rfsIII

Lives in United States Cemetery, MD, United States
Works as a Dead
Has a website at http://bit.ly/2k9hZDm
Joined on Sep 9, 2006
About me:

Please do not respond to this guy's postings. Something about coming to this site makes him looney and his fingers go out of control on the keyboard. As a matter of fact, if you meet him on the road with the Buddha, kill them both.

Comments

Total: 1113, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Meet the Canon PowerShot G1 X III (303 comments in total)
In reply to:

UllerellU: Why would anyone want to pay this money when you have a kit of d5600 or 750d for half price?

You tell me this sensor in a FZ1000 with its zoom range, 2.8 constant and good macro capabilities ... Then yes, then I would pay 1300 €.

I do not use the size story, an evil with the purpose of the kit can have the same.

You can get a sony a7 with the same zoom range for 900 €, new.I do not understand the point to this camera,

"they cheat us with tricks of magic and smoke" is comment of the week. Love the way you put this. Thanks.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 03:28 UTC
On article Video: DxOMark's smartphone rating system explained (40 comments in total)

The breakthrough at DXO was that they measure camera and lens as a system. The bummer is that they have a monstrous conflict of interest that utterly invalidates their findings.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 05:23 UTC as 7th comment

Alexa with wings.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 04:07 UTC as 12th comment

Please, if you have a moment, add some of your own raw files to the gallery. It would be interesting to see how much contemporary software is able to improve on what we see from Phil's photos.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 19:49 UTC as 32nd comment
In reply to:

mxx: It seems quite simple to me: It just would not seem fair to the bigger manufacturers to have a lowly Pentax sit at the top of the list for two years. You have to keep the big guys happy, ya know.

Check the credits the next time you go to the movies....If it wasn't produced by a Sony company, there's a high probability that it was either shot on a CineAlta camera, includes music from a Sony artist, Sony owns the publishing of the music, or will be turned into a Sony game on the PlayStation. There aren't many things Sony doesn't do in this space.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 02:18 UTC

would someone please fix the headline..... It's embarrassing...

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 20:38 UTC as 175th comment
In reply to:

Androole: 46mm image circle?

Are there any conventional cinema lenses that actually cover a sensor that large? The vast majority of cinema lenses only cover 38mm image circles, with some newer generation (i.e Zeiss Compact Primes) that cover 43mm (24x36) image circles.

Otherwise you're stepping up into Alexa 65 lenses, which cover a 60mm image circle, but only have T-stops in the T2.8 or T4 range. Which obviously is a big downside if you're accustomed to T1.3 or T2 lenses.

The problem with discussing cinematography is that they know a lot more tricks than still photographers and their whole raison d'être is using lighting, optics and computers to create illusions that fool the audience.
Yes, a shot may look like it was done from 30 feet, but it might be a real person composited with a CGI matte. Most actors are diminutive in stature, and lots of sets are built with with forced perspective, so there's no way of determining how far the actor really is unless you have memorized the heights of the cast members.
As far as the out of focus areas are concerned, there are very sophisticated tracking tools now to introduce blur where there was none before so that's not a good guide either.
Regardless, it's idle speculation because none of us work in Hollywood.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 20:35 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: 46mm image circle?

Are there any conventional cinema lenses that actually cover a sensor that large? The vast majority of cinema lenses only cover 38mm image circles, with some newer generation (i.e Zeiss Compact Primes) that cover 43mm (24x36) image circles.

Otherwise you're stepping up into Alexa 65 lenses, which cover a 60mm image circle, but only have T-stops in the T2.8 or T4 range. Which obviously is a big downside if you're accustomed to T1.3 or T2 lenses.

Excellent question! And does anyone know how many cinematographers—besides Stanley Kubrick—actually shoot at such wide f-stops? It seems like you would have to nail the actors' feet to the floor because if they even move a millimeter they'd be completely out of focus.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 19:42 UTC
On article Sharp and wide: Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G gallery updated (43 comments in total)

Dear Sirs,
About photo No. 8....Please embargo all photographs with snow in them until at least December 1. Those of us who live in snowy climes do not want to be reminded of the frozen hell which will descend upon us in just a few months.
Thank you
The Snow Belt.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 19:37 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies
On article New product overview videos: Sony a9 and FE lenses (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: Barney, it might be easier to understand the negative reaction to these pieces as a clash of generational expectations.

While you see a practice that is normal and commendably innovative, older visitors see a betrayal of American journalism.

The background: For decades members of the American press corps adhered to a strict code of ethics. For instance, accepting anything more than a cup of coffee from a source could get you fired at most newspapers, news magazines, and TV news departments.
A particular bugbear was advertorial—it was a separate department and news staffers were strictly prohibited from working there. Different fonts and layouts were used to emphasize the split.

Fast forward to today when there is no more bright line. Facts are fungible, we our nation is led by a liar in chief, and ethics are just an embarrassing relic of a time when people still held the silly belief that truth had value and reputation was priceless.

Can you blame people for being upset?

Interesting distinction...
But you're right. This battle was won long ago by the plutocrats who demand profits before ethics even though they know that their slimeballery will eventually destroy the vehicle that's making them rich.
But as the execs at Wells Fargo and Experian have recently demonstrated, even when they leave under a cloud, they are still richly rewarded for their perfidy.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 19:33 UTC
On article New product overview videos: Sony a9 and FE lenses (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: Barney, it might be easier to understand the negative reaction to these pieces as a clash of generational expectations.

While you see a practice that is normal and commendably innovative, older visitors see a betrayal of American journalism.

The background: For decades members of the American press corps adhered to a strict code of ethics. For instance, accepting anything more than a cup of coffee from a source could get you fired at most newspapers, news magazines, and TV news departments.
A particular bugbear was advertorial—it was a separate department and news staffers were strictly prohibited from working there. Different fonts and layouts were used to emphasize the split.

Fast forward to today when there is no more bright line. Facts are fungible, we our nation is led by a liar in chief, and ethics are just an embarrassing relic of a time when people still held the silly belief that truth had value and reputation was priceless.

Can you blame people for being upset?

Statistically, Barney, you have 35 years left so don't get all weepy just yet.
And news mags like Time also had ethics, maybe still do.
That's beside the point. The human brain has been shown to be shockingly incapable of resisting corrupting pressure from external sources— studies show that even physicians with their years of training and life-and-death responsibilities can be unconsciously manipulated by the cheapest of trinkets—a free drug company coffee mug is enough to get most of them to change their prescribing habits.
Luckily, this too shall pass, and the next generation of reviewers will assert themselves by breaking with the way things are done now just as the Barney generation broke with the previous era. Will they make better choices? People born after 1990 or so seem to be much more decent than any generation before so there is hope.
Once again though, I don't condemn the creators of the vids, but I am sad about the moral collapse that allows them to happen.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2017 at 15:42 UTC
On article New product overview videos: Sony a9 and FE lenses (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: Barney, it might be easier to understand the negative reaction to these pieces as a clash of generational expectations.

While you see a practice that is normal and commendably innovative, older visitors see a betrayal of American journalism.

The background: For decades members of the American press corps adhered to a strict code of ethics. For instance, accepting anything more than a cup of coffee from a source could get you fired at most newspapers, news magazines, and TV news departments.
A particular bugbear was advertorial—it was a separate department and news staffers were strictly prohibited from working there. Different fonts and layouts were used to emphasize the split.

Fast forward to today when there is no more bright line. Facts are fungible, we our nation is led by a liar in chief, and ethics are just an embarrassing relic of a time when people still held the silly belief that truth had value and reputation was priceless.

Can you blame people for being upset?

Sorry, no condescension intended. Trying to explain from a generational point of view the somewhat heated reaction you get every time you post one of these videos.
You're going to have to accept that, rightly or wrongly, Americans over the age of about 35 are suspicious of sponsored content because their frame of references is to an older, more disciplined style of journalism that was only economically feasible because at the time newspapers, magazines, and TV news departments were insanely lucrative.
With the rise of the internet and with Google siphoning off most of the ad revenue that would have gone to pay reporters and editors, no one can afford to do real journalism anymore. Even the mighty New York Times is a shell of what it once was.

All that aside: If you want to post these videos in peace you're just going to have to wait for everyone born before 1982 to die.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 02:46 UTC
On article New product overview videos: Sony a9 and FE lenses (128 comments in total)

Barney, it might be easier to understand the negative reaction to these pieces as a clash of generational expectations.

While you see a practice that is normal and commendably innovative, older visitors see a betrayal of American journalism.

The background: For decades members of the American press corps adhered to a strict code of ethics. For instance, accepting anything more than a cup of coffee from a source could get you fired at most newspapers, news magazines, and TV news departments.
A particular bugbear was advertorial—it was a separate department and news staffers were strictly prohibited from working there. Different fonts and layouts were used to emphasize the split.

Fast forward to today when there is no more bright line. Facts are fungible, we our nation is led by a liar in chief, and ethics are just an embarrassing relic of a time when people still held the silly belief that truth had value and reputation was priceless.

Can you blame people for being upset?

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 15:26 UTC as 15th comment | 13 replies
On article 6 things we want to see in the Google Pixel 2 (79 comments in total)

XLRs!!!

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 14:37 UTC as 29th comment
On article New product overview videos: Sony a9 and FE lenses (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

multisystem: This is an enthusiast site. There is nothing wrong about being enthusiastic especially when it is clearly marked as sponsored content. DPR is critical enough in their non-sponsored content..just ask Pentaxians.

I may be the only one now, but just you wait. It will catch on. Maybe not in my lifetime, but someday. It doesn't make it any less true through.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 19:37 UTC
On article New product overview videos: Sony a9 and FE lenses (128 comments in total)
In reply to:

multisystem: This is an enthusiast site. There is nothing wrong about being enthusiastic especially when it is clearly marked as sponsored content. DPR is critical enough in their non-sponsored content..just ask Pentaxians.

I call it the Shame of Seattle... Pentax is the best camera for actual photography (vs. nerding out over specs) yet gets neither the respect nor the attention it deserves.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 18:15 UTC
On article New product overview videos: Sony a9 and FE lenses (128 comments in total)

This is ALL WRONG!!! Sony pops out cameras like the Kardashians pop out babies. The A9 is so not news.
Cars, OTOH, are always worth learning more about.
Please immediately re-edit and re-post to include more shots from inside the car—ratio should be 45% terror-inducing POV shots, 50% tire-shredding madness exteriors, 5% of the shots with the little boxes, the giant thumb, "here's the battery!" and all that. You have my permission to carve out 10% somewhere for driver interviews, but that's up to you.

Next time, mandatory: Car mount.
(Also next time make sure to get that shot where you are lying on the ground shooting across the track with daisies or other small weedy flowers sharp in the foreground and cars out of focus sliding by in the background.)

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 17:34 UTC as 38th comment | 2 replies

Well, well, well. Skynet has extended its evil tentacles into the world of aesthetics with an algorithm that will no doubt soon be used to drive down the price of photographs....

With Sarah Connor busy working on Game of Thrones and Thomas Dekker trapped in B-moviedom—only Summer Glau can save us now.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 16:17 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

BBQue: Vivid and Pop are the enemies of photography.

"Mystery" is the best way to describe it. We're all just sensors that capture the cultural and mental photons bouncing all around us—then we process them in our own mental Photoshop.
As for whether or not it can explained, the answer is yes, but only if you have enough wine.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 16:09 UTC
On article The Nikon D850 could be the only DSLR you’ll ever need (1100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lichtbild: Afterall Nikon payed you a trip to Oregon. So there's something you got to say.

I've been on a lot of press trips in a different industry, and honestly, it's a lot like being in prison. First of all, there is a huge amount of ad money at stake so you have to clamp down your real personality no matter how much you drink, and you have to be very respectful toward everyone, including the public relations people who have usually been hired for the event and are inevitably over-dressed, arrogant, know almost nothing about the product, and are as lacking in self-awareness as they are in brains.
These awful PR people boss you around unmercifully, your every move is timed to the minute, they tell you when to eat, when to get up, where to go, when you get a bathroom break, they do everything but check your underwear. It's kind of uncomfortable, for me at least.
So now that I think about it, because they are so stressful, press events like this are probably a better way to test cameras.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 03:21 UTC
Total: 1113, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »