oysso

Lives in Norway Norway
Joined on Jun 15, 2011

Comments

Total: 217, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

KoolKool: why do i need 24p recording, while i can enjoy 60p with much smoother movement and higher quality

weird!

24p will get you a 1 to 1 image to image for cinematic movies which means less convertion artifacts if you use those cameras to shoot material for movies.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2019 at 07:56 UTC
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: .....and the pixel war continues...........

It is actually not a war anymore. Most people is perfectly fine with 24 MP or less. They are just about to complete the new R line of cameras as there is only one camera in that lineup still. We should expect both action cameras and high pixel cameras in that lineup eventually. Canon has already a 5Ds which has about 50MP....

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2019 at 07:45 UTC
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: Why were campfires permitted?

dqnielg,
In Norway, it is prohibited to make fires in the wilds in about half the year ( in the warmest and dryest season. It had been much more wildfires in Norway if this law had not been there.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2018 at 14:12 UTC
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: Why were campfires permitted?

MCHammer : Fires can also start from broken glass shards, ligtning, and sparks from rocks falling. I don't know the causes of the fires in California now though.
And it is a terrible disaster.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2018 at 07:33 UTC
In reply to:

camerosity: dpreview continues their Canon bias, giving this much more attention than the superior Nikon Z bodies. This has been obvious for more than 10 years on this site. I've always wondered how much money Canon pays dpreview to advertise their products through their articles.

How is Nikon Z superior? Tell us.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2018 at 09:18 UTC
In reply to:

MichelBB: No 4k in 2018 ? Pass. (I consider 1.7 crop 4k a marketing gimmick)

4K is 4K even if it is a cropped version of it. 1.7 crop is still usable for many applications.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2018 at 11:39 UTC
In reply to:

Sutlore: How is the future of EF-M mount? Is Canon going to stop making lens for that mount after releasing that 32/1.4?

T3: For the normal person who is just a simple enthusiast, but don't need a big camera, then the EOS M system is just fine. Most people that bought the basic DSLR used only the kit-lens anyways. The people in this forum are not normal in the sense of being consumers of photography products.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2018 at 13:39 UTC
In reply to:

Sutlore: How is the future of EF-M mount? Is Canon going to stop making lens for that mount after releasing that 32/1.4?

WongFeiHong: EF-S mount is just fine. Since all EF lenses can be used on EF-S body, you don't need full lineup of EF-S lenses. All current 1.6 crop cameras to canon can use EF-S, and also EF lenses.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2018 at 06:51 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: "That’s not the best way to expose digital. The best results are achieved by giving as much exposure as possible without clipping the brightest tones you care about: a process called ‘exposing to the right.’

I read this so often and it certainly is true from an technical point of view. But I figured that I get the most pleasing looking results in PP (of course this is a matter of taste) by increasing overall exposure and strongly reducing highlights instead of leaving overall exposure where it is and just reduce highlights tad. This approach would not work out for me if I'd expose to the right. Instead I have to slightly underexposed to get best looking results (I.e. most natural kooking) results even if overall noise increases.

Toni Salmonelli: of course, but you must have a headroom of about 0.5 to 1 stops to ensure no clipping. It is just like when recording audio. you should have the peaks in the audio at about -3 to -6dB to ensure that the audio doesn't clip...... Digital clipping is merciless.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2018 at 07:42 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: "That’s not the best way to expose digital. The best results are achieved by giving as much exposure as possible without clipping the brightest tones you care about: a process called ‘exposing to the right.’

I read this so often and it certainly is true from an technical point of view. But I figured that I get the most pleasing looking results in PP (of course this is a matter of taste) by increasing overall exposure and strongly reducing highlights instead of leaving overall exposure where it is and just reduce highlights tad. This approach would not work out for me if I'd expose to the right. Instead I have to slightly underexposed to get best looking results (I.e. most natural kooking) results even if overall noise increases.

Toni Salmonelli Exposure to the right does'nt mean expose so you clip in one of the channels. It means expose to the right so you have a little headroom. That is exactly what you do when you leave 0.5-1.0 stop headroom when you expose the image. But in some very contrasty scenes it might mean that you have to underexpose the overall scene.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2018 at 07:13 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: "That’s not the best way to expose digital. The best results are achieved by giving as much exposure as possible without clipping the brightest tones you care about: a process called ‘exposing to the right.’

I read this so often and it certainly is true from an technical point of view. But I figured that I get the most pleasing looking results in PP (of course this is a matter of taste) by increasing overall exposure and strongly reducing highlights instead of leaving overall exposure where it is and just reduce highlights tad. This approach would not work out for me if I'd expose to the right. Instead I have to slightly underexposed to get best looking results (I.e. most natural kooking) results even if overall noise increases.

Exposure to the right is best. Yes. But it was more true some years ago. You will get more noise in dark areas if you expose to the left. So if you want noise, then go ahead and exposed to the left. No problem

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2018 at 07:06 UTC
In reply to:

maljo@inreach.com: About time we got a tripod that gives us "extraordinary composition".
I was blaming myself for all my mundane compositions; now I now it was the tripod's fault all along.

You have had L-brackets for cameras for a very long time. At least the last 20 years. Maybe more.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2018 at 07:13 UTC

Reallyrightstuff makes brackets for all sorts of cameras...... but still not very cheap though. But they make also good quality.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2018 at 20:59 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

yuchuxinchen: With this money, you can buildyour own PC, who needs this?

xeriwthe, the expected lifetime of a laptop is 5 or less years. You really can't see laptops as investments. They are tools that goes fast down in value.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2018 at 06:36 UTC
On article Canon launches updated EF 70-200mm F4L IS II (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

dwill23: I owned 5 2.8 versions, nothing was as sharp as my 70-200 F4 L IS USM, why would I need a version II?

I bought the canon 2.8 70-200 f2.8
I bought the canon 2.8 70-200 f2.8 IS
I bought the canon 2.8 70-200 f2.8 IS II (bought 2 of them)
I bought the sigma 2.8 70-200 f2.8

Finally the F4 IS version.... ultra sharp, ultra fast focus. I destroyed everyone at the college newspaper I shot against. I was the only person with a 1D body, but when it was in the repair shop, I killed them with a backup rebel vs their 40D and 50D cameras (back in the day of course). All sports shooting. So much faster-to-focus.

Only the 70-200 F4 L IS was build AFTER digital cameras came out, (2007) until the arrival of the F2.8 Version II came out, but as you can see, two copies couldn't touch the sharpness of my F4 IS model.

I may upgrade to this as I've actually sold my F4 version to my mom, but I borrow it for weddings. The focus ring is broke, doesn't move the focus internals when spun.

I hope you gave it away, with a broken focus ring it would be crap for me.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2018 at 07:29 UTC
On article Video: Diving into the demise of Kodak (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

Olifaunt: Ah, you can talk about bad business decisions all you want, but Kodak gave us trancendent art... Kodak gave humanity the gift of Kodachrome... :) And then took it away :(

Olifaunt: Actually digital photgraphy can do things you only can dream to do with analogue film.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

milkod2001: Canon never disappoints to bring yesterdays tech to todays news.

Actually the computer technology we use today is essentially just a minaturization of 50 year old tech.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 11:01 UTC
On article Video: Diving into the demise of Kodak (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

Olifaunt: Ah, you can talk about bad business decisions all you want, but Kodak gave us trancendent art... Kodak gave humanity the gift of Kodachrome... :) And then took it away :(

Olifaunt: The best digital sensors are much better than any analog film. In digital you have to avoid clipping though.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 07:54 UTC
On article Video: Diving into the demise of Kodak (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: I spent 7 of my 22 Air Force years involved with photographic intelligence produced by spy satellites that used film produced by Kodak. The film was about a foot wide, and used stereo cameras. The satellites had a life span of about 4 weeks, and there was no way to reload the film. When film was replaced by digital, i would guess Kodak lost a major sugar daddy. The extremely high priority program is largely declassified and you can learn a lot of details via www.nro.gov. Very exciting plus rapid promotion. The film was ejected in capsules near Hawaii, deployed parachutes and was snatched in mid-Air by special C-130 aircraft. All were recovered succcessfully. Best years of my life. I also served in Nam. So ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst; Where there ain’t no Ten Commandments and a man can raise a thirst. Apologies to Kipling.

Kodak was one of the inventors of digital photography. But they didn't jump on the digital camera ship.... Which ultimately made them fail in the photography equipment business. Already in 1991 kodak made a digital back for a nikon camera. And in 1986 kodak made the first megapixel digital sensor. with 1.4 megapixels. They were early with digital. But never utilized it.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 07:33 UTC
On article Canon launches updated EF 70-200mm F4L IS II (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

dwill23: I owned 5 2.8 versions, nothing was as sharp as my 70-200 F4 L IS USM, why would I need a version II?

I bought the canon 2.8 70-200 f2.8
I bought the canon 2.8 70-200 f2.8 IS
I bought the canon 2.8 70-200 f2.8 IS II (bought 2 of them)
I bought the sigma 2.8 70-200 f2.8

Finally the F4 IS version.... ultra sharp, ultra fast focus. I destroyed everyone at the college newspaper I shot against. I was the only person with a 1D body, but when it was in the repair shop, I killed them with a backup rebel vs their 40D and 50D cameras (back in the day of course). All sports shooting. So much faster-to-focus.

Only the 70-200 F4 L IS was build AFTER digital cameras came out, (2007) until the arrival of the F2.8 Version II came out, but as you can see, two copies couldn't touch the sharpness of my F4 IS model.

I may upgrade to this as I've actually sold my F4 version to my mom, but I borrow it for weddings. The focus ring is broke, doesn't move the focus internals when spun.

If you shoot video, there is less noise from IS. And they have also new IS mode for erratic moving subjects. So it comes down to what you do. If you are happy, you will not need to buy a new lens.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2018 at 08:08 UTC
Total: 217, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »