Lives in United States United States
Joined on Nov 17, 2010


Total: 95, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

hfolkertsma: Now release one with better coatings to reduce lensflare all together.

The characteristic lens flare of an Anamorphic lens is the entire point of using Anamorphic lenses today. The main complaint against other Anamorphic solutions is that they do not have the proper flare.

This lens is clearly for another audience than the one you belong to.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2020 at 17:36 UTC
In reply to:

TomFid: Call me a Luddite, but why make special tools for making things wider than the human field of vision and any efficient display device?

Well, if you were a luddite, (definition: a person opposed to new technology or ways of working) then you would enjoy this, since this is the way film makers have been working for decades. So, the opposite of a Luddite it is.

Just curious, have you not noticed that this is the field of vision that ALL (well at least incredibly close to all) movies are shot in?

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2020 at 17:34 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Things change if you give this lens in the hands of somebody who knows what he is doing. There are some quite poetic clips on YouTube taken with this lens.
Here's one with Lumix:

Probably you should not buy one unless you know what to do with it.

I am not quite sure I would use the phrase "somebody who knows what he is doing" about someone who is incapable of publishing a video to YouTube in the aspect ratio it was created. It annoys the becheezuz out of me when people take video with a wider aspect ratio and drop it onto a 1080p 16:9 timeline and put black bars everywhere. This goes for the first video. When shown on a 21:9 aspect screen it has black bars on top and on the sides.

The second video is published in the proper aspect ratio. If you have a 21:9 format screen it will run full screen.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2020 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

ksweatman: I find it amazing that many people can so easily dismiss this footage as "natural", nothing related to anything we've done. Of coarse not. One person even calling the film "propaganda". I'll move away from the outrageous comments, and re-enter reality. Regardless who caused the problem, and people have grave difficulty admitting fault, the crisis does exist. It's appalling that we can kill millions of healthy animals, yet allow this bear and many others to suffer a slow agonizing death of starvation. People hunt for the sport of it, for fur, food, pleasure, just not for mercy, and to end suffering. We have no compassion, humanity has escaped us. If we can't feed these starving creatures, we need to end their suffering. If Canadians can bash the brains out of healthy baby seals, they can cull these starving polar bears. Many can watch this poor animal drag his bones around in agony, then go shoot a healthy elephant. That's what we've become, hollow, and hopelessly ignorant about life.

Is there anything about "from natural causes" you fail to understand?

How do you suggest we prevent polar bears from getting old and dying? How exactly do you expect human kind to prevent polar bears from getting perfectly normal polar bear diseases?

>> That's what we've become, hollow, and hopelessly ignorant about life

The ignorance here only pertains to YOU.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 22:59 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a7R III is still a star eater (460 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alexey Kulachatov: it's been so many years ...
And Sony still can not do losses RAW :(
Sony tries to enter the market of professional cameras? Ha-ha-ha

Alexey is entirely correct. This type of behavior is normal for a company who produces toys and consumer gimmicks. It is NOT the behavior of a company that creates products for the professional market.

Sony has released a number of firmware upgrades for their cameras, and they never improve much, often they are quite detrimental to the use of the camera (such as crippling AF-C in less than ideal lighting conditions).

Compare this to Fuji who improve their cameras every time they release a new firmware upgrade. Some times very significantly. That's what a company who focuses on the high end of the market should do.

If Sony doesn't change its behavior by the time Canon and Nikon moves into the current century, the Sony camera division is going to go extinct. The only thing that keeps them alive at the moment is Canon and Nikons refusal to get serious about mirrorless.

Oh, and I say this because I am very fond of my Sony A7RII, not because I am a Canikon fanboi. I sold my Canon gear.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 08:06 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a7R III is still a star eater (460 comments in total)
In reply to:

rgwaller1: The question for me is "Why buy a camera that does not meet your needs?" If astrophotography is your main focus buy the camera that will make your experience the most pleasurable for you. I do mostly wildlife and landscapes so I buy the camera that meets most of my needs. No camera is perfect and can meet everyone's expectations at any price.

There is a major problem with your comment (but not as it comes to the A7RIII). This was not a problem on Sony cameras until Sony decided to "upgrade" the firmware in the A7RII and others, introducing this "feature" without the ability to turn it off.

The reality is that Sony as a great hardware company, but as a photography company they suck. Their software engineers are fundamentally retarded, and the SW managers are worse. The fact that the only way you can get real upgrades to Sony cameras is to buy new ones is messed up. Sony needs to hire all the managers at the Fuji camera division, and most of their software engineers too. They should fire every single moron they currently have on staff.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 08:00 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a7R III is still a star eater (460 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheEnthusiast: Good grief. What percentage of photographers shoot single-pixel stars? About 0.01% or is that too high? On the other hand, pointing out this near-catastrophic shortcoming might actually scare off the 3% who think it could matter to them. Somebody needs to get a life.

Sigh. You see this over and over when people try to defend a terribly stupid behavior on part of Sony.

If you shoot stars, professionally or otherwise, you shoot single pixel stars. Period. All of them. Now, many invested in Sony because it was quite good for astro photography, and then Sony came and crippled the camera in such a way that they were hosed.

This is equivalent of a portrait photographer investing in Sony only to find that in firmware upgrade Sony decided to remove peoples eyes from images taken. Would they be happy about that?

The fact that this doesn't impact YOU doesn't mean that it isn't important. Every other camera manufacturer allows you to turn this "feature" off. Just not Sony. That's retarded. Just like it was retarded of Sony to cripple AF-C in less than ideal lighting conditions.

Sony ALWAYS does this stuff, and they never fix it. They have fantastic products, but their software developers and managers are fundamentally retarded.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 07:56 UTC
In reply to:

ColdViking: At 0:13-0:14 you see a clip-on lens to an iPhone. Meh.

Doesn't seem likely that this product is the one they are talking about above, since that product's been available for a bit, while what they are talking about above is something they'll publish on Kickstarter.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 21:55 UTC

At 0:13-0:14 you see a clip-on lens to an iPhone. Meh.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 10:19 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

PLShutterbug: Good for Polito.

However I am shocked that her lawyer posted that diatribe. It is disgraceful that a "professional" acted in such an unprofessional manner.

>> Commercial photographers: REVIEW YOUR CONTRACTS.

In this case it wouldn't have helped. The contract was iron-clad.

The only helpful "advice" in this case would have been: "hire a hit man to take out Bridezilla to rule all Bridezillas".

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 10:48 UTC
In reply to:

girlperson1: Did the news outlets fact check before running their career ruining stories about the photographer? Were they mentioned in the lawsuit as defendants?

@Baba Ganoush

Google is your friend. The couple admitted willingly, in fact they bragged about it, that they intended to defame the photog. This case was actually very clear cut, and the lower court harshly blasted the couple for what they had done.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 10:45 UTC
In reply to:

Nicolas06: It is not very clear if money was asked before, how much and if it was clear that an additional amount was to be provided before getting the high resolution photos.

As a consequence it is very difficult to understand this case. Who was really unfair. Even if the ruling give some hints and that the behavior of the blogger couple was not nice, by far.

What I undertand is more and more people want lot of photos but they don't want to pay the real cost of it, to allow for the photographer to make a decent living out of its job, so many tricks are used to reduce the apparent cost.

Some photographers don't ask for money at all, but only ask if you want prints and everybody in the family can pay. That's a way to spread the cost. They actual have the photos in "hostage", from fact, but this is agreed from the beginning. You can't get it all and honestly $125 doesn't look like much.


You need to read the facts of the case. There is nothing at all that is unclear. Nothing. The contract is *CRYSTAL* clear on everything. They paid. They were told they needed to order an album. They were told that the various types of album covers had different prices. They were told why (between booking the gig and doing the album, a period of perhaps six months or more) the photographer might change supplier, they couple might change their mind etc. All of this was covered in the contract the couple signed.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 10:42 UTC
In reply to:

Autriche78: If anything, this shows how vitally important it is to have a signed contract that covers every possible contingency. Without it, this lawsuit never would have been won.

Actually, it doesn't. The photog had a signed contract that did cover every possible contingency. The Bridezilla didn't go insane over the contract, she went insane purely to drive traffic to her own blog. She even bragged about it in social media.

It is not possible to guard against this kind of customer except for hiring a hit man to take them out before they go total spastic.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 09:33 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: You could tell from the small pieces of the news story who had the good attitude and who had the malicious intent.

Photographers always initiate the good deed by putting the work first before being fully paid as opposed to the "give me now" attitude of today's spoiled generation.


>> However, after years of doing wedding & dealt with various
>> kind of clients, you will understand the importance of finalizing
>> payment prior to wedding date

The photog did. Post wedding the couple wanted an upgrade to one of the products they had paid for. The upgrade increased the production cost. Photog informed them. They complained. Photog offered the upgrade for free. The couple went ballistic even after the photog offered the upgrade for free. The NBC affiliate who carried the story first settled with the photog out of court.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 09:32 UTC
In reply to:

halfwaythere: Good for her that charging 6000$ for mediocrity isn't a crime.

You are just envious

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 09:28 UTC
In reply to:

Sammy Yousef: Pros will continue to stubbornly refuse to offer full size unedited images and missed shots "to protect their reputation" regardless of what their client wants, then complain when they go out of business.

Most people who get married aren't aware of standard practice in the business and have many many things to read and organize for a wedding. If you must continue with archaic practices, make sure you tell them that they aren't getting full resolution images and that they understand what you mean. There is no question this couple behaved very badly, but I also don't doubt that is because they felt cheated out of their memories when the photos exist.

Well done. By sticking to her guns and enforcing the contract 2 years later she's not shooting and has burnt through her savings, playing stay at home mum. Regardless of the quality of her shots she could have improved and this is a waste. It's yet to be shown what money she gets out of the couple and how much goes to lawyers.

You *REALLY* need to read this story because everything you said, in this context, was pure nonsense.

1/ This had nothing to do with full-res photos
2/ This had nothing to do with an archaic process, but an upgrade to an album cover
3/ She didn't stick to her guns, she offered to comp the cover for the couple when they asked, but at that point in time they had decided to use the photog to direct more traffic to the bride's "look how pretty I am" blog

Short about what actually happened
1/ Couple ordered shoot, signed contract for standard photo album
2/ After shoot, bride wanted album cover upgraded to a premium cover
3/ Photog informed them that new cover had a higher production cost of $150
4/ Couple complained angrily at extra $150
5/ Photog offered to comp the cover at no cost to the couple
6/ Couple decided they wanted to promote bride's blog by destroying photog - repeatedly said on social media that the only intention was to destroy her business

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 09:28 UTC
On article Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II? (446 comments in total)
In reply to:

ColdViking: Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

@Barney Britton
>> The rest of what you wrote is just a matter of opinion

That's just your opinion.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 09:08 UTC
In reply to:

wakaba: Superior doughnut? Compared to a current PC - This Apple is underpowered, slow, awful and limited OS. 900$ buys a PC Workstation with 3-10x The performance.

@Cameron R Hood
>> and I don't push my computer?

No, you don't. A software developer pushes his computer, on a day to day basis, more than all music and video editors push their computers collectively. Not because of resource usage but because a software developers can torment an operating system far more than any regular user can. I can intentionally crash your Mac with a single line of code if, for example, I am writing hardware drivers. It's trivial.

>> And I'm sorry but the whole world was in fear of Y2k, EXCEPT us Mac users

The Y2K bug was a problem in DATABASE software since in many DB designers had reserved six characters for storing dates. Such as 991210 to represent December 10. 1999. It wasn't an Operating System issue AT ALL, since all operating systems at the time used either the standard Unix way of representing a date or something similar. The standard Unix way of representing a date is safe until 2038. It had nothing to do with Win/Mac. You're just IGNORANT Cameron.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 09:06 UTC
In reply to:

wakaba: Superior doughnut? Compared to a current PC - This Apple is underpowered, slow, awful and limited OS. 900$ buys a PC Workstation with 3-10x The performance.

@Cameron R Hood

>> I couldn't get it to run two days in a row without reinstalling
>> the whole freaking thing

Sorry, that's just nonsense. Or, perhaps you spent your days randomly re-formatting your HD, which is a dumb thing to do. I am a software developer and as such I push my computers far harder than you ever have, particularly back when Windows didn't run in protected mode, so single apps could easily bring down the whole system (as was the case on Mac at the time too).

>> And Y2K was EXCLUSIVELY Windows

Y2K was primarily a server problem for software written in COBOL on older machines from IBM, HP etc. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Windows, it had to do with old Unix, System/360, MVS, VAX/VMS etc. Please top talking about things where you have zero knowledge.

Also, and this is far more important, the Y2K problem wasn't an operating system problem, it was a DATABASE problem.

>> HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Time for your medications Cameron. You're losing it.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 16:41 UTC
On article Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II? (446 comments in total)
In reply to:

ColdViking: Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

@Barnney Britton
>> Very cute, but Betteridge's law only holds when it's a
>> question with an obvious answer

Actually, no, that is not when Betteridge's law holds. Betteridge's law holds when a journalist asks a question to which he knows the answer is "no". Wiki it.

>> In this case, the answer might well be 'yes' depending on
>> your circumstances.

As the journalist in this piece, and most of the people commenting on it, are fully aware, those circumstances probably do not exist.

1/ If you are looking for a not-super-expensive entry to FF, you're going to be (a lot) better off with a used 6D (or even a 5DII for that matter) and put some money into quality glass.

2/ If you already own a 6D, and you have a tiny amount of extra money, this is a non-upgrade, if you have real money, get a used 5Dmk3 instead.

3/ If you come from another system and want to get into Canon FF, well then you'd be nuts to get this one.

I seriously can't see any reason to buy this one.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 16:33 UTC
Total: 95, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »