vadims

Lives in Russian Federation Moscow, Russian Federation
Joined on Mar 10, 2006

Comments

Total: 426, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Michael McCulley: I volunteer at a 34,000 acre County Operated park in AZ, that includes close to 100 miles of trails, less than 10 miles of road ways, multiple campgrounds for RVs, Tents, along with scores of picnic areas. Elevations changes range up to 1800 feet. Often there are many thousands of people are in the park along with dogs, horses.. Wildlife includes Raptors, Mtn. Lions, along with other wild 4 legged species not to mention the other critters that comes with a desert environment. The park is located more than 30-40 minutes response by emergency vehicles. Drones are NOT ALLOWED. Although privacy issues abound at this park at any given time, the PRIMARY issue with drones is the fact that there are dozens of helicopter rescues we have each year. A large percentage are not announced and 99% of rescues are more than 45 minutes hiking distance away from any road access in addition to drive time getting to the park. Helicopter RESCUE protocols are hard & not negotiable > no DRONES !

There used to be rules that stipulated that a horseman waiving a red flag had to go in front of a car. I bet lots of people saw lots of sense in it.

How can a drone pose a bigger threat to a helicopter than, say, a bird? Are birds also "NOT ALLOWED" at your park?

I do hope that these rules will at some point be viewed as passing moment of stupidity in mankind's history... Even brightest people can do stupid things (think about quarantine imposed in astronauts returned from the Moon); but who exactly does them doesn't make these things any less stupid...

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 22:52 UTC
In reply to:

jetronic63: This is a bizarre article and makes me suspicious of DPR's impartiality. To patch together an argument that a camera is not worth the outlay because it can be outperformed in specific areas by other models isn't sound reasoning. If you applied this logic to other cameras, its unlikely you would buy anything as they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Surely the only basis for rational evaluation is whether the overall features/performance of the GFX make it compelling for its target market. Whether or not it is good value is a seperate argument and your mileage will vary depending on your circumstances.

> makes me suspicious of DPR's impartiality

Why?

I'd be with you if at least half of the article would be about AF.

DPR, on the contrary, talks about areas that are traditionally associated with MF advantages: DR, resolution, and (to a lesser extent) DOF. Seems fair to me.

At first, I also added "noise" to the above list of "traditional advantages", but then scrapped it -- up until Pentax 645, that was one area where digital MFs with their CCDs were lacking, severely!

Things change all the time. And I view this article as a nice reminder of where we're are at the moment.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:51 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (889 comments in total)
In reply to:

stormy_weather: Photograhy is about making pictures, two dimensional representations of reality. Your photo will be a good one when you successfully manage to bring this preception of reality into those two dimensions. A feeling of "being there" as optical viewfinders indeed offer it sometimes, does not help. This is not a virtual reality game nor is it a Disney Land visit - "being there" may be a nice feeling but does not help assessing if what you are in, could be a good photo.

Regards,

Sven

@stormy_weather

I agree with what you said. There's just one "BUT"...

> Photograhy is about making pictures

It's also about having fun.

When I go for end result, I do feel like EVF serves me better.

But sometimes I start longing for not only "an" OVF, but rangefinder OVF, or even something like Leica M-D that doesn't even have LCD on its back. There *is* (to me) something special in pressing the shutter and not knowing what will come out of it...

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 18:47 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (889 comments in total)
In reply to:

left eye: One aspect of EVFs that I really don't like is the often childish design of the overlay information, it's not only in the way but often of a distracting brightness and font size.

Granted you have the option to shrink the view in the EVF and place the info above / below - but even this is ugly, and the shooting view then becomes too small for how the EVFs are optimally designed, so generally overlay is the only way to go.

Ok you can turn some EVF info off, though this is often in terms of full or minimum.

I wish EVFs had a large shooting view, with the info just at the bottom discretely, in one or two colours and the info not too bright [or with a brightness adjustment], and in a small professional font, basically to mimic info displayed in OVFs.

> The Sony does this

Unfortunately, they don't. Neither my a6000, nor rx100m2.

It's what "left eye" said: "often in terms of full or minimum".

And now that they (Sony) got so much flak for over-cluttering their menus, they are not likely to offer any means of fine-tuning the mess in their EVFs any time soon...

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 14:17 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (889 comments in total)
In reply to:

left eye: One aspect of EVFs that I really don't like is the often childish design of the overlay information, it's not only in the way but often of a distracting brightness and font size.

Granted you have the option to shrink the view in the EVF and place the info above / below - but even this is ugly, and the shooting view then becomes too small for how the EVFs are optimally designed, so generally overlay is the only way to go.

Ok you can turn some EVF info off, though this is often in terms of full or minimum.

I wish EVFs had a large shooting view, with the info just at the bottom discretely, in one or two colours and the info not too bright [or with a brightness adjustment], and in a small professional font, basically to mimic info displayed in OVFs.

Can't agree more with both of you.

> all the settings ... were to impress you

Yep, and that's most probably the case with EVFs as well.

It's a real pity manufacturers keep stuffing in more and more gimmicks instead of addressing the basics...

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 13:51 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: DPreview should be condemning these contests and advising people not to give up their rights and undermine the profession.

By promoting these ripoffs, clearly DPReview is clearly not a friend to photographers.

> they grab them all and have a free library to do as they wish

Alan, do you know that for sure? Does "as they wish" include, say, use in commercial works like ads? Or blatant selling, like Getty does with PD works?

If you do know, you should share *that* information, with references to (or excerpts from) their licensing agreement. Which, I believe, any contestant has to agree to, before entering ("tick a checkbox").

Every now and then there's a sh!tstorm on the Internet because users discover that some company or service tweaked their agreement so that they, basically, own uploaded images. Or at least have significant rights -- for free. Yep, that's a rip-off, and I'd wholeheartedly support anyone speaking against that.

Uncovering such clauses in license agreements would indeed be "informing" and maybe even "educating".

Just ranting and complaining about "free photography work"? Well, that's just that -- ranting and complaining...

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 13:14 UTC
In reply to:

JT26: That final image is stunning. I love it.

> Art is truly in the eyes of the beholder.

Of course; that goes without saying.

> For me the last image is my least favourite.

My "least favourite" is #11. IMHO it has very little (if any) competition in that regard...

> To my eyes, just like many other so-called 'street photos',
> it is aesthetically interesting, and that's it.

#12 is, to me, much more than that... While formally indeed a "street photo", it has many qualities of an abstract, or even a fine art image. All in all, a lovely one.

And BTW my personal favourite is #7.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 11:35 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: DPreview should be condemning these contests and advising people not to give up their rights and undermine the profession.

By promoting these ripoffs, clearly DPReview is clearly not a friend to photographers.

Yeah. And cancel their own "challenges" while they are at it, I guess?

Alan, what are the alternatives for those who participate? You can't just shut something down w/o offering a viable alternative. That's what movie industry tried to do with video recorders.

You chose to post another "It's Horrible!" message instead of answering my questions (in response to JT26), but they won't just go away...

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 04:54 UTC
In reply to:

JT26: That final image is stunning. I love it.

> Amateurs, wake up!
> Why should anyone give away their valuable creative
> content for others to profit from?

Well, how many talented amateur photographers are there in, say, China? (Jian Wang is from Beijing).

What are their choices? Selling photography is *hard* -- esp. for someone who normally does something very different. Suppose someone spent N man-days trying to sell their images instead of doing what they normally do for living. And earned M man-days worth of his/her usual wage, where N >> M...

Now *that* would be stupid!

This whole "doing work for free by amateurs" thing if far from being obvious.

Besides, people burned temples to get famous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus), so shooting/editing/uploading few images just pales in comparison...

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 02:50 UTC
In reply to:

JT26: That final image is stunning. I love it.

@JT26
Here are more images by Jian Wang that you may like (I do):

http://mobilephotoawards.com/the-grand-prize/
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/user/jian-wang-5/

Seems like most (if not all) taken with mobile phone.

@AlanG

> Photographers should be protesting this kind of thing,
> not participating in ruining the profession

It looks to me that Jian Wang is not a pro, just a passionate amateur with a _mobile_phone_.

I might be wrong about him (and would love to learn more), but in any case it's too late... There's a notion of technological singularity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity); it seems to me that mobile phone had already done to photography what AI is supposed to do to mankind.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 01:42 UTC
In reply to:

Barbu: Misleading to use the same zoom term, without (dis)qualifiers.
This kind of „computational” zoom works wonders, but to call it „zoom” would be just the same as saying „zoom” for the Lumia/Zeiss 41Mp wonder; it's not camera that does the zooming.
But, horror: even DPReview uses the completely misleading „5x OPTICAL zoom” thingie, without calling them on their lie: it's a 3x zoom that has an extra step/sensor.

> No possible stretch of the imagination would result
> in calling this method „optical zoom”

Quite true.

Likewise, no stretch of imagination should result in calling DPR's statement "just the same as saying 'zoom' for the Lumia/Zeiss 41Mp wonder". See my point?

Practice what you preach. I rest my case ;)

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 11:40 UTC

> 65mm moderate wide

65mm (50mm equiv) a "moderate wide"? Not "normal"??

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 22:13 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Barbu: Misleading to use the same zoom term, without (dis)qualifiers.
This kind of „computational” zoom works wonders, but to call it „zoom” would be just the same as saying „zoom” for the Lumia/Zeiss 41Mp wonder; it's not camera that does the zooming.
But, horror: even DPReview uses the completely misleading „5x OPTICAL zoom” thingie, without calling them on their lie: it's a 3x zoom that has an extra step/sensor.

I'd say both you and DPR are wrong ;)

It's another new technology that does not happen to have a proper name yet... But it's certainly far from what Lumia's doing. If I got it right, it combines images from wide and tele lenses using some [supposedly] clever digital magic.

The word "optical" is (quite understandably) used here to stress the fact that it has tele lens at work, that it's not just digital zoom we're accustomed to (and rightfully hate).

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 17:22 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: If you sacrifice an entire news article based on a Google-translated statement to the press, why not have it properly translated first?

Professional translations for communications purposes are available online for 0.06$ a word, or $20 for the article within a couple hours. Japanese ncluded. Cheaper than letting your staff write this opinion. The news is old enough. As you wrote in your piece: DPR, why?

Moreover, the most discussed bit from the article are the 2-3 years arrival time for Nikon mirrorless after an event difficult to understand from the Google translation.

Yeah... Thom Hogan, for instance, got help from an "interpreter friend"; his take on the interview can be found here:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-disappointment-of-cp.html

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 12:54 UTC

Yamaki-san is a very good ambassador for his company.

Very few CEOs (in photo industry) are... Perry Oosting was one, but that's about it.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 02:05 UTC as 20th comment
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: Two stops of light is a LOT to lose, meaning having to shoot ISO 1600 when 400 would normally get the job done. That might limit the usage of this lens somewhat, but that creamy bokeh is wonderful. A lens I would love to own.

> That might limit the usage

Or it may widen it instead.

Think about portraits on a beach, and the likes.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 16:22 UTC
On article Canon debuts EOS M6 mirrorless with optional EVF (659 comments in total)
In reply to:

davev8: DPR say>>>>Canon's newest mirrorless camera, the EOS M6, is a replacement for the entry-level EOS M3 and slides in directly under the enthusiast M5 (confused yet?).<<<
nope......the 6D slides under the 5D...........dont ask me about the M10

> nope......the 6D slides under the 5D

Oh, good! At least somebody understands it.

So will there be EOS M5 Mark II, EOS M5 Mark III etc.?

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 08:52 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1567 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tactical Falcon: After reading allot of comments. I too wonder how this just got an 85%. Did the Russians hack you guys. Yeah I get the scale shifts relative to improvements in the state of the art, and so on. But yes, 90% should have been right, and it should have hit Gold. Not that I really care in the bigger scheme of things. Canon, and stillborn Nikon are well not that interesting. Sure the D5, and D500 are wonderful, and the Canon 5D mkIV, well some questionable things happening there. Progress is alive and well at Sony. The A mount glass will tell all though if it has the staying power.

> Did the Russians hack you guys.

If we did, it would get Platinum.

So look elsewhere...

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

Donnie G: Anyone who didn't see this coming simply just wasn't paying attention. 😭

If there's anyone who's paying attention to everything Nikon, that's Thom Hogan. His predictions for CP+, as to products from Nikon (still on front page of bythom.com as of the time of this writing, BTW): "The DLs, at least one new ILC camera, and at least one new lens".

So it's not that simple at all, it seems...

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

Hong Chow: Looks like Nikon in a bad shape. Sad.

Umm... No, unfortunately.

They were in a bad shape; now they're in an awfully terrible shape. :(

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 17:16 UTC
Total: 426, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »