whyamihere

whyamihere

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

Comments

Total: 252, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 57th comment | 7 replies
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (416 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 7th 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 105th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: Hmm, seems like a pretty good performance.

Most of that was nitpicking.

And the bokeh wasn't busy in any meaningful sense. But neither was it tested properly.

Not for me though. Large apertures and no AF is a mug's game. Or a cinematographer's.

Wait, what?

It's a lens with "pretty good performance" but undesirable because "large apertures and no AF" requires skill? (Or, I don't know, focus peaking?)

And how should one "properly test" bokeh? Is that another chart I'm not aware of? The DXO Mark "out of focus Christmas tree light" test?

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 01:52 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): I'm curious if the subject matter, and why would anyone use any of these cameras. Aren't these supposed to be sport/action machines?

"You realize that portrait photographers have no money issues shoot medium format."

Really? According to whom? I've worked with photographers who act like money grows on trees, and they shoot 135 format or APS-C. I haven't met anyone who shoots medium format, outside of film, and I can't name many portrait photographers who only use medium format.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 01:34 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): I'm curious if the subject matter, and why would anyone use any of these cameras. Aren't these supposed to be sport/action machines?

Wedding photographers maybe want high frame rates with good skin tones and images they don't have to edit much later on.

Sports photographers want good skin tones, because they really won't have time to edit before passing it off to an editor.

Either of the above could also be portrait photographers who can only afford the one camera body, and they want it to last.

Just the first three ideas that came to mind.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 00:50 UTC
In reply to:

photoaddict: Seriously, people need to stop expecting smartphone cameras to be as good as a DSLR. It's physically impossible. While the iPhone camera is great, it doesn't even come close to what a DSLR is capable of.

I don't think the aim is to have the IQ of a DSLR. I think the aim is to help overcome one of the limitations of smartphone photography. Maybe it could be used to take a test photo before breaking out the DSLR. Or maybe help make photos that live only on social media look better. Or, I don't know, any other number of creative uses that doesn't imply replacing dedicated cameras.

Break your brain out of the dull beige box its stuck in and think of how a tool can be used instead of fuming about how it doesn't replace another one you already have.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 19:49 UTC

I don't understand the pessimism from the previous commenters. I have had friends who thought buying a new camera would help them better their photography, when it really won't, necessarily. Now I can recommend they stick with their phone, invest in a radio trigger, a manual camera app, and a light with an umbrella, [hopefully] for less than the cost of a new camera. *That*, in my opinion, is a better investment for someone looking to learn.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 19:43 UTC as 32nd comment
In reply to:

whyamihere: I think anyone who denigrates Prince -- as evidenced by a fair few cringe-worthy comments below -- misses the point of his body of work. I'm not a fan of his, but I can at least get what he's trying to do, at least from a sociological and political standpoint.

Not only is he questioning the ownership of an image and copyright law, but he's also, in a way, poking fun at people who buy "controversial" art, and challenging what value art should have. If it weren't for the fact that he's constantly running afoul of the legal system, he'd probably not make as much money on his art. If people wanted their art to be seen and shared, not coveted or financially compensated for, then it would all be fair use and completely free.

I'm aware my defense basically boils down to, "Because art," and I'm fine with that. Because art. Let the moral outcry of a thousand internet denizens over my perfectly reasonable statement begin.

Greg VdB: Congratulations, I think you're the only person in this thread who gets my (and probably Prince's) point, at least somewhat. This is way, way more complex than simple "theft" than people accuse. "Art" is an abstract concept, as is "work" and "copyright" and "worth" and so on. This involves sociology, psychology, politics, economics, and how absolutely arbitrary each of these human constructs are.

Sure, he's a pr*ck, but most provocateurs tend to be. They're messing with you, on purpose, and feeding off your moral outrage because all you can see is "he done stole someone's photo" and not the idea that it's, from a certain perspective, a dumb thing to accuse someone of.

Of course, I speak from a perspective of someone who likes messing with people in an attempt to get them to think. Maybe I'm just an outlier here.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 02:15 UTC
In reply to:

whyamihere: I think anyone who denigrates Prince -- as evidenced by a fair few cringe-worthy comments below -- misses the point of his body of work. I'm not a fan of his, but I can at least get what he's trying to do, at least from a sociological and political standpoint.

Not only is he questioning the ownership of an image and copyright law, but he's also, in a way, poking fun at people who buy "controversial" art, and challenging what value art should have. If it weren't for the fact that he's constantly running afoul of the legal system, he'd probably not make as much money on his art. If people wanted their art to be seen and shared, not coveted or financially compensated for, then it would all be fair use and completely free.

I'm aware my defense basically boils down to, "Because art," and I'm fine with that. Because art. Let the moral outcry of a thousand internet denizens over my perfectly reasonable statement begin.

I think you missed the part where I basically said, "You're accusing him of stealing something that he thinks cannot be considered stolen because it has no intrinsic value."

I come from the position that art only has implied and arbitrary monetary value, not actual value beyond its societal contributions. This is evidenced by the numerous photographers who ask the question, "What should I charge a client for my services?" That is to say, your photograph has no monetary value until you attribute such a value to it. It's all part of a social contract that means nothing unless society agrees something has monetary value.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 21:48 UTC

I think anyone who denigrates Prince -- as evidenced by a fair few cringe-worthy comments below -- misses the point of his body of work. I'm not a fan of his, but I can at least get what he's trying to do, at least from a sociological and political standpoint.

Not only is he questioning the ownership of an image and copyright law, but he's also, in a way, poking fun at people who buy "controversial" art, and challenging what value art should have. If it weren't for the fact that he's constantly running afoul of the legal system, he'd probably not make as much money on his art. If people wanted their art to be seen and shared, not coveted or financially compensated for, then it would all be fair use and completely free.

I'm aware my defense basically boils down to, "Because art," and I'm fine with that. Because art. Let the moral outcry of a thousand internet denizens over my perfectly reasonable statement begin.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 21:27 UTC as 48th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

SomeNobody: Went out of my way to buy tickets to see it in 70mm IMAX in Philly tonight. Can't wait. Christopher Nolan hasn't let me down once yet.

Franklin Institute, right? I saw The Dark Knight there nearly 9 years ago to the day. The IMAX 70mm scenes in that movie were stunning.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 01:55 UTC
Total: 252, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »