RFC1925
Joined on
Sep 8, 2012
|
Comments
 |  |
| Japanese Schoolgirls (Kyoto) by Litho from In their uniform | Lonesome Decay by Domenick Creaco from -Rain and the Empty Space: Wet Landscape- (in Full Colours Only) |
Valiant Thor: Two of my happiest days:
1. The day I purchased my Apple computer.
2. The day I sold my Apple computer.
@Thoughts R Us
* Windows 7 was Microsoft's fastest-selling operating-system of all time
* Unix was developed in the 70s
* In 2014 OS X had MORE critical vulnerabilities discovered than Windows 7
* I would arguedApple is slower to patch vulnerabilities than Microsoft. Just one example:
http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-culture-of-secrecy-delays-security-response-again/
As for bad UI, that I can agree you with.
Valiant Thor: Two of my happiest days:
1. The day I purchased my Apple computer.
2. The day I sold my Apple computer.
As a Windows hater I can still have to admit that those days have been over since Windows 7.
Sure it's still possible to get your computer compromised by bad software if you don't watch what you install but stability and security wise Windows have gotten quite good indeed.
Security in OS X is not great by any means btw.
PhotoKhan: I said this many years ago, I'll repeat it now for the benefit of avoiding any more future hassle.
The sooner any professional or advanced amateur photographer who rely in Raw output starts using LR and exploring it in order to get the amazing potential it entails, the sooner you'll be doing yourself an huge, mind-peace-inducing favor.
In few years when Lightroom is cloud and subscription only? I doubt it.
I've never used Aperture but I do use Macs. Decisions like these make me seriously consider not upgrading my C1Pro for Mac but instead buying the Windows version and running it in virtual Windows machine on my Mac.
When OS X becomes too IOS-like to use I can easily switch to other platform and continue running C1 in the same virtual machine or if I switch to Windows, run it natively. Running virtual OS X would be nicer but it's a hassle to set up and not even allowed by the license.
Not an ideal solution but worth considering because of the direction Apple is heading. Windows seems to have so better longetivity and be more stable as a platform.
Jim Salvas: For once, I see no reason to install an OS-X upgrade. This is pathetic.
And for those who claim it's free software and I shouldn't complain, no it's not free. I pay for it through the premium prices on my Apple products. The premium for an Apple laptop just became worth a little less.
The Apple premium is even greater when buying used because Macs retain their value far better than the equivalent Windows PC.
G-D: Great article, but personally, I don't like the format where you have to click 32 times just to go through it. Quite impracticle when using a touchscreen like on a smartphone or on a tablet/iPhone. I prefer to scroll. I mean, 32 times, that's a cheap way for getting lotsa clicks for your website...
My Windows phone shows the whole article in one page for some reason. I agree with you though.
chlamchowder: Looks like they're on Windows 7, with quad core CPUs (or 2-core CPUs with hyper-threading). And it looks like their CAD software is only loading two threads.
Also, standing desks...
"Mac is Linux-y" is correct. Of course who ever said that meant that the Mac's operating system OS X "is Linux-y" in a way that it is a certified Unix. Linux is a Unix-like operating system.
That does generally make porting (especially command line) applications between Linux and OS X a bit easier than to Windows that is completely different.
It's not cheap but not outrageous either considering an unlocked iphone6 plus is £619 - 789 depending on the version. That said I seriously doubt the price will be £899 because other reports say (incuding yours) that the price will be around 900€ (£715).
Once the price drops a bit I seriously consider getting one. I love good image quality and ergonomics but not enough to carry a compact camera or bigger everywhere I go. The extra I have to pay to have phone with great image quality is well worth the convinience over time.
Mike FL: In the first glance, it is the best camera for a phone comparing to the rest smaller sensor phones. BUT it may be not have too much advantage in low-light because some others [windows phone] having:
- 3-stop OIS
- 1-stop fast lens; F2.0 vs this F2.8
4 stops is a lot as 1" sensor has less than 4 stops advantage in low-light comparing to smaller sensors.
Other than that, CM1 has poor useability:
- No HDR
- The [big] lens as no cap, and it is not scratch-resistant sapphire glass as seen from iPhone.
- Not sure about battery life, but big sensor/lens needs more power, and is the battery removable?
Which phones have 3-stop OIS and a f2 lens? I seriously doubt you can archive 3 stops worth of stabilization in practice.
Having seen what the sensor is capable of compared to current best camera phones I think the difference in image quality will be quite clear.
I wouldn't call no hdr or no lens cap as usability issues but those are definitely downsizes of this phone.
xtoph: I am somewhat curious as to the basis of the editorializing characterization of these cameras as "popular".
I know people doing professional work on cheaper cameras, and i know people doing projects on arri and red systems, but i don't personally know anyone working with these.
Which doesnt mean much, but as i said, popular according to whom?
Any links to such stats?
You can count on Casio to introduce interesting products, that's for sure.
Next stop: stabilized body.
That is the only reason I haven't switched yet (a decent video implementation would help too).
John Miles: I repost to the top just so it is clear that the FZ1000 is not "much bigger" than the FZ50 as stated:
FZ1000 136.8 x 98.5 x 130.7 mm (1.76L box volume)
FZ50 141 x 86 x 142 mm (1.72L box Volume)
The FZ1000 is half an inch higher than the FZ50 to get the lens diameter in but is otherwise smaller than the FZ50.
Let's all just start reposting our posts to the top.
I would summarise the article regarding the difference between MFT and FF like this:
If you want:
1) Shallow DOF = FF is better
2) Deep DOF = MFT and FF are tied (FF can compensate with better ISO performance)
3) Portability = MFT is better
All the above have exceptions of course since there are such a great variety of cameras and lenses in both formats.
I don't get the complaining about having to move to Lightroom. It's no Photoshop, there are plenty of great alternatives such as Capture One Pro (right now 50% off from phaseone.com), DxO Optics Pro, Photoninja, Darktable (free) and RawTherapee (also free).
Granted only Capture One Pro (and Darktable?) have good image management features à la Aperture and Lightroom but there are standalone alternatives for doing that as well. It could be a good idea to use separate programs for raw editing and image cataloguing anyways. I'd imagine many Aperture users feeling that way after this announcement at least.
jnxr: Nikon need 2 tries to get it right for every FF model:
D4 ---> D4s
D600 ---> D610
D800 ---> D810
Moral of the story, don't buy their first model, wait for the fixed version.
Moral of the story for me: Don't buy their products.
ChesterY: Count me as another RX100 owner (have owned the Mk1, Mk2, and have the Mk3 on the way) who definitely would like a future firmware update to address the "closing EVF causes power off" behavior.
If I owned the camera I know it would irritate me if the EVF was up if I wasn't using it. And it's not hard to come up with scenarios where you'd want to use the EVF for a shot or two and then switch back to the LCD.
No 1020 support for the new features is a big let down.
AEP2: I agree with electrophoto. It's amazing how much we adore everything that's old and wonder if similar images with today's backgrounds would do as well. Also, we'll probably never know how many of these were posed, not hard to do, especially the ones with lovers in them.
From Wikipedia:
"The court action forced Doisneau to reveal that he posed the shot using Françoise Delbart and Jacques Carteaud, lovers whom he had just seen kissing, but had not photographed initially because of his natural reserve; he approached them and asked if they would repeat the kiss. "
"The couple in Le baiser were Françoise Delbart, 20, and Jacques Carteaud, 23, both aspiring actors. In 2005 Françoise Bornet (née Delbart) stated that, "He told us we were charming, and asked if we could kiss again for the camera. "