David Iliff

Lives in Australia Melbourne, Australia
Joined on Jun 6, 2002

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
On Article:8533054559 (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

karlkk: basically nothing has changed in the last 6 years.resolution is about the same as the earliest 5 mega sony sensors.pics taken with mobiles are pretty crappy.

There's a lot more to sensor technology than resolution. Anyway, you're quite wrong (or perhaps your expectations are unrealistic). The image quality has improved dramatically in the last 5 years on phone cameras, particularly in low light. It's a combination of many factors. Sensor size, sensor technology, image processing algorithms and lens quality. Nothing has been game-changing but the cumulative effect has improved things a lot.

Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 12:08 UTC
In reply to:

CrashMaster: Guilty: take me to prison immediately.... I have hundreds possibly thousands of photos of French landmarks- Château de Chambord, Palais-Royal etc.. and even some inside the Palace of Versailles....
Lock me up and throw away the key, a recidivist such as my self is not safe on the streets of France and could be a serious threat to the rule of law.

You're missing the point. It's only buildings still under copyright that are affected, not historic buildings. All the buildings you mention are have long-expired copyrights. But having to determine whether a building is in copyright, needing to know the architect(s) and whether they've been dead x number of years is ridiculous.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 11:37 UTC
In reply to:

zettlers: So how are you guys in France coping with this "for commercial use" rule already in use in your country? Is it "Huge problem!" or more like "What rule?"

The problem isn't so much how it is in practice. I'm sure many photographers in France do break the law by posting photos of copyrighted buildings and get away with it because the copyright holder can't be bothered to chase every infringement. The problem is that it COULD happen without Freedom of Panorama. And for organisations like Wikipedia that do their best to work completely in harmony with local laws with respect to copyright, it really IS a huge problem. These laws which in practice don't affect casual photographers much actually do restrict the use of photos on Wikipedia. But it could affect anyone. Just like jaywalking is illegal in many countries. You can still get away with doing it most of the time, but one day you may get in trouble.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 11:33 UTC
On article Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II (1125 comments in total)
In reply to:

PazinBoise: I wager that this will become for Sony with the 5DII was for Canon. This should get many pros/amateurs who were on the fence to jump thanks to fairly complete feature set.

The next iteration (A7R3?) will then be the real jewel for Sony much like the the 5DIII was for Canon. I imagine when that camera comes out we will see AF on par with DSLRs and all the new feature they have added now will be refined.

the 5DMkIII was no lump of coal, it was better than the MkII in virtually every way. It was solid but not outstanding.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 22:56 UTC
In reply to:

Rocky Mtn Old Boy: The monkey cannot own the copyright, so in all likelihood, it falls to Slater - though given the nature of his recent behaviour, does not deserve it. I think the one thing we can all agree on, is that Wikimedia doesn't have it. Slater is the closest thing to an owner and since he PP'd and posted the photos, he likely has the right to ask them to take the images down.

He's a knob for doing so... but ultimately has the right.

In fact, Wikimedia is not even claiming to have the copyright, they are claiming that it is public domain as there is no copyright holder.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 15:04 UTC
On photo IMG_0049_1 in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: Can this really be ISO 400? Viewed at 100% original size the skin of the primary subjects looks waxy and plastic even while there is as significant grain in the OOF bokeh areas.

Also agree, just not the image quality I would expect from a sensor of it's size. ISO 400 should be noise free WITHOUT any significant noise reduction processing.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2014 at 09:51 UTC
On a photo in the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Samples Gallery sample gallery (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: Can this really be ISO 400? Viewed at 100% original size the skin of the primary subjects looks waxy and plastic even while there is as significant grain in the OOF bokeh areas.

Also agree, just not the image quality I would expect from a sensor of it's size. ISO 400 should be noise free WITHOUT any significant noise reduction processing.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2014 at 09:51 UTC
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7