Eamon Hickey

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

Comments

Total: 39, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
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 (100 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 (100 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 (100 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 (100 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 (813 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
On article Small but mighty: hands on with the Panasonic GX85/GX80 (318 comments in total)
In reply to:

dialstatic: "The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 (known as the GX80 outside of North America)"

This US versus non-US naming of cameras is silly enough in general, but this is downright confusing. Regular consumers may think that the GX85 is a newer camera as it seems to follows the convention of higher model numbers for consecutive generations.

Actually, it's a weak mechanism to discourage gray market importation into the U.S. The idea is that a) it will be easier for U.S. consumers to know the import status of a camera that is offered for sale and b) authorized-import retailers in the U.S. will have a (very small) differentiator for their products against the gray market versions. This practice of giving the U.S. market a specific model name for any given product became very common in the camera industry in the 1980s, but it's not very effective at reducing gray market sales and many companies (Nikon, for example) have abandoned it.

As for calling it the GX-7 Mark II in Japan, that would be a purely marketing thing.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 15:25 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1140 comments in total)

As a hopeless sucker for pictures of winsome pooches, I say well done, lads.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 20:38 UTC as 171st comment

Further evidence of Mr. Lubezki's charm:

Several years ago, I had a fantastic girlfriend who was a marketing executive. Her company was shooting a TV commercial in Argentina and she went to supervise. There was a bit of excitement surrounding the shoot because they'd hired some guy named 'Chivo' to direct it, she said.

About 3 days after she flew to Buenos Aires I got a phone call that was, in retrospect, predictable. "Your girlfriend appears to have developed a crush on the director," she said.

Pause.

"Interesting. Do you think you'll be coming back from Argentina?"

Pause.

"Possibly."

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 15:54 UTC as 51st comment | 2 replies
On article Canon USA drops prices on 31 high-end L lenses (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

nznikon: Hopefully Nikon will follow suit, especially on the prices of its long lenses (like to 400mm f/2.8.

This will definitely put pressure on Nikon USA to also lower its prices. Nikon is enjoying exactly the same benefit of the stronger dollar, so they should also have room to lower prices.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 14:25 UTC
On article Canon USA drops prices on 31 high-end L lenses (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: Canon has been running rebates for months and stopped now. After those drops but without the rebates, the prices of many lenses are actually higher than before.

@Dheorl

Dealers won't be hurt. Canon will price protect them -- i.e. issue a refund for any lenses the dealer bought at the old, higher price that he/she still has in stock.

Rebates are easier for the manufacturer (partly because price protection is a big logistical hassle), so that's the first tactic they use when the yen/dollar gives them room to lower prices. But reducing prices is a more effective sales booster than rebates are, so if a manufacturer feels the currency situation is stable, they may go to the extra trouble to actually reduce prices.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 14:22 UTC
In reply to:

junk1: In regards to mirrorless, this interview reminds me of the Kodak interview many years ago (1998/1999?) when their rep said digital cameras would not catch on (or similar statement).

Kodak had 60,000 employed in Rochester, NY at the peak, versus now they have around 2000?

The Kodak analogy is nonsense in this case. First, it's a myth that Kodak didn't see the digital revolution coming. They were absolutely the leader in digital camera development right up until about 1998 when you say they didn't think digital cameras would catch on. They tried very hard to get into the camera business in the 1990s -- spent billions doing it.

But Kodak was a chemical company, and photography switched from being based on chemistry to being based on electronics. It was just too monumental a change for Kodak to navigate even though they saw it coming. (Fuji, to their credit, did better.)

Mirrorless cameras are fundamentally exactly the same as the digital cameras Canon has been making for 15 years -- in fact, they've probably sold 125 million mirrorless digital cameras over that time -- they just didn't have interchangeable lenses. MILCs are not a major technology change at all for Canon -- they could do it in their sleep.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2015 at 18:06 UTC
On article CP+ 2015 Sigma Interview - "small office, big factory" (194 comments in total)
In reply to:

zodiacfml: Now he's telling that it's not difficult to design lenses for the FE mount which previously he mentioned that it is difficult and just considering the idea. How can that be difficult if its essentially an E-mount. He just meant that there no existing lens designs for the FE mount to copy from and design almost from scratch.

I knew they won't let go of the camera division. Canon and Nikon started as lens manufacturers and Sigma is doing the same.

I like the image quality of the DP Quattro but the size has been too big. Yet, I'd still get one once my DP2 stops being usable. Yet again, they have to stop the madness in chasing more resolution. It just makes their cameras less user friendly.

@ zodiacfml

"Canon and Nikon started as lens manufacturers"

Small thing: this is true of Nikon but not Canon. Canon was founded specifically to make Japan's first 35mm camera. Canon bought its lenses from Nikon for the first few years of its existence. Early Canon cameras came with Nikkor lenses.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 15:58 UTC
In reply to:

Daniel Lauring: So if you put a filter over the lens when you take picture it is OK but you aren't allowed to add one in Photoshop?

It's obvious that they aren't talking about modest alterations to color or contrast.

They said the large majority of disqualified images added or subtracted elements from the picture. And in the cases where toning was the issue, it was extreme -- i.e. to the point of obscuring important objects or elements in the picture.

These people aren't simple-minded; they're not disqualifying people for brightening an image by half a stop or using a warmer white balance.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 14:30 UTC
On article Opinion: Canon EOS 750D and 760D (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

dwill23: Best marketing and business teacher told me something i repeat about once a month.

"If you own hotels, do you want one on the beach for the high priced vacationers or the one across the street for higher amounts of people, although at a lower price....... you want both!".

In other words, they want to sell at every price point. You can have identical hotels, one on the beach one across the street, and boom you now cover the whole price range.

This opinion articles hurt the market. One person influences too many. I prefer to only read reviews and let actual camera buyers and shooters post opinions and take polls.

I really don't see how opinion pieces on a photo enthusiast web site can "hurt the market" or even a particular camera maker, in any meaningful way.

But even if that were so, it's not DPReview's responsibility to protect the market or camera companies. It's their responsibility to publish stuff that their readers will find useful or entertaining, preferably both.

The camera companies can protect their own interests; they're big boys.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 19:54 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: If they had spent their time making a great mirrorless camera instead of making excuses they wouldn’t be in the position they are in now.

You mean the position of being one of only two highly profitable still camera companies in the world?

And the other, even more highly profitable camera company has even fewer mirrorless products?

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 18:54 UTC

Despite my low expectations for concrete information about future products and strategies from any company, I will say that I was a little bit struck by his answer to the question of what he would improve on modern digital cameras.

He said responsiveness and image quality. I think connectivity, defined broadly, should be a much bigger priority, given its abysmal current state in standalone cameras and its importance to consumers.

In Mr. Akagi's defense, he may have been thinking only in the context of high-end DSLRs since that's what he had been discussing (and where connectivity isn't as important), or he may simply have had a momentary brain blip and forgot to mention it.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 17:34 UTC as 102nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: " In my opinion, 4K is too much"

That says a lot about where Nikon is heading. It doesn’t matter what he thinks. It is what the customer thinks and right now they are asking for 4K so you need to give it to them or some other company will.

Right, which is pretty much exactly what he said.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 17:02 UTC
In reply to:

aandeg: Not sure what others were expecting? Did they foolishly believe a company would let them personal know what it's plans for the future were? LOL

Agreed. I guess people have never read a corporate interview before, especially one with a Japanese company.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 17:01 UTC

Can somebody clarify something for me. The WSJ article includes the statistic that motion picture film sales have fallen from 12.4 billion feet in 2006 to an estimated 449 million feet for this year, a decline of 96%.

The article talks almost exclusively about what media films are being shot with nowadays. But am I right in guessing that those sales figures must include all types of motion picture film, including internegative, interpositive, and release print stocks, not just camera negative film? So it's probably the case that the vast majority of the decline in sales comes from the large-scale switch to digital post-production and (for movies) digital projection?

In other words, the 12.4 billion feet of film sold in 2006 was not all camera negative film was it? Thanks in advance for any answers.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 15:13 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
Total: 39, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »