anthony mazzeri

Joined on Sep 29, 2010

Comments

Total: 350, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Lytro is officially shutting down (207 comments in total)

You never know. Google bought Android for a similar amount.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2018 at 02:53 UTC as 38th comment
In reply to:

moimoi: When you look at digital cameras, it has become over the last few years a very mature market, and digital imaging has not undergone a major breakthrough yet (at least as far as I am concerned). I would not deny that the last generations of cameras are quite superb as they are more sufficient for 99% of my shooting. I have no plans to update my dSLR gear for quite sometime but frankly we are quit lucky to have great tools to work with. I was talking to my dad who has kindly worked on digitalizing photos he took from the mid-late70s up to the late 80s (best present he could give me :)). In 15 years he shot with the same camera (Konica SLR with a 28 and 50 mm). Looking back at some of those photos, I just realized how good those cameras were built (metal) and lasted "forever". In the end, the eye is the camera and the camera is the toolbox.

My Fisher Price camera at 4 years old ;)

http://nsa39.casimages.com/img/2018/03/02/18030211050360184.jpg

I agree. I think the camera makers are slowly returning to where they were before the digital compact boom and will now make far fewer but higher quality cameras designed to last for years like they used to do.

Compact cameras, and now phonecams, are simply replacing the hundreds of millions of Kodak Instamatics and Fuji disposables snapshots developed at 1-Hour photo kiosks. Companies like Nikon and Minolta were never in this space to begin with, so their exit is just a return to their basics.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 22:28 UTC
In reply to:

onlyfreeman: Might as well include smartphones in these stats, aren't they basically cameras anyway? Do people still use them to make calls?

True. Samsung makes more profit supplying the cameras for iPhones than they do making their own Galaxy phones, so I guess that makes them still one of the biggest camera makers in the business.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 22:20 UTC

It’s probably not about just losing sales to phone cameras any more as smartphone sales are also plateauing as they have now reached saturation as well - everyone who wants one already has a perfectly good working one which will last for years as new models are just incremental improvements now.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 22:14 UTC as 70th comment | 1 reply

What different hardware do the D7100 and D7200 have that they can update them but not the D7000?

Or is it simply age, they couldn’t be bothered supporting older models past a certain date?

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 20:53 UTC as 3rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

MikeDPR: So Apple swindled hundreds of billions from consumers who would otherwise have replaced just their battery for $80 instead of paying $800 for a new phone???

Maybe English is not your first language. What part of “look yourself” do you not understand?

A quick ebay search reveals “excellent condition - like new” in the same phrase on the very third listing, so that torpedoes your argument there is a huge difference between them.

And what lawsuit is that? The lawsuit where the plaintiffs are complaining they had to sell their iPhones and buy a new one because Apple knowingly didn’t mention the slow-down? The lawsuit which will fold the instant copies of their ebay listings are filed showing they did the exact same thing by knowingly not mentioning the slow-down in their item description.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2017 at 06:03 UTC
In reply to:

MikeDPR: So Apple swindled hundreds of billions from consumers who would otherwise have replaced just their battery for $80 instead of paying $800 for a new phone???

Strawman argument. I never said they were selling them as new. Selling used goods in "as new condition" is a different thing, and very common.

A quick scan of the used iPhones on ebay right now shows me the terms "like new", "excellent condition", "perfect condition" etc etc. Look for yourself.

As for your second point, I repeat my comment. They cannot justify suing Apple if they themselves knowingly misrepresented their own slowed-iPhones when they sold them to buy their new iPhones..

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2017 at 20:48 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Wilson: This article states "TeckFire pointed out that his iPhone 6s had become very slow, only to speed back up again after the battery was replaced". If this is the case, it has nothing to do with the phone being old, so why does this article repeatedly state Apple is slowing down old phones? My guess is that Apple hasn't changed their algorithm and they'll also slow down a new phone if there is an old, worn out battery in it. If TeckFire's statement is true, then this whole article should be re-written to say "Apple is slowing down iPhones as the battery gets old".

Not even old, just worn.

Technically an excessively-used latest-model iPhone should wear its newer battery out quicker and experience this throttling before a seldom-used previous iPhone model with an older but still-viable battery.

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2017 at 20:26 UTC
In reply to:

MikeDPR: So Apple swindled hundreds of billions from consumers who would otherwise have replaced just their battery for $80 instead of paying $800 for a new phone???

Depends if all these consumers in turn knowingly swindled second-hand buyers by selling them their slowed iPhones in "as new condition" instead of "selling because of observed deterioration in performance".

I've never seen a single ebay listing with the latter, so I'd say nearly all of them have no problem whatsoever with misrepresenting goods for sale that they can justify suing Apple for it.

Link | Posted on Dec 26, 2017 at 20:09 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (572 comments in total)
In reply to:

Matto715: The worst part of the iMac has always been – and obviously continues to be – the glaring screen, hard if not impossible to calibrate and not showing 100% of Adobe RGB color gamut. This alone makes it a „no-go“ for serious photographers – unless they are additionally ready to spend another couple of thousand for a decent EIZO screen. It is such a pity that Apple more and more turns its back on the creative community (where it came from). It would be so easy for Apple to cooperate with Eizo and produce a real photographers‘ iMac ... I miss Steve.

Actually I believe they do. The new colour space technology is DCI-P3 which covers ISO-coated just as well as Adobe RGB used to do, and eventually an even wider-gamut technology will be REC.2020 for 8K displays.

You can see for yourself the new EIZO 4K monitors are now claiming "98% DCI-P3" here - http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/coloredge/cg318-4k/index.html

All iMac 4K and 5K displays are also DCI-P3, so Apple and EIZO are both on the same page - except as is Apple's way, they give it their own name 'Display P3'.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2017 at 16:05 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (572 comments in total)
In reply to:

fyngyrz: And in a few years, with the machine still working just fine, Apple will arbitrarily say "you can't upgrade the OS on this machine."

As they have with my 64-bit, 12/24 core, 3 GHZ, 64GB, 2tb/2tb 2009 Mac Pro.

So that's about 8 years before new/upgrade application software starts to become incompatible with your $13,200 machine due to using features in the OS that are denied to you by Apple.

If you take that $13,200 over 8 years, you're paying $1650 per year, or $137.50 a month.

Some might find those numbers interesting.

The 2009 hardware is basically identical to the 2010 model, so you only need to flash the 4,1 firmware to make it register as a 5,1 model instead and then flawlessly upgrade to 10.13 High Sierra.

Google/youtube for how-to's and the firmware patch itself.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2017 at 16:53 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (572 comments in total)

Rather than all this raw power, I would just like to see already-existing Apple technology like the Apple Pencil integrated into the pro Mac line, similar to the MS Surface Studio.

2D creators simply don't need all this grunt in the iMac Pro, and while I think it's not been a large enough market so Apple has always been happy to leave Wacom to meet these users' needs, I do think the Apple Pencil is actually much better than the Wacom pens so even with Wacom's impressive new 4K Cintiqs coming next month, I'd probably rather still have an actual 5K Mac 'Surface Studio' simply because of the Pencil.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2017 at 05:31 UTC as 25th comment
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (572 comments in total)

No touch bar, no deal!

/jk

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 07:05 UTC as 68th comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on: RAW Power for iOS (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

John M Roberts: I still can't help feel this is a dribbling move towards the characteristics of Aperture yet I will admit I haven't tried it. Why isn't there some incentive by developers to offer a full on replacement to the dumped by Apple Aperture with all the advanced refinements of today that Apple was neglecting at the end. I'm speaking the editing and the management aspects that at the time were greatly appreciated by many.

What I want to hear from reviewers is "Wow, finally a credible replacement of Aperture with all the current advancements included." Isn't there some financial incentive for that?

There is still also Aperture itself which is still fully-functioning on macOS 10.13 High Sierra.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 03:45 UTC
On article Hands-on: RAW Power for iOS (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Kwon: Wow! Now I'm regretting for not buying the iPhone X... I went with the 8 :( I now wished that I got the X for the raw files to edit on my phone...

Richard, you can shoot RAW on the iPhone 8 using a different camera app such as ProCam.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 03:18 UTC
On article Hands-on: RAW Power for iOS (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thomas Rose: I do not care how great it is, I will not be using it.

Apple has a track record of introducing applications and then dropping them after a few years, or dumbing down professional applications to please their bigger market of iPhone users. They did it with word processors, with video editing and with Aperture.

Why would anyone with a business to run choose an Apple application when we have no assurance that it will continue to be available long-term.

Microsoft may be guilty of many sins, but dumping their user base by dropping important applications (or dumbing them down, or ignoring backward compatibility) is not one of them.

@Thomas Rose, so how's your Zune going?

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 03:15 UTC
In reply to:

clicstudio: I wish Aperture would come back. It was amazing. Much better than the crappy Lightroom.

@cdembrey, If you have a hard drive full of referenced files and need to move them to a new drive, as far as I can ascertain Photos is unable to ‘re-locate’ them as Aperture does - and so you have to start from scratch and lose all your xmp and developments etc.

This may be changed in the future, but I’m not hopeful as I get the sense it was only included in its basic form to get Aperture users to cross, but that Apple doesn’t really want Photos users to work with referenced files as they don’t fit into Apple’s iCloud future/plans.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 13:29 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1632 comments in total)
In reply to:

GaryJP: "I know we said we had no plans to abandon standalone Lightroom, but we had our fingers crossed when we said it."

Do future versions not being made available at all mean the "unspecified period of time" can legally be zero?

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 04:10 UTC
In reply to:

photo_rb: Can you imagine if Adobe followed MacPhun's model of a paid upgrade every year? LR and PS would cost a heck of a lot more than $10 a month.

And yes, I know you don't "have" to upgrade.

@photo_rb, what is this $10 a month spin? That's the minmum with only 20GB cloud. For a full photo library? The more adequate 1TB storage is DOUBLE that price.

For users in Australia and elsewhere it's almost triple the price at (AUD) $28.59 per month, which is a whopping $343.08 per annum, which translates to an every 2 year upgrade cycle of $686.16.

When Affinity Photo or MacPhun Luminar (both with soon to be added DAM) are in the $50-$100 ranges for a typical 2 year upgrade cycle, it puts Adobe's $686 cost for the same thing with their LR and PS bundle into true perspective.

If you're enjoying a reduced US price which the rest of Adobe's users around the world are subsidizing by paying double to triple to enable you to evanglize on photo forums about how affordable Adobe is (for you) compared to their competitors, then that is just one more reason for the rest of us to abandon Adobe.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 01:42 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: Adobe Ps and LR are about as far as I go with Adobe. I personally still prefer to host my online portfolio somewhere else. Yeah, the workflow from PS/LR to Portfolio might be very easy, but I'd rather have more control over my portfolio. but that's just me. Especially seeing that adobe posted a huge profit for Q3, they have enough of my money. Maybe when they update LR (particularly the catalog) I'll consider giving them more of my money and business.

kilofox, included in the subscription price is not 'free'.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 19:00 UTC
Total: 350, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »