mckracken88

Joined on Nov 5, 2012

Comments

Total: 113, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1066 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kent Ekasak: The best camera (sensor) is the one you have it with you, when you need it..

I agree. When im on vacation my d800 goes where i go.
Luckily im not too weak to carry those extra 5 pounds with me.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2018 at 17:41 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1066 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: I am completely against software tweaks of any kind. Only the native performance without them will give the best quality the system is capable of. Agreed that if the adjustment is small side effects will be insignificant but the purist approach is what I always will select. And for that reason, I am glad I made the move to full frame when I upgraded from a Nikon D300 to the D610.

I do not consider this an issue only for cameras but also for lenses. So many these days are far too big and heavy. I have been told by an expert that the reason is that they are designed with computers. Just look at the Nikon AIS series, many of which are still available today. Some, but not all of them, are just as good as more modern designs but tiny by comparison. I hate EVFs, love OVFs but even if that were not the case changing to a Sony mirrorless full frame would be pointless for me. I would save about 200g with the body but still mostly have to put up with big and heavy glass.

Fully agree with keepreal.
All these fake effects are for the dumb masses.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2018 at 11:41 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1066 comments in total)

to sum it up:
Sensor size doesnt matter if you put your phone pics on 'social media'. (Ugh)
Sensor size does matter if you value your pictures and actually want to see some details in it, without fake effects.

Now that was easy, wasn't it? Can we now stop these insipid articles for good?

Link | Posted on May 29, 2018 at 11:38 UTC as 137th comment | 3 replies
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1066 comments in total)
In reply to:

Johnpong: Sensor size doesn't make a difference to most people because they will only put it up on social media or blog. You can't use these photos if you're a professional. Once you start cropping and print poster size prints, these photos will show their weaknesses. It's even worse if these photos were taken under low-light.

Articles like these always have this assumption that big sensor cameras technology will remain constant while cellphone camera tech advances and catches up.

why is it always about printing? I hardly print anything.
I also like to actually see some detail of my shot on my 4k monitor.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2018 at 11:26 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1066 comments in total)

so DP is really, really trying hard recently to push phone sales.
this time: with that guys head in front of the window looking like it was pasted from a different shot. (aka fake bokeh)

Link | Posted on May 28, 2018 at 22:31 UTC as 191st comment | 1 reply
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1066 comments in total)

even asking this question.....in a headline...on this site.
makes me seriously consider not reading the news section any longer.

phone IQ sucks bigtime. Pics (faked) by AI suck bigtime and are an insult to the artform of photography.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2018 at 22:14 UTC as 193rd comment | 1 reply
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (414 comments in total)
In reply to:

drjs: Really great article. Very well written and has great depth.

I think what we need to think about isn't what Smart Phone is doing right, but rather what real cameras are doing wrong. All of the computational photography "tricks" can be done on a large sensor camera but all of the traditional camera companies are either unable or unwilling to implement. Everyone is chasing larger sensor, brighter lens, faster AF instead adding useful software programs into the camera.

The future of photography is a combination of software and hardware. The innovation from past few years for smart phone is a perfect argument for this. For as long as traditional photography vendors are unwilling to realize this, smart phone camera will continue to leap forward in results. We as photographers needs to have better understanding of technology and not beholden-ed to our idea what photography should be.

you dont need pics loaded with fake effects if you buy a camera.
you dont need hdr auto stacking (or very rarely) if you buy a camera.

you need only all these smart features if you're too dumb to get to know a camera in half an hour of reading the manual.

but be my guest if youre content with grainy, smeary throwaway pics that are ONLY useable on a phone.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2018 at 18:38 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (414 comments in total)
In reply to:

57even: A lot of commentators here seem to be missing the point. Whether you 'like' the images from the Pixel2 or not is not the point. The fact is they greatly exceed the physical parameters of the sensor used in that phone.

If people are going to be tempted into buying dedicated cameras, they will demand some level of visible superiority over what they can do with a phone. That means some similar techniques will have to be available, either in-camera or in post, to stay ahead.

In practice, a lot of this is just focus stacking or HDR stacking, but what is unique is the Pixel2's ability to identify areas of an image intelligently and align the stacked images so precisely. It does a much better job of HDR (the results look quite realistic) than some HDR efforts I have seen, and the 'fake bokeh' is pretty smooth too...

I would like some control over these effects, but there is no doubt that they work. They will work just as well on a D850, in most cases - and with better quality data.

"So the only alternative to a phone is a full-frame camera? "
Most definitely.
In my travels, where i go, my d800 goes. Even up to 22000ft last winter.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2018 at 18:28 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (414 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hyper111: Tech history has shown, the nimble usually overtake the the bigger boys.
During the late 80s. IBM came out with the humble PC, it was n't as powerful as mainframes. Over time, the PC has become more and more powerful. It knocked out the bigger players such as Digital, Sun and HP. In the past people bought mainframes, but who buys that these days?

Even WIndows is under threat from people using lighter and nimbler tablets and phones.

Camera manufacturers are not going to make their compact more smarter, in case it hurts the sales of their CSC and SLR equipment.

I am a great fan of advanced compact cameras.... However, whilst taking photos of New Year's event, my photos were not as good as those taken from people's mobile phones.

yeah.....no.

youre funny. if you seriously compare a mainframe to a personal computer, no matter the time.

Tablets dont sell anymore. After the apple hype train died down. (holy smokes those touch things sucked - gimme a mouse any time)

And phones doing pc work? you must be jokking.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2018 at 16:04 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (414 comments in total)
In reply to:

57even: A lot of commentators here seem to be missing the point. Whether you 'like' the images from the Pixel2 or not is not the point. The fact is they greatly exceed the physical parameters of the sensor used in that phone.

If people are going to be tempted into buying dedicated cameras, they will demand some level of visible superiority over what they can do with a phone. That means some similar techniques will have to be available, either in-camera or in post, to stay ahead.

In practice, a lot of this is just focus stacking or HDR stacking, but what is unique is the Pixel2's ability to identify areas of an image intelligently and align the stacked images so precisely. It does a much better job of HDR (the results look quite realistic) than some HDR efforts I have seen, and the 'fake bokeh' is pretty smooth too...

I would like some control over these effects, but there is no doubt that they work. They will work just as well on a D850, in most cases - and with better quality data.

HDR ...is not needed (or close to anyway) with the dynamic range of a D800 for instance. (i did take a few times 2 exposures for a HDR in mind but very rarely used them. Underexpose and lifting shadows did almost always do the trick)

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2018 at 15:58 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (414 comments in total)

I find people shooting anything worthwhile with a phone embarrassing.
Because they care so little how their pics turn out.

they are going to regret looking at those point and click in a few years (on anything else than their phone display)

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2018 at 09:36 UTC as 73rd comment | 1 reply

freakin laughable. Social media gone wrong.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 15:29 UTC as 22nd comment
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (414 comments in total)

Landscapes with a phone? Is that guy for real? Hahah. (or for that matter any subject where you want details and not a grainy smear)

Also a real photographer (and/or someone who cares enough) will despise fake computational effects and prefer reality.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 15:17 UTC as 133rd comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

mckracken88: "Dad's invested in (and really enjoys) the Apple ecosystem"

Lol. Who else uses 'ecosystem' in connection with taking pictures? Yeah...you can almost smell someone got paid for something.

relax, hehe, all im just saying is that your 1000 Dollar iturd takes horrible pics.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 14:21 UTC

"Dad's invested in (and really enjoys) the Apple ecosystem"

Lol. Who else uses 'ecosystem' in connection with taking pictures? Yeah...you can almost smell someone got paid for something.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 14:02 UTC as 125th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

dr.noise: Well, if someone's preferences and purpose is to make crappy pictures of beautiful places, then OK it's the right tool for the job. What else is there to say. Portraits are more or less tolerable, I don't know why, but my eyes are bleeding looking at the landscape photos in 100%. Otherwise nice pictures are completely destroyed. I think no more than 30% of original details are preserved. Not saying this as a hater, I didn't even look at any Iphone shots earlier and I expected them to be much better, given all the praise.

Portraits Ok? With artificial background blurring? I dont think so. Not only is the shot of very low quality but it's fake too. (background) The phone people don't even care if it's real or not.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 12:50 UTC
In reply to:

Dominik84: Images look really ok, even on my iMac 27. But for me by far not good enough to leave my camera equipment at home. For me an image is about the subject, the emotion, the light etc. (and the first two photos are really great regarding to this) but honestly I would be very disappointed if I would do such a great journey to a fascinating country and only come home with such Smartphone images. We'll see what the development will do the next years. When it's one day close to the image quality of a 5d IV + 35 1,4 > nice :-)

your eyesight must be very faulty.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 12:16 UTC

PHONE articles: Look my pics look OK on a tiny phone screen! (Or how i was to lazy and didn't care to carry a real camera)

COMMENTS: Always a huge number. (because subject matter is highly controversial - lazy people vs photographers)

PLEASE: Let me filter out your insipid phone news.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 12:15 UTC as 136th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

User3366538285: A couple of years ago, reality hit me on my face: nobody gives a cent about the "quality" of my photos. I post them on Flickr and print some books, but who cares? I carry around my (fantastic FX) SLR and take awesome pics but the only person that admires them is ME. The rest are happy with the low-res pics I send them when I manage to sync my slr to my phone. They totally ignore my "perfect" landscape pics or my efforts on street photography - they go "oooh" and "aaah" on crappy group photos that I could easily take on a $100 phone.

"and take awesome pics but the only person that admires them is ME"

Umm who do you make photos for again? Who gives a damn about other people? Are you for real? This social media stuff is seriously messing with people's heads.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 11:56 UTC
On article Cinematic 4K footage shot with the Apple iPhone X (310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sranang Boi: You can buy a G80 for far less than that, and get a far better 4K experience.

yes you can do all that and make really crappy photos and digital as heck looking movies!

(all because you're too lazy / and or overweight to carry a real DSLR!)

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 08:06 UTC
Total: 113, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »