zkz5

zkz5

Joined on Dec 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 199, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

sh10453: The Honor 8 at $400 would be a good choice, and you can use your headphone and your micro SD cards too!!!
Do yourself a favor and take a look at its features. Then you'd never look at Apple phones again.

"What the heck is Honor 8?"

http://bfy.tw/7eTx

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 02:34 UTC

Ah, finally. The lens Nikon DX shooters have been clamoring for for over a decade - an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 zoom.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 05:12 UTC as 46th comment | 4 replies
On article Canon EOS M3 real-world sample gallery updated (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: I'm really curious to see what Canon does with this at Photokina. If they speed it up and incorporate the viewfinder at a low price, it could be pretty successful. Of course there will be the usual DxO dynamic range graphs, etc, but looking at these shots, it's hard to see how an ordinary consumer, who just wants sharp pictures and too many megapixels, would be unhappy with the results.

"ordinary consumers" stopped buying cameras in general years ago.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 06:48 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

Voiding or not voiding the warranty does not change who owns the device. I owned it all along - they just ceased to have any responsibility for fixing it.

Anyway, the warranty is completely irrelevant to my point, as are software licenses or hardware patents or services provided by others.

A device can even be running licensed software on patented hardware that is fully in warranty yet *obeying commands only from me*. That's the way it should be. In fact, the opposite situation is typically considered a security vulnerability known as a "back door".

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 08:10 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

"You're still very ignorant. You don't control what you do on your device now do you? Clearly you don't. If you didn't know, now you do."

Really? I'm sitting in front of a Thinkpad running Linux. I have the root password and the passphrase to the filesystem encryption. Please explain how I do not control this device.

"You don't fully own your device. What you can and cannot do the company and carrier have control over that."

I have a Nexus 5 that I bought outright (receipt on hand) with an unlocked bootloader running Cyanogenmod. Please give me a specific example of something I cannot do on this device because the carrier won't let me. Please tell me who else owns *this device*.

"The fine print in your software and hardware agreements are extensive and very detailed to this fact."

I'm not at all talking about license agreements on the software that the device shipped with. And what is a "hardware agreement"? In my ~18 years in I.T. I've never heard of such a thing.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 07:14 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

"When it stops you from videoing someone being beaten by the police, problem."

A very good example of why giving other people control over our devices is an utterly unacceptable compromise.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 06:40 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

"Saying it's your device and you can do anything with it..."

I *never* said people should be able to do anything they want with it without consequence. I only said the only person who should have control over the device is the device's owner. Super ignorant is not reading what you are arguing with.

If someone is photographing at a concert where the venue owners have requested that no photos be taken and security removes them, then more power to them.

"Art gallery type museums aren't going to turn people away with cell phones."

They absolutely do turn away people who *are actively photographing* things that the museum doesn't want photographed.

"Disabling media recording such as video or photography is a great compromise."

Giving anyone control over a device I own is an utterly unacceptable compromise.

"If you respect "no photography" private locations and zones then you should have no problem with this."

I respect "no photography" zones by respecting "no photography" zones.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 06:35 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

"I mean I personally find it offensive when I see people take photos of art when the collector explicitly asks for no"

Me too.

"The idea of exercising "our" right to choose how and when we use devices we pay for is ignorant"

Why? They're *our* devices. The idea that anyone else should be able to command them is what is ignorant. Why should anyone else have any control over a machine that I own? The people that own the property where said art is showcased are free to remove whoever they like.

"People abuse things and just because you might have respect for property doesn't mean 90% of the population will."

Venue owners are free to exclude that "90%" of the population from their property, if they like, since it is their property in much the same way my smartphone is my property.

"please feel free to disable devices or DSLRs from people who have no respect for private intellectual property."

In otherwords, disrespect private physical property?

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

Wild Shooter: Ummm, how is this a selling point to any consumer? has to be the first patent I've seen that actually steers people away from the product.

There are plenty of "features" included with an iPhone that is of no use to the device owner, like DRM, for example.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 04:45 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

The only person who should have any control over a device is the device's owner.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 04:41 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

RingoMan: Typical SONY! Restrictions by Sony are always going to be part of that brand. I remember copyright embedded software on Sony CDs. I remember Beta. So glad that they are not the only brand out there. I will gladly buy any other camera that works the way I want it to work. Oh, I already did.

I have no idea. I don't have an A7R2.

I would hope the process is similar to any other well designed programmable electronic device: Power device off, hold down some buttons, power device on, ROM bootstrap code detects special button inputs, ROM code presents a user interface with a minimal set of functions like reading a new firmware image from a specific filename on flash media, ROM writes firmware image to flash and reboots.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 05:26 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

RingoMan: Typical SONY! Restrictions by Sony are always going to be part of that brand. I remember copyright embedded software on Sony CDs. I remember Beta. So glad that they are not the only brand out there. I will gladly buy any other camera that works the way I want it to work. Oh, I already did.

"You made a distinction between bricking and destroying."

No I did not.

"I was pointing out that it does not to have to be a mechanical issue to mess up your camera and explained the process to you."

None of the things you explained create a "bricked camera". What you described were firmware bugs which can easily be fixed by running a different firmware. The camera is not equivalent to a brick if I can flash a different firmware image and have it working perfectly again in 10 minutes. So I'm still wondering exactly how "One bad line of code can *brick* your camera with no recourse." especially if there are no mechanical issues.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 03:08 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

RingoMan: Typical SONY! Restrictions by Sony are always going to be part of that brand. I remember copyright embedded software on Sony CDs. I remember Beta. So glad that they are not the only brand out there. I will gladly buy any other camera that works the way I want it to work. Oh, I already did.

Sony does not need to know how my code will behave in their cameras any more than Lenovo needs to know how the next Linux kernel will behave on their netbooks.

You originally said:

"One bad line of code can brick your camera with no recourse."

That sounds like destroying the camera to me.

Everything else you've described above has simple remedy: revert from the buggy firmware.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 21:19 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

RingoMan: Typical SONY! Restrictions by Sony are always going to be part of that brand. I remember copyright embedded software on Sony CDs. I remember Beta. So glad that they are not the only brand out there. I will gladly buy any other camera that works the way I want it to work. Oh, I already did.

You're missing the point.

I can see why writing firmware for a camera would be more difficult due to the real-time requirements of it, but if it is possible to destroy the device with only a single line of code then the device contains a design flaw. It should be more robust than that.

Even if I wanted to write firmware which destroyed the camera, how would I hypothetically do that aside from just wearing a component out through repeated and constant use?

As for the iphone, Apple has gone out of their way to try and stop people from running whatever software they like on their own equipment. That's another design flaw.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 02:47 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

RingoMan: Typical SONY! Restrictions by Sony are always going to be part of that brand. I remember copyright embedded software on Sony CDs. I remember Beta. So glad that they are not the only brand out there. I will gladly buy any other camera that works the way I want it to work. Oh, I already did.

Apparently - why can one bad line of code brick these cameras yet one bad line of code doesn't brick countless other devices?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 20:55 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prognathous: Hacked firmware versions are indeed something I would expect Sony to want to prevent, and rightfully so. Blocking third party apps on the other hand, is simply inane. It's similar to Apple or Google blocking third party apps for their phones and tablets, except of course that Sony does not provide an SDK. This btw is a huge blown opportunity to leave the competition behind. Instead of blocking apps, Sony should do everything it can to encourage developers to write apps for its cameras.

Some ideas:
- Focus bracketing app for macro stacking
- Soft focus mode using multiple exposures using different aperture values (like Minolta 7 STF mode)
- Soft focus mode changing the focus for half an exposure (like Minolta Fantasy effect card)
- 16 stop dynamic range using double exposure (one correct exposure, and another with +4 overexposure, later to be merged in pp)
- Multi-spot metering with highlight and shadow bias
- Intervalometer
- Pre-programmed focus pull distances for video

etc...

Sony is already warning users and voiding the warranty if non-Sony-approved software is used. Why do they need to prevent the use of such software outright?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 06:04 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

mick232: If I use such an app and an unrelated part such the built-in flash or battery fails, I will insist on my warranty, whether Sony likes it or not. If I have a firmware problem, that is a different story.

"the unsupported app could over drain the battery, thereby reducing it's life or killing it entirely."

The components should have been designed so that this isn't possible.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 03:37 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prognathous: Hacked firmware versions are indeed something I would expect Sony to want to prevent, and rightfully so. Blocking third party apps on the other hand, is simply inane. It's similar to Apple or Google blocking third party apps for their phones and tablets, except of course that Sony does not provide an SDK. This btw is a huge blown opportunity to leave the competition behind. Instead of blocking apps, Sony should do everything it can to encourage developers to write apps for its cameras.

Some ideas:
- Focus bracketing app for macro stacking
- Soft focus mode using multiple exposures using different aperture values (like Minolta 7 STF mode)
- Soft focus mode changing the focus for half an exposure (like Minolta Fantasy effect card)
- 16 stop dynamic range using double exposure (one correct exposure, and another with +4 overexposure, later to be merged in pp)
- Multi-spot metering with highlight and shadow bias
- Intervalometer
- Pre-programmed focus pull distances for video

etc...

"Hacked firmware versions are indeed something I would expect Sony to want to prevent, and rightfully so."

Why?

You can load whatever firmware you like an all kinds of devices these days... by design. Such devices have existed since the beginning of computing.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 03:34 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

RingoMan: Typical SONY! Restrictions by Sony are always going to be part of that brand. I remember copyright embedded software on Sony CDs. I remember Beta. So glad that they are not the only brand out there. I will gladly buy any other camera that works the way I want it to work. Oh, I already did.

"Nonetheless, the above announcement is nothing more or less than what any other company would do."

It is? There are many android devices out there which, by design, will let you unlock the bootloader and load any OS image you like. I think you can unlock the firmware on just about every Moto/Lenovo Android device these days that isn't otherwise crippled by the carrier.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 03:33 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)
In reply to:

sunhorse: Apps can do plenty of damage, intentional or otherwise. There are claims that the Android subsystem in Sony cameras have been reverse engineered. (https://github.com/ma1co/Sony-PMCA-RE)

Are the apps adequately sandboxed? Is the sandbox implementation sufficiently robust? Apps need to have access to your images on the SD card. Is it possible for badly written apps to damage your images? Can apps deliberately damage images? It seems either is possible.

Do you really want to run unauthorized apps, given such circumstances? As it is, the authorized PlayMemories apps are slow and clunky at best, at least on my A7 II.

Knowing what we do about the dangers of side-loading non-Google Play apps on Android smartphones, would you trust an unknown developer?

"Apps need to have access to your images on the SD card. Is it possible for badly written apps to damage your images? Can apps deliberately damage images?"

Ironically, if you're running a (non-stock) Android image which gives you root access you are *better* protected against this. You can set file permissions on individual files and directories to give specific apps access to specific photos.

"Do you really want to run unauthorized apps, given such circumstances?"

Does Sony warrant that *authorized* apps won't do anything malicious? Does Sony inspect the source code of every app it authorizes?

"Knowing what we do about the dangers of side-loading non-Google Play apps on Android smartphones, would you trust an unknown developer?"

The entire point of sandboxing is that you don't have to trust the app developer in the first place.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 03:29 UTC
Total: 199, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »