Eamon Hickey

Lives in United States NY, United States
Joined on Mar 22, 2001

Comments

Total: 53, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Feisty upstart: Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-T20 (264 comments in total)
In reply to:

PedroMZ: Amazing what can be done,here is a film/optical company that adapted to the digital world and ran with it to produce excellent products for a whole range of photography and the giant Kodak in the same starting position(if not better) disappeared without trace.

The contrast between Fuji and Kodak is indeed interesting.

But Fujifilm did not really survive the film-to-digital transition with digital photography products. They made several smart moves, but the most important was finding another reasonably large, high-profit business that they could apply their unique skills to. That was protective film coatings for LCD display panels, which has been a very profitable business for them for more than a decade. As LCD displays proliferate like weeds, it looks to be a good business for many years into the future.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 15:41 UTC
On article Feisty upstart: Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-T20 (264 comments in total)
In reply to:

Isacas: If a grandchild hands the xt20 to the grandma who is writing this message, she would change it from Auto to Aperture priority, check the ISO and run away with it, never to be seen again. So, grandmas don´t understand photography? Is that also true of grandpas?
:))

Bravo, Isacas! I noticed Richard's anti-grandma agenda, too. It must be stopped.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 15:36 UTC
In reply to:

AshMills: Yay, so is that officially "Neekon" not "Nighkon" then. (I still say "Nickon" personally)

All regional pronunciations are officially blessed by Nikon Corporation. It is a word that has several correct pronunciations.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 17:14 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: That's a pretty cool video. Not what I expected, I thought Nikon would have something super lengthy and boring. On the other hand I'd like to see a longer version of this, with more of the achievements from the last century (especially since the 40's) shown. It's also interesting the video actually showed more of their other technology rather than cameras.

It's a shame the company won't be around for another 100 years if they continue the path they're on today :/

@ jadot

It's true that Nikon has many businesses, but the camera division is by far its biggest, currently. And its other large business segment -- optical lithography equipment -- is much "younger" than the camera business (it began in 1980, more or less).

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 17:10 UTC
In reply to:

Sangster: Video completely skips over Nippon Kogaku's contributions to the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II.

Nikon has always mostly hidden its history as a military contractor prior to, and during, the second world war. In fact, the vast majority of Nikon's business in those years was with the Japanese military, and Nikon was formed by Mitsubishi at the direction of the Japanese Navy.

This history is better known in Japan than it is outside the country. I note these things with no value judgment attached; they are just facts. Make of them what you will.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 17:04 UTC
In reply to:

whiteheat: This headline is a little ingenuous and probably reflects the marketing image projection. The Nippon Kōgaku Kōgyō Kabushikigaisha or Japan Optical Industries Corporation company that produced optical instruments, dates from 1917. The Nikon company that was a merging of Japan Optical Industries and Ikon, to produce Nikon and the first Nikon camera, happened in 1948 - somewhat short of the '100 year anniversary' of Nikon. This may be mentioned in the video but the linking of Nikon (and therefore camera production/knowledge) to a 100 year existence as the headline would suggest, is stretching it by some margin.

There was no merger in 1948, and no company called "Ikon" (Ikon was a brand name of Zeiss). Nippon Kogaku simply started making consumer cameras in 1948 -- no change in the company, no merger. (They had made military aerial cameras since the mid 1930s).

Nippon Kogaku changed its name to Nikon Corporation in 1988. Same company as Nippon Kogaku founded in 1917. So, yes, Nikon is 100 years old.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 16:58 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: There would be no such thing as a 17 page Terms of Conditions unless some team of lawyers felt it was necessary. And when you find 17 pages unnecessary and unreadable, then you hire another team of lawyers to trim it down and translate it into common language.

Sounds to me like the lawyers are getting the best end of this deal. They create a problem, then you pay them to fix it. Just like those "Microsoft Alert" malware scammers.

Yeah, a big part of it is intentional obscurity -- as you said, it's a full-employment program for lawyers. It's funny how many (maybe most?) practicing lawyers don't consciously see it that way, however. For them, it operates through force of tradition.

I do a lot of work for a well-known agency that specializes in putting legalese into plain language. Companies (and government agencies) hire the agency to improve customer communications. But it's always a struggle with the legal departments of said companies; plain language looks risky and wrong to them.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 19:15 UTC
In reply to:

ybizzle: The popularity of Fuji Classic Chrome film simulation is the real reason this is coming back...

Fuji's Classic Chrome simulation doesn't look like Kodachrome at all, in my experience (shot plenty of both). I don't know for sure if Fuji intended it to or not, but I don't think so because I imagine they would have gotten a lot closer if that had been their aim.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 22:14 UTC
In reply to:

ScarletKnight: Thank you, Kodak Alaris, and I hope you'll consider offering 120-size Ektachrome too. I'm guessing a fair number of people who go through the "trouble" of shooting film nowadays want the benefits of medium-format film. Lastly, as a Baby Boomer, I can assure you it's not just hipsters who use film.

Agree entirely on the 120 idea; first thing I thought of. If sales are good maybe they'll consider it. Without thinking too hard on it, I think it's largely a packaging issue (i.e. they'd have to re-create the machines needed to mate the film to paper backing etc.)

I would never shoot 35mm film again, but there's an attraction to the idea of making some 6 x 6, 6 x 7, or 6 x 9 slides/negs.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 22:08 UTC
In reply to:

CannonDave: Back in the day we abandoned E6 because of the expense of EPA and silver recovery issues. Today, I'd need a good, dust free scan to carry on with the work flow in Photoshop. Give me Velvia (neg. film) and a good professional color printer.

Yes, Velvia was an E-6 (i.e. slide) film.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 22:04 UTC
In reply to:

James Pilcher: Kodachrome would have been a better choice.

Kodachrome is not just harder to process; it's unbelievably complex to process. The Kodak process (i.e. K-14) was a complete production line -- needed a large factory floor and multi tens of millions of dollars to set up. Simply untenable now. Kodak only had two lines in the entire U.S. when I went to work in a camera store in 1987, and Kodachrome was very popular then.

In the 1990s, somebody developed a way to process Kodachrome in a cine processor -- i.e. a machine that could be installed in roughly the same space as a large minilab, and which cost something less than tens of millions of dollars. But only a handful of labs ever bought and ran them -- even in the heyday of film. I know of only two that ever operated in the U.S. So I think it would be folly to assume that any decent infrastructure of such machines could be built back up again. And that's assuming the chemicals could be recreated economically.

The Ektachrome process (E-6) is easy for any photo lab to implement.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 22:02 UTC
In reply to:

Alex Permit: Several cameras using CF, lke the powershot A5, were out when sony announced the FD-7. The attraction was that every desktop and laptop computer had a floppy disk, so you could transfer your photos without an adapter.

I don't remember the concept selling very well, but Sony stuck with it even as SD cards became available.

Actually, it did sell quite well -- Sony was by unit volume the #1 digital camera maker for at least a couple of years in the 1997-2001 period. I worked for Nikon at the time and remember those floppy disc Sony's doing very well in the marketplace. The other big player was Olympus with their early C-XXXX models. Nikon got in the game with the first Coolpix 900 model, taking 3rd place in the market around 1999-ish.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 15:58 UTC

Very small nitpicky point about language.

This Nikon model is the first camera with the "Nikon" brand name, but it was not the first camera produced by the company now known as Nikon (originally called Nippon Kogaku). Nippon Kogaku/Nikon made aerial surveillance/reconnaissance cameras for the Japanese military going back to the 1930s. Few survived the second world war, but the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum happens to have one:

http://tinyurl.com/j6h8ol8

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 15:10 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

BobT3218: In its day it would have been considered a cheap Jap crap Leica knock-off which indeed it was. Nevertheless, it is a great collectors' item and I'm surprised it's not worth more.

Small thing: while it's definitely true that Germany dominated the optics field prior to WWII, it's not really accurate to say that Japan "had nothing" in optics. By the early to mid 1930s, Nikon was building a wide range of very high quality optical instruments (but not any consumer cameras), and there were several other fairly advanced optical firms in Japan in the 1930s. Most of the products they made were industrial or military, so they're not necessarily well known, but the optical industry in Japan was already quite advanced by the beginning of the war.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 17:37 UTC
In reply to:

aris14: Ι think that their capabilities easily surpass any action photog's needs.
I also think that it is very hard for someone to bring those beasts to their performance limits in real life.

For pro sports photographers, there really is no limit to their needs. The end goal for them is to get a great picture of every newsworthy moment in every game they cover. Newsworthy is the key concept here. So that means every goal, every save, every significant basket, every touchdown pass, every score-saving tackle in the game. They don't need one great picture; they need a great picture of every moment in the game that mattered. Of course, nobody achieves that, but the closer they can get, the better they look against the competition. And it is a competition -- for news, with millions of dollars at stake. So, no, there will never be a professional action camera that's good enough. There will always be more that could be done.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 16:57 UTC
On article A photographer's intro to the world of video (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

RUcrAZ: I've been down the road you describe over 30 years ago, and encountered the issues as you relate them. Congratulations on a fine job of documenting and explaining them, in easy-to-follow terms. (I would mention that, on a "one-man-video production," including shooting, developing graphics, selecting any audio/music background, editing, etc. it typically takes me about 1 hour of work per 1 second-on-screen on the final product. It borders on masochism!)

All good advice from both of you. This won't actually be my first video project, so I actually do have a little experience to rely on, and kidding aside, I do plan to keep things as simple as possible. Plus, I see the star of my film every day, and he's tireless when it comes to pursuing his shenanigans, so I'll have many, many chances to re-shoot stuff that I get wrong the first, second, or tenth time.

BTW, the short "film" that loosely inspired me to do this project is a lovely bit of filmmaking, even though it's also a corny commercial for a faceless corporation. It's here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ztm7YkLElI

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 18:40 UTC
On article A photographer's intro to the world of video (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

RUcrAZ: I've been down the road you describe over 30 years ago, and encountered the issues as you relate them. Congratulations on a fine job of documenting and explaining them, in easy-to-follow terms. (I would mention that, on a "one-man-video production," including shooting, developing graphics, selecting any audio/music background, editing, etc. it typically takes me about 1 hour of work per 1 second-on-screen on the final product. It borders on masochism!)

@rfsIII -- I have little doubt that you're right on the money about my impending train wreck. Sometimes a man just has to grit his teeth and brace for impact.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 16:00 UTC
On article A photographer's intro to the world of video (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

RUcrAZ: I've been down the road you describe over 30 years ago, and encountered the issues as you relate them. Congratulations on a fine job of documenting and explaining them, in easy-to-follow terms. (I would mention that, on a "one-man-video production," including shooting, developing graphics, selecting any audio/music background, editing, etc. it typically takes me about 1 hour of work per 1 second-on-screen on the final product. It borders on masochism!)

You put your finger on my greatest fear about video. I set myself the goal this summer to make a decent 4 or 5-minute movie documenting the daily shenanigans of my girlfriend's miniature poodle, the world's most extraordinary dog. I've got all the stuff to do it now collected: 3 cameras and a rig to hold them, suitable lenses, a makeshift matte box for neutral density filters etc., sound recorder, video editing and color grading suite, and on and on. But I'm really fearful that this project could swallow my life for 6 months. Not sure I'm up for that.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 15:12 UTC
On article A photographer's intro to the world of video (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

cdembrey: Most still photographers tend to be control freaks. They want to do the lighting, operate the camera, pull focus, record the sound and do both sound and picture editing.

It may be hard to believe, but even a beginning sound-recordist with a used ElctroVoice mic, a short boom pole and an iPhone can record butter sound than you can. A camera mounted mic or Zoom recorder just doesn't cut it.

Don't zoom, is not true. You can bury a zoom in a move. Either a pan or a dolly move will work—Hollywood does it, why can't you??

The 180 degree rule isn't. Many movies were shot with the Panavision PSR 200 (Panavision Silent Reflex 200° shutter). Today with Digital Cine cameras they will some time use a 360° shutter in low light.

The list goes on and on.

Richard can of course speak for himself, but nowhere did I see him claim to be teaching the entire subject of filmmaking in this 2-page Intro (as the title says) to video from the perspective of a photographer.

Your points that it requires a team to make any kind of sophisticated film of any quality is completely correct, of course. I live in New York's East Village and about twice a month my block is occupied by a big-budget film or TV crew; invariably there are more than 50 people on set, and 6-10 semi-trailers worth of equipment. They are like small occupying armies.

But not everyone is ready to make sophisticated, broadcast or film festival quality films, or ever intends to. Plenty of us are looking to dip our toe in the video waters, and everything Richard wrote is stuff you need to learn right away when you start dipping that toe. I doubt that anyone who reads it will mistake it for a complete course in filmmaking, and if they do, it's their fault, not Richard's.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 15:04 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (811 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bruce Crossan: What king of pedigree does Nitto Koyagu have in making lenses of the standard that will be demanded by buyers of this system?

There are probably a dozen or more companies in Japan, with names unknown to the wider world, who could easily make lenses to any practical quality standard for pictorial photography. Nittoh has been making high quality industrial and photographic lenses since the early 1950s. It's really just a matter of price -- if a company like Nittoh is given the price freedom, they can make any lens you want, at any practically achievable quality.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 14:42 UTC
Total: 53, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »