Woody W.

Woody W.

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Consultant
Joined on Dec 1, 2001
About me:

Happily taking pictures until the dust clears..., Currently using an EOS 760D/Rebel T6s, Canon SX100, EOS IX, 3021N tripod, Toyota Camry, Canon lenses, Lenscrafters lenses, Suzuki SS-100 digital piano, a house by a lake, a lovely wife, two turtle doves, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Comments

Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14
On article You've got mail: Five photo postcard apps tested (41 comments in total)

Neat products. My only question is regarding origination. One of the neat things about sending/getting postcards is having them actually "come from" the (relatively) exotic destinations. Do (or can) these get sent from your actual touring country, so they have the foreign postmark and everything?

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 13:00 UTC as 18th comment | 6 replies
On article UPDATED: Canon PowerShot G3 X real-world samples posted (166 comments in total)

To those complaining that they want to see examples of "zoom". They are there (e.g. the London Eye). The exif shows 220mm, which is the long end of the lens. Don't forget that the 600MM is an equivalent number. So, for example, if the exif shows 125, it is the equivalent of roughly 340mm full frame.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 11:09 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies

As an earlier poster noted, what screamed out at me was a refined Fresnel - i.e. these "antennas" as they call them, basically set up some kind of a diffraction pattern.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 04:27 UTC as 35th comment
In reply to:

Woody W.: Depends on what about it is being patented. It has to be both "novel" (new) and "non-obvious". I'll give them novel, but not non-obvious. Basically, once you have the ability to create a transparent display - a true invention, it is obvious to apply it in virtually any scenario in which a non transparent display might be used. (Note: the US Supreme Court has said "obvious to try" is, by definition not non-obvious.)

Agree, which is why I started with it "depends on what..." - though up until recently the obvious-to-try part of it actually was not a disqualifier. That led to all sorts of ludicrous patents which were granted on various and sundry otherwise unpatentable things by effectively slapping "on a computer" or "over the internet" on them. As for the device at hand, I have not read their application. For all I know, it could be a design patent, which itself is fodder for an array arguments. But this isn't the place to delve that deeply into patent theory.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 UTC

Depends on what about it is being patented. It has to be both "novel" (new) and "non-obvious". I'll give them novel, but not non-obvious. Basically, once you have the ability to create a transparent display - a true invention, it is obvious to apply it in virtually any scenario in which a non transparent display might be used. (Note: the US Supreme Court has said "obvious to try" is, by definition not non-obvious.)

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 22:59 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies

Sadly, from a bottom-line standpoint, the printer is nothing more than a loss-leading holder for ink cartridges (the real profit center) - so the cheaper they can get it, the better.
Of course, this now opens them up to the same criticism a lot of cars got in the '80's - the thing looks like the box it came in! :)

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2013 at 20:32 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

SushiEater: Sigma 50-500mm OS has build in 1.4x TC and 4x inverted TC for $10.5K less.
And it doesn't break my back. That means it will cost me ZERO eventually because I would not have to visit my physician and psychiatrist.

As much as I love the Bigma and its convenience (I have taken hundreds of wonderful, or at least self-satisfying, images with it), I have to say I'm impressed with the potential of this new lens. Of course, at 12K, it probably isn't going to be gracing my bag any time soon...

Link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 07:10 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Serious question: Why a constant aperture zoom with built-in converter, not a longer 200-560mm zoom with maximum aperture going from f/4 to f/5.6 in the long end?

This lens is really two lenses in one: 200-400mm f/4 and 280-560 f/5.6. It is not possible to zoom past 400 without flipping a switch and loosing one f-stop at that moment. With a 200-560mm you would start loosing speed after 400, but would hit f/5.6 at 560mm, before it it would be faster.

I also believe that it is possible to make a similar quality 200-560 f/4-5.6 zoom lighter, cheaper and mechanically more reliable.

Was this just a blunder from Canon design department ("I have this great idea, let's have a built-in extender!") or is it a marketing and brand image decision? Would a f/4-5.6 200-560mm lens look less "professional", even if in practice it would be more convenient and even slightly faster for 400-560mm range?

I think they have not really thought this over, even if it is a great lens.

Have you looked at the MTF charts for this lens? Although we have to wait for real samples to show up for testing, it has the potential to mop the floor with virtually every other lens on the market in its focal range (including many of Canon's own) - zoom or prime - even with the TC engaged.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 07:06 UTC
On article US Judge rules for Eggleston in dispute with collector (300 comments in total)

This matches my understanding of "Limited Edition." The "edition" could be defined by any combination of dimensions, technique, crop, run length, material, etc...

The larger print, in a different technique, is clearly a new "edition", even if derived from the same source.

Mr. Sobel should have looked for the definition of the edition before he paid that much for it. He didn't buy it from the artist, so a bit of due diligence would certainly have been in order. But as long as the artist didn't break the terms of the edition, he's certainly within his rights to create others.

P.S. Alan Briot described just this issue with "limited editions" in an article over 2 years ago.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 01:27 UTC as 85th comment
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review (546 comments in total)

It seems to me a natural (if imperfect) comparison would be between this and the Sigma DP1 Merrill, as large-sensor fixed lens compact cameras with approximately equivalent fields of view.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2013 at 06:54 UTC as 117th comment
On article Zebras on the MacBook Pro - how the picture was taken (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

ryansholl: Of all the news to place on the homepage of Digital Photography Review, what is chosen is about a photo taken on film.

Yeah, and I was blowing the "Film Rules" folks away with 6mp EOS D60 images. Great fun!

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2012 at 15:48 UTC
On article Zebras on the MacBook Pro - how the picture was taken (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

tongki: this is how a professional do the job,
perfect gear, perfect tools (chopter) and perfect moments

EOS 1N is the latest EOS film, right ?
this one with the eye focus system ?

The EOS 1N, while the best-in-class of its time, is several generations old even by film standards. It predates the eye-controlled focus capability of the EOS 5, 3, and the various Elan II and 7 -series bodies. This is all about the skill of the photographer, and the equipment managing to not get in the way. :)

As to the film, I'd guess it was a nice positive media, suitable to nature work, like the Fuji Velvia family.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2012 at 11:32 UTC
Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14