will be fine with APS-C.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 16:26 UTC
In reply to:

J A C S: So far iOS 11 beta has been a disaster for me. I had to restore my family iPad to factory settings.

J A C S: There's a disclaimer on every beta release from Apple that essentially reads, "Do not put this on a device that matters to you." No software I've ever tested for Apple ever went on a production system or device.

If you're mad that an incomplete, beta version of software ruined your family iPad, that's on you.

Take home message for everyone: Read the g**d**med Terms of Service.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 19:44 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III (204 comments in total)
In reply to:

danieladougan: The lack of PDAF in this camera is totally unacceptable. Panasonic's comparably-priced GX85 has DFD autofocus, which is a huge benefit (for Panasonic glass at least). And the GX85 offers 5-axis image stabilization as well.

The Sony a6000 is comparably priced as well and has MUCH better autofocus tracking plus a larger sensor size.

The people at Olympus seem to think PDAF only benefits people with legacy 4/3 glass, but really it benefits people with Micro 4/3 glass as well when it comes to tracking.

I must admit, if I were buying this camera as a second to my Nikon D500, the lack of PDAF wouldn't bother me. I also owned a Sony a6000 at one point, and I wasn't exactly thrilled with the continuous AF functions. From what little experience I have with Panasonic's DFD, it's fast, but often imperfect, in that it doesn't work well for C-AF, either, and it's not appreciably better than Olympus' single AF.

I bought my D500 knowing it's a C-AF monster. I don't need every camera to be as specialized in that function to feel that it's a good camera. (Otherwise, my manual focus only FM2n would have been out the door by now.)

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 18:03 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III (204 comments in total)
In reply to:

FuhTeng: Adorable and adequate. Looks to me like Olympus is following CaNikon "annual upgrade" playbook, but hey if it works for the two biggest players, why not?

I don't know if I'd agree with that assessment. I've been considering picking up a Micro Four Thirds camera for travel, rather than taking my D500 with me everywhere like I do now, and this seems to be a considerable upgrade over the Mark II.

- Better video, at least in terms of resolution
- Maybe better stabilization?
- Friendlier approach to newcomers (I do hand my cameras to non-enthusiasts, from time to time)
- Better grip and button/dial layout

Canon, on the other hand, would only mildly iterate, as evidenced by their EOS-M line. Same sensor, same dull video specs, no wild improvements in ergonomics (save the M5, but that's an outlier, at this point), no sensor stabilization for those lenses they think you're going to adapt to their mirrorless system.

By relative comparison, Olympus is positively forward-thinking, and living more in the realm of Fujifilm, where improvements filter down or, sometimes, work their way up in the product line.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 17:46 UTC

This is where I'd normally copy/paste my comment on every previous EOS-M release, noting there have been as many camera bodies produced as native lenses.

Canon aren't serious about mirrorless until they commit resources to producing native lenses. I don't care about new camera bodies. They're all mostly fine. The lenses are uninspiring and uncompetitive.

Until they improve in the optics department, I don't think the EOS-M will have much of an audience.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 13:54 UTC as 106th comment | 2 replies
Total: 261, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »