Joined on Dec 31, 2011


Total: 21, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

I've seen this case coming up on several boards. What I see is three things:

The images are similar only in concept, the Nike one is very different. What exactly did Nike license? Their own image, the concept, or his image? What were the limits to this agreement? The whole case will hinge on that.

At least one source is said the lawsuit was brought because the photographer no longer agreed with Nike or it's corporate stance. He had no existing agreement, so this was essentially a retroactive denial of permission.

The agreement ended in 1987 Why bring it up now, after all this time--other than he no longer agrees with Nike?

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2015 at 15:48 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply

My 750 is in the affected range, and after some trial and error I've been able to reproduce it. Use a wide open prime, in my case a 50mm f/1.4, in live view. Point a bright light source at the lens from high up and gradually move it down. At about a 45 degree angle, give or take 2-3 degrees, it will appear. You're basically pointing it right at the AF sensor.

How big this is depends on the type of shooting you do--and as been repeated ad nauseum, it's not flare but an internal reflection off the AF sensor, and in a very limited 2-3 degree range. The "dark band" would be completely black if something was blocking it.

If I shot video all the time and used flare this would be an issue, I'm not sure if this is important enough for me to bother--I haven't seen it any actual photos I've taken.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 11:25 UTC as 31st comment | 2 replies

I'm as attached to a mirror as I am to whether you turn the on switch left or right. Right now mirrorless cameras are for the most part like advanced bridge cameras that can change lenses. Give me a mirrorless that is full frame, has the picture quality, battery life, and performance of a DSLR ad I'd use it. It HAS to have an EVF, and really the only shooting advantage I've seen is the display shows more clearly what the end result image will look like. Otherwise I keep feeling like mirrorless is the tablets of the camera world, something manufacturers tell us we need but we're not too sure yet.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2015 at 02:33 UTC as 12th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

l_d_allan: Well, they've been saying "in three years" for about three years now.

It may be like Linux fanboys predicting that the year of Linux will be "real soon now" ... like they've been hoping for 15+ years (before the dot-com implosion).

But I do think that mirror-less is pushing CaNikon to stay ahead (but Nikon seems more intent on keeping the DSLR relevant).

I agree--Linux is "here" in terms of Android, and Ubuntu is the most user friendly version yet, but it still hasn't made a dent in the laptop and desktop market, where most of us do our work. If you want to count IBM's original plan to get a Unix based operating system on the 286 processor then it's been more like 30 years.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2015 at 02:29 UTC
On article Nikon D750 Review (2001 comments in total)

I have the 610; I like it, it's given me better colors and is capable of shooting at about two stops higher ISO than my old D700. But the autofocus is a weak mess. It simply stops below a certain level, and even in moderately dim lighting it's failing to lock or making errors, which at the music events I photograph most often has put me back to manual bracketing and guessing.

I have some money coming in January and decided to get the 750; the main selling point is the -3 EV autofocus potential, which I've seen demonstrated. I wish it was a little cheaper and had a higher frame rate, but everything else is the camera I need.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2014 at 15:49 UTC as 415th comment | 2 replies

We pay taxes for our parks in the US, we should be able to publish and use photos from them. I'd see a permit only being necessary for a large production like a movie or commercial shoot--mainly because of the potential to disrupt daily activities in the park and so they would know what is happening.

And what if you're camping only interceding snapshots and happen to get a once in a lifetime shot of an aurora or a sunset? Well since you didn't get a permit you can't sell it or license it.

Photos would bring more attention to the parks and help people become aware of them. This is counterproductive. It reminds me of this one small town airplane museum that no one had ever heard of, yet they put up such a handwringing conniption fit about me taking photos there and possibly ruining their business I decided to never publish them. They're still obscure and only local people even know the place exists.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 18:27 UTC as 45th comment
On article Nikon issues statement on rumored D600 / D610 swap-outs (118 comments in total)

Sounds like the used market is going to have a lot of D600's for people who know how to clean their sensor.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2014 at 15:31 UTC as 38th comment
On article SanDisk offers 'world's first' 256GB CompactFlash card (70 comments in total)

The market for this looks to be people with a Red camera or something similar, who would be recording in the field and need portability and durability. Honestly this would last me about 7-10 photo shoots before filling up; for a still camera it could practically replace any internal memory, just wary of relying entirely on one card.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2013 at 02:52 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Kinematic Digit: I wonder how many people would complain if you could use a new Nikon D800E, Nikon D4, Canon 1Dx or a Canon 5Dmk3 for $19 a month and then after a year decided to return it?

Well it's hardware for one thing, which wears and degrades over time, and no one is offering that. So to get a brand new top of the line camera and use it as I please for a year and then return it for another spending just $228 would be a steal. Software that doesn't wear, and that would require paying forever until the next upgrade that may not be worth the effort is another matter altogether.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 15:50 UTC

As long as Photoshop Elements is still available as a buy it and use it product that will pretty much take care of my Photoshop needs, which are average consumer/prosumer uses. I never got any of the Creative Suites because I simply couldn't afford them.

A subscription arrangement is bad all around--you never stop paying, well after you've paid what it would have cost to buy it outright, and if you're like me $50 is a tank and a half of gas or groceries for a week.

They would have been better off charging a small flat fee for Photoshop and then more for modules/add-ons/filters; letting people buy what they want and can afford.

As it is the only thing worse I can think of is metering the product so you pay by how much or often you do something with it.....I hope I just didn't give them some more bad ideas....

Link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 15:36 UTC as 436th comment
On article Resurrecting a WWII optic with scraps and a 3D printer (59 comments in total)

Pretty cool lens, the Thorium would really only be harmful if you were holding it up to your eye day in and day out if it were an eyepiece or eyeglasses, and it does yellow over time. However, I have heard of at least one person taking a "thoriated" lens through an airport and it set off the silent radiation alarm--a couple of very concerned security guards showed up and wanted to ask him a few questions; I never found out if he was still able to take the lens on board the plane or not.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:32 UTC as 27th comment
On article Photographer turns camera on teenage 'freighthoppers' (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

JackM: Um, yes, great photos, but please remember the whole thing is contrived. He said it himself, homelessness by choice. So keep in mind that the photos that at first stir up emotions similar to Afghan Girl, photos seemingly of poor victims of circumstance, are actually snapshots of people on vacation.

Well, I think Bob and Madeinlisboa should read the Guardian article the photographer is nterviewed in. This was mostly a teenage rite of passage thing to do for a few years and then either go back to their old lives or do something else. If they had choices to do that then they had choices in even getting on the trains in the first place. So it looks cool, but don't have any sympathy for whatever hardship they faced as it was just another variation of "slumming it."

Link | Posted on May 6, 2013 at 16:10 UTC
On article Best Camera of 2012: And the Winner is... (1413 comments in total)

I think it was Thom Hogan who put it best, don't consider what you can do with a new camera, but what you can't do with your current camera.

None of these really fit the bill; I'm primarily a Nikon user, but the D800 is more like the D800x (high resolution) than a standard full frame. The Canon is only out because I have all my money in Nikon lenses, if I had the money and lenses I'd go for one.

The Olympus--well, if people on a forum decided to vote their favorite camera up in a contest that will be forgotten in a few days, the more the merrier. Am I intrigued by the OMD? Yes, the same as the Fuji X series and the Sony SLT series. Am I $1,000 intrigued to go out and buy one? No. Too many gotchas--from the high FPS but a shallow buffer to the selection of lenses.

In the end, I'm still going with my ties for best camera, my combo D300s/D700 daily shooters.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2013 at 19:08 UTC as 120th comment | 1 reply

Not surprising, nor is this really news as it's been mentioned for a few years now. Part of it is the rise of Instagram and other cool looking but useless apps; the rest is simple convenience. At this point the only real saving grace for compact cameras will be those of us who don't want our cameras tied to a mobile data plan.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2012 at 03:53 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply

Huh. Well, the initial objection I had to the "1" series is the J1 didn't have an EVF, and both it and the V1 were too expensive. I've pretty much accepted mirrorless is the new "wave of the future" but can't do serious shooting without an eye level finder of some kind. There's the problem with seeing the display in bright sunlight, and it being a distraction in dim lighting--and I can judge how things will look in a real life image better than an electronic display regardless. So now......well, it's smaller than a comparable SLR, will likely cost more than the baseline DSLR models, and not perform as well. Go figure.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 10:56 UTC as 176th comment

Interesting idea. I used to think I would like a Bridge/Rangefinder camera but after years of shooting all of them I'm wedded to a DSLR. So here goes:

D700/800 in size--I have big hands and am tired of tiny cameras. Fill the extra space with a longer life battery.

Full frame sensor, clean shots at ISO 12,800 and continuous 10FPS.

Slide out cutoff filter for shooting infrared.

Tons of F4 style external controls.

A "Take the <BLEEP> shot" override mode that if you have it turned on will focus to a set range, meter whatever it sees, and go. I've lost too many snap shots on a searching autofocus.

So pretty much I'd like a Nikon D4 or so with IR capability, more external controls, and a fast snap shot capability. Hey, at least it's doable.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 20:13 UTC as 219th comment

1. Jonathan Ives is a great designer

2. I don't care how my camera looks, only how it functions.

3. This is mainly a naming/branding exercise.

4. Rich/luxury items these days are usually bog standard equipment coated in gold, veneered in exotic wood, or studded with jewels. It's old style luxury mixed with modern technology and never works well. Give me a luxury camera that is truly different; flawless f/1.2 lenses, 20FPS frame rate, something that is a technical achievement. Not a name and an appearance.

So there.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2012 at 21:22 UTC as 35th comment

Interesting, I was thinking not that long ago the manufacturers should come out with something like this to compete with smartphones. It's not what a serious photographer would use, but has the capability to download and use all the apps people love these days, in the irony they use digital processing to make their photos look as bad as a Holga with expired film. Go figure. The specs and Android version are probably to keep the price low enough people will buy it. It would help tremendously if it had cellular service--which would also have involved contracts with phone carriers and who knows what else, although the subsidized price would have allowed a higher end model to be released. I have no plans to buy one of these, but am curious how the general public will react to it.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 15:08 UTC as 48th comment | 1 reply

Actually I like the photo--as an artistic expression It's not good photojournalism as it doesn't really capture what the viewer saw when they were there.

Something to consider--why aren't we using cellphone cameras already? Because everything from compacts to SLR's have more control, optical zoom, and more capability. Cellphones are great for snapshots but not much else--and snapshots is what most people take.

Why are they so popular? Convenient, ready to use, and glitzy apps. So is the future going to be cellphone cameras or regular cameras with an operating system to handle these apps and Wi-Fi or 3G capability?

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2012 at 14:19 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
Total: 21, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »