Biowizard

Biowizard

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 699, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Biowizard: Provided one flies one's DJI drone within the law, obeying local and national rules, avoiding restricted airspace, and so on, I can't see what the issue is. This is no more intrusive than the fact that every time I power up my phone, the authorities know where I am. In fact, it's less so: the drone is NOT logging its telemetry to the internet; simply broadcasting it at a local level, so law enforcement can intercept the info when necessary.

Brian

No, this is more like the fact that every day I drive my car, its number plate is scanned by dozens of Police cameras. Every time I walk into a shopping mall, my image is recorded on CCTV cameras. Face it, we live in a surveillance world these days. And I am not bothered if someone (with the right, expensive kit) can see where my drone is flying.

After all, who said I told DJI my actual name, or email, or postal address? A cheap tablet on a borrowed WiFi connection and Mailinator mailbox is all that's needed to register the drone and start flying. Jus' sayin' ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 23:45 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: So based on a statistically significant sample (90 million is not bad), the average number of lenses per camera sold is only 1.44?! Less than one and a half lenses per camera?!!

Why bother with a lens mount at all? Seems most folks would be better off with a large-sensor "Bridge" camera!

Brian

Wow! I buy good bodies and keep them for the life of my lenses!

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 23:41 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Nice spherical camera, by the looks of it - but this is not the same thing as VR. Single-viewpoint non-stereo imagery simply is not what "Virtual Reality" means.

Brian

What VR actually means, is the user's ability to move around within and interact with a virtual 3D space. Even if the user can't touch or move objects, they should be able to walk behind, peer inside, or underneath, etc. Converting a real space into a VR model involves 3D scanning, not taking one photo - even if you have 8 cameras with overlapping images. Flight simulators like X-plane actually ARE true VR, and can be very immersive when used with stereo video headsets such as the Oculus Rift. It cheapens brands of otherwise very interesting cameras, to claim "VR" for single-point photography.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 23:40 UTC

So based on a statistically significant sample (90 million is not bad), the average number of lenses per camera sold is only 1.44?! Less than one and a half lenses per camera?!!

Why bother with a lens mount at all? Seems most folks would be better off with a large-sensor "Bridge" camera!

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 21:53 UTC as 11th comment | 7 replies

Love the design - so NOT "GoPro". But ...

"21.14-million-pixel 1/2.3-type backlit CMOS sensor [that] turns out only 6.9MP still images"

... um, WHY?!!

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 21:51 UTC as 1st comment

Nice spherical camera, by the looks of it - but this is not the same thing as VR. Single-viewpoint non-stereo imagery simply is not what "Virtual Reality" means.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 21:04 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies

Provided one flies one's DJI drone within the law, obeying local and national rules, avoiding restricted airspace, and so on, I can't see what the issue is. This is no more intrusive than the fact that every time I power up my phone, the authorities know where I am. In fact, it's less so: the drone is NOT logging its telemetry to the internet; simply broadcasting it at a local level, so law enforcement can intercept the info when necessary.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 15:37 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies

At the moment I am blessed with excellent broadband - 80Mbps down, and 20Mbps up. But were I to move house, chances are I would be throttled to 8Mbps down (or worse), and as little as 500Kbps or so up. In that situation, I utterly could not use a "Cloud" service when every time I press my shutter button, 20MB of data is created.

Do I buy LightRoom 6 while I still can? Or just stick with Photoshop CS6?

Perhaps the latter. Adobe has taken enough of my money already.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 15:10 UTC as 269th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Bhima78: Same effect as just smearing vaseline on your lens. Hell, you can do this in post without the vaseline mess and without spending a used Honda Civic to achieve it.

Just ONE point of order here - who the HECK would actually put Vaseline on their lenses? You'd never be able to remove it!

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 00:57 UTC

At last ... the Professional's LensBaby! I Leica lot! ;-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 00:54 UTC as 57th comment
In reply to:

Biowizard: Reading the comments here, I am amazed at JUST how anti-DJI so many folks are. Why? Because you are jealous that your Canikons can't fly? Or that your GoPro has a lousy fish-eye lens and very laggy iOS software?

I am proud and happy to use whichever combination of Olympus, GoPro, DJI, Contax and more for my work, choosing the best tool for any given occasion. I would have added Canon AND Nikon to that, had some b'stard not stolen them from me!

Brian

"Listen Biowizard"?!! Seriously?! You need to learn manners, Viking2.

That aside, the simple solution is NOT to deal with DJI. Buy your DJI gear through a reputable local dealer, with a track record of customer support. If you insist on penny-pinching and doing a private import from China to save a few bucks, then on your own head be it.

FWIW, I tend to agree about the recent "compulsory" firmware update. On the other hand, had they left people flying objects resembling half a house brick, 300 feet up in the air, knowing that at any time, they could just tumble out of the sky and brain someone on the ground, I would have called them negligent. This F/W update was to solve a fixed, critical condition.

Melchiorum, I don't know what you mean by "restrictions on flight without internet". My little Spark has no such restrictions: indeed, I don't have any way of flying it "with" internet connections when using my iPad - because it's connected to the drone, not the web!

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 10:31 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: In many ways I love the digital 645; shame though that its sensor isn't "Full Frame" (ie, 60mm by 45mm).

Brian

Nah, "FULL FRAME". My beef is that I don't accept that the ONLY definition of "Full Frame" is 135. It's time we FORGOT the film formats and archaic videocon tube formats, and ONLY discuss ACTUAL sensor size.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 23:02 UTC

Reading the comments here, I am amazed at JUST how anti-DJI so many folks are. Why? Because you are jealous that your Canikons can't fly? Or that your GoPro has a lousy fish-eye lens and very laggy iOS software?

I am proud and happy to use whichever combination of Olympus, GoPro, DJI, Contax and more for my work, choosing the best tool for any given occasion. I would have added Canon AND Nikon to that, had some b'stard not stolen them from me!

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 08:39 UTC as 10th comment | 13 replies

In many ways I love the digital 645; shame though that its sensor isn't "Full Frame" (ie, 60mm by 45mm).

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 08:36 UTC as 40th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: Quote 1: "THAT was a fantastic Photo - You MUST have used a really good Full-Frame Camera "

Quote 2: " THAT was an amazing meal - You MUST have used a superb 30cm Copper Skillet"

#COMPARE. Be the #Bull$hit if you must.

Then Shut the F*** Up!

Because it is ALL about WHAT YOU CAN DO with your IMAGINATION, and then MAKE HAPPEN.

Brian

The exasperation of trying to explain Evolution to a Jehovah's Witness, can result in the use of, how do you say, "cuss" words, as an expression of pure frustration.

Jus' sayin'

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 00:01 UTC

Quote 1: "THAT was a fantastic Photo - You MUST have used a really good Full-Frame Camera "

Quote 2: " THAT was an amazing meal - You MUST have used a superb 30cm Copper Skillet"

#COMPARE. Be the #Bull$hit if you must.

Then Shut the F*** Up!

Because it is ALL about WHAT YOU CAN DO with your IMAGINATION, and then MAKE HAPPEN.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 20:48 UTC as 30th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: Who says 36x24mm is the only valid definition of "Full Frame"? I thought real portraits were taken on 6x4.5cm at the very least, which is a much fuller "Full" Frame than poxy old 135.

And why, when a 50mm lens is attached to an APS-C sized sensor, do the muppets say it's "75mm equivalent", when they never call a 50mm lens on a Hasselblad 6x6cm camera, "25mm equivalent".

It's time to get over this endless drivel on "Full" Frame vs "the rest". EVERY camera is FULL FRAME for the format it employs.

Brian

Here is what I call "full frame": 6½" × 8½" (216mm × 165mm) - a.k.a. Full Plate.

Anything smaller is a compromise, caused by costs, size of equipment, and more. And this has been going on for 120 years!

Jus' syain'

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 17:39 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Who says 36x24mm is the only valid definition of "Full Frame"? I thought real portraits were taken on 6x4.5cm at the very least, which is a much fuller "Full" Frame than poxy old 135.

And why, when a 50mm lens is attached to an APS-C sized sensor, do the muppets say it's "75mm equivalent", when they never call a 50mm lens on a Hasselblad 6x6cm camera, "25mm equivalent".

It's time to get over this endless drivel on "Full" Frame vs "the rest". EVERY camera is FULL FRAME for the format it employs.

Brian

NikonNature, I am not actually "offended". I am simply PLEADING that given the fact that (guess, probably correct) about 99% of all photography is now digital, can we SIMPLY get down to describing:

Sensor Size
Sensor Aspect Ratio
Pixel Count
Pixel Size
AA Filter (or Not)
Bayer Filter (or Alternative)

And simply agree, we are at last FREE of the physical constraints of available FILM stocks?

It's about PHOTOGRAPHY. Not "My sensor is more standard than yours".

And FWIW - my PERFECT format would be, probably a 42mm (or so) diameter, near-circular format. One that would take the full circle of the average LEGACY 135 (35mm) lens, and allow me to crop, post-capture, at 36x24 (landscape), or 24x36 (portrait), or even (should I wish) a 30x30mm square image, impossible with so-called "Full Frame", even though every 135mm lens ever made, could do that.

In short, let's leave archaic formats behind, and simply build the best cameras we can for the futyre, at any given price point.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Who says 36x24mm is the only valid definition of "Full Frame"? I thought real portraits were taken on 6x4.5cm at the very least, which is a much fuller "Full" Frame than poxy old 135.

And why, when a 50mm lens is attached to an APS-C sized sensor, do the muppets say it's "75mm equivalent", when they never call a 50mm lens on a Hasselblad 6x6cm camera, "25mm equivalent".

It's time to get over this endless drivel on "Full" Frame vs "the rest". EVERY camera is FULL FRAME for the format it employs.

Brian

CIASpook, excuse me, but d'urr. Read my post again. I **KNOW** sensor sizes affect field of view for any given lens. My question (or rather, one of them), is why nobody EVER explains that a (say) 85mm standard lens for a Hassy, is a kind-of "50mm equivalent".

C'mon, think about it. The very people you talk about, the (quote) "people today who are not as knowledgeable and perhaps with friends", only know iPhones, Androids and the like. If anything, today, the darned iPhone is the true "Full Frame".

Stop dumbing down. Stop fake comparisons. ALL that ANYONE needs to know, is bigger sensors make better pictures with bigger lenses and higher prices.

There is no - somewhere in the middle - official, "FULL FRAME" point - above and below which everything is either envied/snared at. 35mm is DEAD. As is 120 Film, Instamatic, APS (the actual film version), Super 8, and whatever else you want to dig up.

So-called "FULL FRAME" means NOTHING except to DINOSAURS who want to patronise.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 15:54 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Who says 36x24mm is the only valid definition of "Full Frame"? I thought real portraits were taken on 6x4.5cm at the very least, which is a much fuller "Full" Frame than poxy old 135.

And why, when a 50mm lens is attached to an APS-C sized sensor, do the muppets say it's "75mm equivalent", when they never call a 50mm lens on a Hasselblad 6x6cm camera, "25mm equivalent".

It's time to get over this endless drivel on "Full" Frame vs "the rest". EVERY camera is FULL FRAME for the format it employs.

Brian

Quite! And guess what, I elected to go Olympus when I went properly digital (having previously played with the Sony Mavica floppy-disk cameras). And I have totally no regrets. Both my original E1 (still fully functional and in occasional use) and wonderful newer OM-D E-M1, are fantastic cameras. And 100% Full Frame in the 4/3rds standard. Not to mention I far prefer 4:3 to 3:2 as a default aspect ratio: it uses more of the lenses' image circle (61.1% vs 58.8%) and is more pleasing in most other respects. It also prints better on A-sized paper.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 15:26 UTC
Total: 699, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »