ThomasH_always

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

Sailing-Flying-Photography

Comments

Total: 60, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article The Sony a9 is a 24MP sports-shooting powerhouse (1905 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 (1905 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 (1905 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

I have the impression that 6.8 got slower, really. I use Xeon processor, quad core and 12G of memory. Import is so sluggish... And first load of the develop module takes approx 15 sec. I do not see any "performance progress". Maybe Adobe has to step away from Lua, what is rather an exotic way of developing software.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2016 at 14:21 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
On article TIME releases 100 most influential images of all time (165 comments in total)

I perused a bit these most influential images "of all times"... Oh boy. Who was Mr Kirby on the bed, dying? How this was influential? To whom, please? Or the "surfing hippos". Good surf, I feel influenced in, eh... what exactly? Whom and what influenced an image of an undressed actress pregnant? Or a Korean lady showing something on a painting? Did she influenced Art as we know it, down with Rubens, is that it? "The most non influential" of these images is the actors selfie. Astonishing that someone would add such image to such collection. Every selection is just that: a selection, made by subjective individuals. Nothing wrong with that, except that I would recommend to drop this "of all times" predicate. Its so typical American, so unnerving the billions non-Americans. Compares to "world champion" in baseball or wrestling. Lets call the book "Time's 2016 Staff selection of Iconic Images". Maybe a year later someone would select many other images.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 14:39 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies

Any poll about white/black preference ratio is not representative, because clearly many people who "just visit" the site to get informed about photography would not jump into such talk. I just hope that our "choice" will be respected: no Blaxit on default. I call it here clearly: Whoever prefers white background does not understand how human senses work. They wish to have a White Lamp shining into their faces. Go ahead, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 14:29 UTC as 77th comment | 1 reply
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (501 comments in total)

This article is not to the DPreview standard. Title says: Sony 'destroys the competition', I am looking at these images, and I do not see the "destroys" part at all. The author should avoid such formulations, especially in the title. The new Sony has some minute advantage over the FZ1000, but considering the dramatic price difference, I prefer the Lumix still.

That said, of course I have in mind my specific predicted use, what is web posting, thus effectively 2Mbyte-4Mbyte images. Someone planing to make huge prints might be persuaded by every even smallest increase in corner performance. And the Sony Zeiss is indeed a well balanced lens.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2016 at 01:01 UTC as 66th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

ACS Trainer: Sad to hear this. Back in the day when I worked at Vistek in downtown Toronto, Michael and I wrestled with the issue of metamarism when printing with the Epson 2000. It was supposed to be a fine art photo printer but it's ink mix fluoresced green under certain lighting conditions. It was an interesting time thrashing the issue about. Without a doubt his deep interest in photo printing helped us get to where photo inkjet printing is today. He was a really sharp and nice guy.

Indeed, he managed this amazing balance between technology and practice. His articles were really helping people to achieve better results throughout the process, including printing. LuLa spoke not only about cameras, but also about printers, monitors, calibration, paper, down to presenting results. Add to it the most esoteric issue of artistic value in composition and light, or specialized photography like night or astro-photography, and you will likely come to the conclusion that LuLa was one of a kind source of information in the digital time.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2016 at 14:39 UTC

Indeed: Its sad about Michael Reichman, he was really a great mentor and an excellent writer. I relied on his opinions for many years. After Uwe Steinmueller (Outback Photo) world of photography lost another prominent figure.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2016 at 14:00 UTC as 23rd comment
On article Beta: try out our new 'light' color scheme (722 comments in total)
In reply to:

Les Hall: There's a reason why books have white and not black pages. It may be just about using less ink, but it is also much more legible when it comes to text. Reading forums just wears me out with that inverted color set-up.

As for images, I think black is too much for that too. 50% grey would be perfect.

Well, a paper is a "passive display". It reflects or absorbs different percentile of the ambient light. That percentile stays constant regardless how much light we have. If you so want: The display quasi auto adjusts to the energy of the ambient light. Furthermore, the spectrum of the reflected light always corresponds to the spectrum of the ambient light.

That is never so with active displays, unless they have some active spectrometer attached to them, such as Pantone Huye for example.

I agree with gray: a neutral, luminance around 30-50% gray seems to be optimal for imaging.

True is that present day LED based displays do not impose the same side effects, which we have had with CRT based technology: They generated electromagnetic fields, even a spurious x-ray component. The darker the screen, the better it was for all of us...

There are many reasons for the popularity of Dpreview, I claim the dark "photo ambience" is one of these factors.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 17:41 UTC
On article Beta: try out our new 'light' color scheme (722 comments in total)

I hate white theme. I love the dark one. The issue is that the display is active, isn't it? A white background is like a lamp shining into someone's face. Especially late evening, when one still works in a dim room, or maybe even, a noble idea: Makes photography with Lightroom , or any other photography application. Now, why is it so that these all programs reached their ergonomics by using a dark, color neutral background. These shining white backgrounds burn my eyes, literally, I am getting tears. This here is relaxing.

You are doing fine, do not spend money or "breaking what ain't broken".

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 13:30 UTC as 276th comment
In reply to:

ThomasH_always: There it is again: No Viewfinder, No purchase. Got it, Nikon?

By the by, it always fascinates me that the new cameras are proudly presented how _others_ see them, not you, the photographer and user. I am interested in the outlook of the back side and of the top side rather. This is what I will see while using the device. Of course, in the vague understanding of physics, no LCD display will be able to compete with the energy of the sun light. The sun is bigger, and will always win. We need a viewfinder, or "the device" is not "a camera". I will not be plugging in some external contraptions for $200, which can get lost. Ridiculous.

Dear Studor13, Nikon is terrified of each and every customer, who is leaking to Sony (or any other competitor for that matter). And they do not care about a forum. Gross of Nikon's revenue are the cameras and lenses. Its not like Fuji or Ricoh, who run a "hobby department" with cameras.

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 15:31 UTC

There it is again: No Viewfinder, No purchase. Got it, Nikon?

By the by, it always fascinates me that the new cameras are proudly presented how _others_ see them, not you, the photographer and user. I am interested in the outlook of the back side and of the top side rather. This is what I will see while using the device. Of course, in the vague understanding of physics, no LCD display will be able to compete with the energy of the sun light. The sun is bigger, and will always win. We need a viewfinder, or "the device" is not "a camera". I will not be plugging in some external contraptions for $200, which can get lost. Ridiculous.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 07:05 UTC as 137th comment | 4 replies
Total: 60, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »