ThomasH_always

Lives in United States Santa Clara, United States
Joined on Jul 16, 2005
About me:

Sailing-Flying-Photography

Comments

Total: 70, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ThomasH_always: This is getting ridiculous: Every technical solution has levels of compromise, and in this case we are looking at, what: corrective settings of +3EV, +4EV? When in gods name do you need it? Only when you deal with a badly failed photograph, which has a great personal value to you (memories, special situation). Technical perfection irrelevant, content priceless.

This craze resembles indeed the Hi-Fi madness in the 80thies: We red brochures and made decisions based on 0.012% versus 0.013% noise ratio or signal distortion. We do the same with the cameras these days. (Thanks Thom Hogan for reminding us about that in his great article "Stop complaining".)

6D II will be a success, despite these extreme corner cases, in which someone else has a better sensor. I cannot remember having have done a +3EV correction even once, and I just turned in "45 years of taking pictures", since the Nikkormat's ruled the planet.

If your pictures need +3EV, +5EV correction, rethink your technique.

There is another strange issue here: In these examples, when I select +0EV exposure, it seems to be already as-if overexposed, lacking a proper black point. Black is a grainy gray.

As a matter of fact, even at +2EV, +3EV on D750 black looks 'blacker,' smooth, compared to the EOS 6D +0EV test image. Are you sure these images are really correctly exposed?

I used to have the 6D for several years. Its dynamic range was clearly lower than in the D750, limited options as you said it. But at the same level of exposure and low ISO one could not see a difference too easy. Something is odd with these images.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 22:20 UTC
In reply to:

Hasa: 1 (one!) sd card slot in a 1.999$ FF camera!

109 million images taken by 6D, on Flickr alone.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 21:57 UTC

This is getting ridiculous: Every technical solution has levels of compromise, and in this case we are looking at, what: corrective settings of +3EV, +4EV? When in gods name do you need it? Only when you deal with a badly failed photograph, which has a great personal value to you (memories, special situation). Technical perfection irrelevant, content priceless.

This craze resembles indeed the Hi-Fi madness in the 80thies: We red brochures and made decisions based on 0.012% versus 0.013% noise ratio or signal distortion. We do the same with the cameras these days. (Thanks Thom Hogan for reminding us about that in his great article "Stop complaining".)

6D II will be a success, despite these extreme corner cases, in which someone else has a better sensor. I cannot remember having have done a +3EV correction even once, and I just turned in "45 years of taking pictures", since the Nikkormat's ruled the planet.

If your pictures need +3EV, +5EV correction, rethink your technique.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 21:52 UTC as 114th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

mandm: A guy who lives 1 mile from me had a single engine float-plane on the lake and he didn’t believe the No Fly Zone after 9.11.2001 included him and his plane, big mistake.
He took off from the lake and within 3 1/2 minutes 2 fighter jets went over us very low and very fast, there was a loud bang and everything shook. People in the nearby restaurant and staff with patient’s in gowns at the medical clinic ran outside thinking it was a bomb, but we all now believe the jets went too fast and broke the sound barrier. The jets were gone and it wasn’t until a couple of days later that the news reported the problem; the guy in the float-plane.
His float-plane was seized and he got hit with a big fine, he also spent a few days in jail; he still lives on the lake and even today doesn’t have a plane!

Indeed, in some counties cars will be stopped and routinely cash will be taken away from people "because it is not normal to have cash in a car". Than people have to fight in court to get it back. Bizarre cases will be created "$5000 versus People of Such-and-Such". Mr Laddsmith should research this.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 14:22 UTC
In reply to:

Snapper2013: Overreaction in my opinion. How many aircraft have been brought down by a drone really??!

I am afraid , its not an overreaction. We have to respect no-fly zones. A drone strike might bring down an aircraft, just like in rare cases a bird strike can.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 07:00 UTC
In reply to:

mandm: A guy who lives 1 mile from me had a single engine float-plane on the lake and he didn’t believe the No Fly Zone after 9.11.2001 included him and his plane, big mistake.
He took off from the lake and within 3 1/2 minutes 2 fighter jets went over us very low and very fast, there was a loud bang and everything shook. People in the nearby restaurant and staff with patient’s in gowns at the medical clinic ran outside thinking it was a bomb, but we all now believe the jets went too fast and broke the sound barrier. The jets were gone and it wasn’t until a couple of days later that the news reported the problem; the guy in the float-plane.
His float-plane was seized and he got hit with a big fine, he also spent a few days in jail; he still lives on the lake and even today doesn’t have a plane!

Public seizures in this country is an openly known, widely criticized abomination of law. Property will often be seized in arbitrary fashion. It is a form of a theft. That might be YOUR camera one day, just think about it. Even if his takeoff was a mistake, no harm was done and a fine and a warning would be plenty enough and befitting "the crime," if that was a 1st and only offense.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 06:58 UTC
In reply to:

arqomx: I think DPreview should write an exhausting article about photo-storing and sharing sites, make comparison in terms of service, facility and price, and most of all the sustainability of business..

I second that. Clearly, a service must monetize itself somehow. We should be realistic about the "free hosting" sites. Some grab rights to your images, other flood displayed pages by ads, or trade your browsing behavior to ad targeting systems. It is likely that a service providing only your photography without the ads needs to be paid. But, how sustainable is their business, is indeed a great question. I am still with PBase, customer service is probably not the best, but so far for so many decades it seems to work.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 06:40 UTC
In reply to:

5r82: Great guy, smart and brilliant. Thank you Tony.

I fly for 20 years, I love the sectional charts, they are great. Even now that we can see these online, or on our tablets, I always have one paper chart with me. We always assume we might lose electronics of any kind in flight, and what counts is what's we see outside the window, and where to put the bird safely down.

You might take a look at
https://skyvector.com/
to play with the charts.

A standard aviation saying: Takeoff is optional, landing is mandatory.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 14:03 UTC

Ok dear Tony, its a great initiative but the information should be correct: ATIS is not giving information about "rental cars". Its a vital, mandatory information to every pilot, which is updated upon changing weather conditions. Foremost it gives pressure, wind speeds, temperature and dew point, and ceiling. All necessary to have for a drone pilot as well, remember you must be VFR with a drone! Every ATIS is coded by a letter. Voice might say for example "You have information Hotel", its not about the rental car or your lodging. Its marked "H". Every pilot have to say it to Ground or to Tower prior to taxi to any runway or upon arrival "...I have information Hotel". Than they know that you know what the pressure is and if you can operate the aircraft at all.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 14:29 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

5r82: Great guy, smart and brilliant. Thank you Tony.

I see, you are not a pilot. As much it is a great initiative, often his wording and information given is superficial, bordering on incorrect, or showing lack of understanding. I think that a cooperation with a certified pilot would be advised, instead of hinting on how childish and archaic some of this "FAA test stuff" is, and how we can merely memorize it for a test, and forget all about it. And than maybe we could grant a predicate "brilliant," a word we should reserve for rare occasions.

Remember, it can get serious: A photographer in Seattle was recently sentenced to 30 days in prison without parol(!!) for a mistake: He flew a drone into a building during a parade, and a falling drone knocked a bystander unconscious. Take this "FAA stuff" deadly serious. Do not just try to "guess" answers and forget all about the physics and regulations.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 13:57 UTC
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1908 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThomasH_always: Please disregard this, its a sarcastic entry:

I am sure that the introductory price will fall... A bit. Like the EOD-5D, which I called from Day One a $1300 camera for $3000. Guess what , we can get 5D Mk III for $1700. So I will be willing to make Sony a favor and use their device as soon as the price will be a bit lower, say $1400-$1800, because of the lousy set of lenses, not a match to Canon or Nikon. And no optical viewfinder.

Well, folks, that's me, that's the way I purchase this stuff. So far it always worked out for me, but I do not shoot for money, and I am not in a hurry. The older I get, the less "stuff" I have, the lenses are smaller, my eyes see less fine details. Patience and a "virtual release date" of every piece of equipment shifted by a year works wonders on the prices...

"Sony barely started"?? You are so mistaken: they used to make digital cameras since they one (Mavica, with a floppy disk, remember than one?), one more crappy than the other. Things changed with the purchase of Minolta's camera division. Especially the RX100 series deserved lots of recognition.

Still, why do I care mirror or no mirror? As Sean Reid wrote: Imagine Henry Ford would try to sell his 1st car as a "horseless carriage" by telling what it has not has, instead of what it has. This Mirrorless hype is just that. I see no attraction. I tried out Sony A6300 and the Olympus OM-D EM 5ii and a few a few smaller models. Nothing is so far really a replacement to a SLR, but we are getting there. I am sure the analog moving parts will have to go away. Is the A9 the one? I do not not see that at all. 1st we need a full set of lenses, and other "boring stuff", like flash systems, bellows, all the tilt-shift which I like to use so much, fisheye etc. Its a process.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 06:46 UTC
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1908 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThomasH_always: Please disregard this, its a sarcastic entry:

I am sure that the introductory price will fall... A bit. Like the EOD-5D, which I called from Day One a $1300 camera for $3000. Guess what , we can get 5D Mk III for $1700. So I will be willing to make Sony a favor and use their device as soon as the price will be a bit lower, say $1400-$1800, because of the lousy set of lenses, not a match to Canon or Nikon. And no optical viewfinder.

Well, folks, that's me, that's the way I purchase this stuff. So far it always worked out for me, but I do not shoot for money, and I am not in a hurry. The older I get, the less "stuff" I have, the lenses are smaller, my eyes see less fine details. Patience and a "virtual release date" of every piece of equipment shifted by a year works wonders on the prices...

Yea, "Ferrari" analogy would apply on Leica. This is the same type of a niche and clientele.

Here I think, all the features of A9 and the hype aside (which Sony cleverly staged by the claim that they are now Nr2 in Full Frame, but only in US and only in Jan/Feb, not mentioning vast rebates on their A7 models...) : Its the fact that the "mirrorless" contain significant less components, and that all electronic components, once made into production, are like software. Regardless their sophistication just copy it and there is a new product. I still do not see this reflected in the price. Lets look at the finest precision, durability and complexity of the mirror and AF systems, and ask yourself how much effort it is to assembly it, test it, and yet, the product costs... less or even drastically less. Something is off. We have always some novelty pricing and development cost is being priced in, I get that, but I do not accept the extend of it.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1908 comments in total)

Please disregard this, its a sarcastic entry:

I am sure that the introductory price will fall... A bit. Like the EOD-5D, which I called from Day One a $1300 camera for $3000. Guess what , we can get 5D Mk III for $1700. So I will be willing to make Sony a favor and use their device as soon as the price will be a bit lower, say $1400-$1800, because of the lousy set of lenses, not a match to Canon or Nikon. And no optical viewfinder.

Well, folks, that's me, that's the way I purchase this stuff. So far it always worked out for me, but I do not shoot for money, and I am not in a hurry. The older I get, the less "stuff" I have, the lenses are smaller, my eyes see less fine details. Patience and a "virtual release date" of every piece of equipment shifted by a year works wonders on the prices...

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 05:59 UTC as 103rd comment | 6 replies

Little thing which I love: You indicated the price as $800, not as $799!

Yes, I do that all the time as well for myself. This $n999.99 has to stop. Allegedly the psychology of us humans is so that we will be fooled to think that $799 is $700. Maybe it is so, but not me for sure. On the gas station they even use 0.1 cent, completely insane. I made to myself a habit to up-round any such price mentally to have a realistic estimate.

The price is really attractive. Darker lens will probably not play too much of a role for me for a daylight photography of sports events (girls football/soccer), however I would like to wait a bit to see how good the glass is, and how well the AF performs. I you use Canon, the new 100-400 MkII is just so superb, a great upgrade compared to the old shift-lens. I am ot sure I would have taken the Sigma over the Canon, no matter what price it is.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2017 at 03:36 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

Patcheye: why is the subscription option so criticised on so many websites? £8.57 per month = about a cup of coffee and and a sandwich where I live - no not London. Is that really a rip off when it costs £5 for a return local bus trip?

I back-up my stuff on separate hard drives & am just a hobbyist these days - still a lot cheaper than playing golf.

Patcheye: There are no LR 5 past 5.7. In Adobe's model we had to purchase an upgrade to the next version, in this case to LR6. I found this perfectly ok. Every major version was really a major change to the previous one, lots of new technology. Of course everybody's mileage may vary, I was personally very happy with every major upgrade. I left behind the previous version without looking back.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 14:31 UTC
In reply to:

Patcheye: why is the subscription option so criticised on so many websites? £8.57 per month = about a cup of coffee and and a sandwich where I live - no not London. Is that really a rip off when it costs £5 for a return local bus trip?

I back-up my stuff on separate hard drives & am just a hobbyist these days - still a lot cheaper than playing golf.

Because its so much more expensive than the regular license, make it dramatically more expensive. Because some people will not lease a car, they will purchase it. The license model is literally like a lease: stop payments, end up with nothing. Who made a regular purchase, still have the product for as long it runs. If Adobe dares to break the LR 6.n to LR 7.n chain, I am gone as their customer. Capture One looks just magnificent. I will NEVER lease software. Unthinkable. I wish lawmakers would have issue a law forbidding software lease models without comparable sale models.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 15:32 UTC

I think that the diagram would be more of interest if they would have placed DSLR and mirrorless bars on the bottom. DSLR declined, mirrorless did not grow, and the decline of compact is obvious: they are obsolete. What counts to the camera companies, is how the DLSR and mirrorless will perform. The pro products have the biggest margins. Foremost for the shrinking Nikon, this will be the deciding factor in determining how big/small the company will become.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 15:23 UTC as 14th comment
On article CES video: the Nikon D5600 (42 comments in total)

...a new deeper handgrip, as a headline. Wow, innovation at work.
Now I really believe that the analysts, who predict that Nikon will vanish like Minolta, are correct.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 15:00 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: This has all been very profitable for Adobe: They announced Creative Cloud in june 2014. Look what happened to their profits since: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272964/net-result-of-adobe-systems-worldwide-by-quarter-since-2009/

In a sense, its like the difference between buying a car, or leasing it. I do not get this cloud-enthusiasm in many aspects, data security is one of them. Your images might be very private, storage is ultra cheap, why to risk anything by running a program sending out god knows what data to the "Creative Cloud". The cloud-model (multi-tenant a la Salesforce) makes sense for online business, when the tenant does not have, or will not have a large hardware installation, coping with the business support. But here: why? Like in a casino: The House Adobe wins, users are loosing. I calculated with the LR5 or LR6 effective cost disadvantage of approx. 150%.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2016 at 15:37 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: This has all been very profitable for Adobe: They announced Creative Cloud in june 2014. Look what happened to their profits since: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272964/net-result-of-adobe-systems-worldwide-by-quarter-since-2009/

It says you a premium account with Statista in order to see the diagram. So maybe you just summarize what's happening.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2016 at 15:29 UTC
Total: 70, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »