CheersUK

CheersUK

Lives in United States TX, United States
Joined on Jan 3, 2006

Comments

Total: 163, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »
On article Pentax K-1 real-world sample gallery (144 comments in total)

Feallly thinking about buying this with the 24-70mm f 2.8 to start off with. It would be a pain to build up a lens collection again, but just may be worth it for the K1.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2016 at 03:18 UTC as 38th comment | 5 replies
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (185 comments in total)

I can understand Sony wanting to clarify their policy on this, but you have to wonder if the real motivation for this is a genuine concern for their customers, or a scare tatic to protect their app sales.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 14:05 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wild Light: Just another experience bordering on gimmick, like 3D television, for anything that doesn't have a practical useful function.

@ D3stroyah
Actually I have created VR environments in my work as a 3D digital artist. One was a collaboration for medical research to create interactive VR environments for people with learning difficulties. The second was for a University Astro Physics Faculty.
I think I have plenty of experience in the benefits and failings of VR.
D3stroyah, may I ask what experience your rudeness is based on? Actually dont bother, unless you can actually teach me something I dont know about the subject.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 06:35 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wild Light: Just another experience bordering on gimmick, like 3D television, for anything that doesn't have a practical useful function.

I have to agree. 5 years ago 3D TV's were the next big thing...where are they now? 3D TV were probably easier to push into the consumers living room than VR, as glasses were the only additional extra. As far as VR is concerned, it's impact for the "average" consumer will be minimal, I fear.
I think it has great potential for gaming, military, medical etc, but asking a consumer to put on a unwieldy headset, isn't appealing. VR already has a healthy jump start into the consumer market, in that smart phones can be utilized, but even so, that potential seems to have had little market penetration.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2016 at 21:21 UTC
On article Canon EOS 80D Field Test: Barney builds a boat (221 comments in total)
In reply to:

bathedinfixer: No one says "wow" like Barney. No one. Karston really out did himself with this one. Does anyone else think about the way he must have held the 80D in his hands and gently racked focus, all the while controlling every muscle in his body to minimize camera shake? Bravo!

Being a fellow British ex-pat, I was most impressed with Barney's ninja pronunciation of "aluminium", without any American noticing and ribbing him for it.
Well done, Sir!!!

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 02:53 UTC
In reply to:

DavidsfotosDotCom: I agree with all the below. Seams like art schools convince or attract those without talent or vision & Brainwash's these depraved approval seeking art nerds into copying their professors modern non style or esoteric crap style to separate themselves into an elite class of fools that think they are a genius because they had the courage to go where most photographers fear to go i.e. boring, unattractive & mundane subject matter!

Having worked previously for a decade within a University Art and Design faculty, I will mainly fall back on the "art i subjective" line. Saying that, I will also say, that Faculties for many Universities in the UK are also under pressure to "meet targets" for not only entrance numbers but grades. For that I can't blame the lecturers, but the system they have to work within.
I have to say, I was very disappointed with what I saw here, but none the less, congrats to the winners.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2016 at 01:44 UTC
In reply to:

caravan: The D500 looks good but behold the a6300! Amazing.

@ caravan...maybe in jpeg, but switch to raw and then you see it falls back into line.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 01:24 UTC

For that price I would be tempted to buy it for added dimension to casual time lapse photography.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2016 at 01:13 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

Everlast66: The size of this thing is ridiculous and I am afraid it might make it unusable in practice.

So they are comparing it to an Arri Alexa camera that's worth $30k-40k, while this would probably be in the region of $500k-$1m or something like this.

Their previous 360 degrees "pin head" video camera was expected to be around $300k, so this should be higher.

And all of this to avoid using green screen or generate some questionable 3D shot through one lens, come on, bring back the green screen and shoot 3D with two cheap cameras.

Not surprising development for Lytro, they continue with the search for a problem for their solution ...

@ cdembrey

That is still a lot smaller and lighter than the Lytro...and as seen in that picture, despite the many advantages of shooting in digital there is a growing trend to shoot with film again.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 01:49 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: I don't intend to sound against technology. Actually, it's clear this thing is alien technology. Seriously, Lytro should open their warehouses to the public, to prove they're not reverse engineering tech from a fallen UFO. ;)

Having said that, there's a bit of exaggeration in the thought that all new techs are pushing the industry forward.

Sometimes, just because one thing allows more, it's not in anyway the "future".

Speaking as photographers, we don't change lenses just because of limitations are imposed by physics and optics.

We choose from WA to telephoto, as an artistic choice, as well as a technical one.

For example, has your D810 or 5ds made you dump the 70-200? I guess not, even though you have the option to crop in post now.

You won't dump your teles. Not now, not in the 200 mp era. Because of artistic merits.

My simplified example above may be just that: too simplified, but you get the idea.

The difference between this product and the introduction of Technicolor, is a little different. Technicolor had a huge advantage over this, where the technology advancement was obvious to the public - B&W compared to colour. Using this compared to traditional tech, it isn't so obvious in the final result to the paying consumer.

Using this camera would certainly change workflow for the better in the long run, but even now, with all the digital advancements, many studios prefer to still shoot with film.

The size of this camera is one obvious disadvantage, but the [un]willingness of the industry to adopt it with any conviction may be another.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 01:34 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: I don't intend to sound against technology. Actually, it's clear this thing is alien technology. Seriously, Lytro should open their warehouses to the public, to prove they're not reverse engineering tech from a fallen UFO. ;)

Having said that, there's a bit of exaggeration in the thought that all new techs are pushing the industry forward.

Sometimes, just because one thing allows more, it's not in anyway the "future".

Speaking as photographers, we don't change lenses just because of limitations are imposed by physics and optics.

We choose from WA to telephoto, as an artistic choice, as well as a technical one.

For example, has your D810 or 5ds made you dump the 70-200? I guess not, even though you have the option to crop in post now.

You won't dump your teles. Not now, not in the 200 mp era. Because of artistic merits.

My simplified example above may be just that: too simplified, but you get the idea.

Rishi, as I said, I'm not denying the technology has great merritt...but sit back for a minute and just look at the size of this thing...it's ridiculous. This tech needs many more yrs of development to be ready for being the 'standard' in cinematography...and even then optical physics may beat it. This kind of development can not be sustained by such a small company without substantial backing. A camera that size has huge implications regarding logistics, let alone on location data management.

Let's look at it this way - 4k is the future. If 4k determines that a sensor using this tech needs to be 1x1ft then its still a huge camera. Too big. The many advantages start to be outweighed by negatives.

As a side note, I thought on topic opinions were the whole idea of this website..a shame one can't express honest opinions without being deemed negative. I didn't think I was being negative, just an honest appraisal from my experience in the film industry.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2016 at 07:24 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: I don't intend to sound against technology. Actually, it's clear this thing is alien technology. Seriously, Lytro should open their warehouses to the public, to prove they're not reverse engineering tech from a fallen UFO. ;)

Having said that, there's a bit of exaggeration in the thought that all new techs are pushing the industry forward.

Sometimes, just because one thing allows more, it's not in anyway the "future".

Speaking as photographers, we don't change lenses just because of limitations are imposed by physics and optics.

We choose from WA to telephoto, as an artistic choice, as well as a technical one.

For example, has your D810 or 5ds made you dump the 70-200? I guess not, even though you have the option to crop in post now.

You won't dump your teles. Not now, not in the 200 mp era. Because of artistic merits.

My simplified example above may be just that: too simplified, but you get the idea.

Rishi, I saw you come out with the same argument when they pulled the Illumina...and for me the company is making the same mistake again.
For this tech to get smaller, it needs investment. For that to happen this current version of tech needs plenty of sales.
With the size of this camera it would make more sense to use it in the studio (not many advantages there, in such a controlled environment)...but this tech crys out to be used outside on location. Guess what? It's no where near portable enough. Imagine having to take 3 or 4 of these on location, let alone attaching one to a boom 😆

Dont get me wrong, I think the tech used is very promising. I just think the company keeps biting off more than they can chew, miss reading the market and creating overly niche products.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2016 at 06:08 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: I don't intend to sound against technology. Actually, it's clear this thing is alien technology. Seriously, Lytro should open their warehouses to the public, to prove they're not reverse engineering tech from a fallen UFO. ;)

Having said that, there's a bit of exaggeration in the thought that all new techs are pushing the industry forward.

Sometimes, just because one thing allows more, it's not in anyway the "future".

Speaking as photographers, we don't change lenses just because of limitations are imposed by physics and optics.

We choose from WA to telephoto, as an artistic choice, as well as a technical one.

For example, has your D810 or 5ds made you dump the 70-200? I guess not, even though you have the option to crop in post now.

You won't dump your teles. Not now, not in the 200 mp era. Because of artistic merits.

My simplified example above may be just that: too simplified, but you get the idea.

Hmm, impressive tech, and having worked in the digital animation and effects business I can see the benefits, but although I somewhat agree with your thoughts Rishi, I have trouble imagining this product "poised forever to change filmmaking".
Over the last 20 yrs digital technology has transformed film making...but you know what? many, many major motion pictures are still shot on film...and for good reason too.
I really do hope this kind of tech survives and they make a success of it, but I think it will probably end up like the Lytro Illium.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2016 at 02:07 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: NASA sucks, they always waste alot of money and resources. Take all that money for better things to do here in our the planet.

Yep, and without all that 'wasted money' used to advance knowledge and technology, you wouldn't have all the tools available to you to post your comment, make phone calls to loved ones, save lives with modern medicine, take photos etc, etc...
Of course I'm sure you are not hypocritical enough to use any of that technology yourself... Oh wait, I get it-only when it suits you.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 06:22 UTC

As GX7 user who realized the GX8 didn't hit the right spots enough to upgrade, this is an interesting addition to the line. Still doesn't hit the right spots, but certainly makes me excited for the possible features in a GX8 successor.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 15:38 UTC as 13th comment

I saw the headline, and thought Canon had really pulled something out the bag...then compared the results to the competition, and realized a MFT sensor was some of its closest competition.
I'm pleased that Canon have made progress, based against their own models, but the results still look lack luster compared to other manufacturers.
I'm sure for day to day shooting it's not going to make much difference, but shows that Canon are still a way from catching up with their sensor tech.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 01:40 UTC as 141st comment
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (553 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Panasonic just lost 1/3 of its customers with that shutter shock problem.

I guess, that Nikon and Canon have lost a third of their customers too.
Shuttershock, as the review said, is unlikely to ever be an issue. Yes, it probably needs to be addressed in future models, but it certainly isn't going to ruin your day either.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 03:09 UTC
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (553 comments in total)
In reply to:

ikfoto: A good article, but... I'll be waiting for a *real* successor to the GX7.

I'm with you there. If I didn't have the GX7 I would go for the GX8, but seing that I already have a GX7, I'm not finding that much that in the GX8 that compels me to upgrade, for my shooting style. Certainly I can imagine a more video inclined users to upgrade, or the DFD, for the more action orientated shooter, but for me, I'll be waiting for a different upgrade.
It's still a really nice camera, but not tempting enough, when I already have the very good GX7.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 03:03 UTC
On article Samsung NX500 shown as discontinued (273 comments in total)
In reply to:

dansclic: Why wondering : it is stated that they will nomore produce cameras. Why should they spend money on products that no retailler in thé world will stock ??

Because the good camera is manufactured by a company with no conviction in their own product. Why should a retailer stock any product when the company who produces it has no confidence in its success or the ability to successfully promote it.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 20:49 UTC
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (597 comments in total)
In reply to:

robspeed750: The observation that the $1800 investment is quickly outpaced by lens costs is just stupid in light of the the 2x initial cost of the D810, or equivalent(ish) Canon. Basically you can get a Ptax FF camera *AND* a lens or two for the price of the D810 by itself. #duh

Full disclosure: I am a Nikon fanboy and D750/F3 user.

@ Thermidor
I'm in agreement, the D750, does make the choices available more difficult, in a good way.
I'm in the market for a FF DSLR and a cant imagine the D750 getting much cheaper than the current promotion with the 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Lens at $2,297. At that price its a decent bargain. I'm currently invested in DX lenses, so changing to the K-1 would mean I would be doing the same reinvestment in FF lenses that I would eventually do if I went with a D750 anyway.

I'll be waiting for reviews on the K-1 anyway, before I decide. By then the D750 may have gone up in price and made a decision for me anyway.

One slight worry, is the re-labeled Tamron lenses. Not that they haven't been proven as good lenses, but it makes me wonder why Pentax went that route. Was it due to time restraints (faster to get an existing design to market), or they just don't have the resources available to make then themselves??

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 03:43 UTC
Total: 163, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »