RDKirk

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Mar 9, 2002
About me:

Photography since '65, Canon since '73, EOS since '95, digital since 03.

Comments

Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18

Does this camera "offer" multiple exposures on a frame simply because it doesn't prevent you from releasing the shutter a second time?

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2018 at 16:21 UTC as 12th comment
On article Pro Services: Are they worth it? (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kharan: Nice US-centric article that is useless for the majority of visitors to this page (or at least the active users of the forums).
Didn't Fuji, as well as Olympus, roll their pro support out?
What about cinema? I'm sure that Panasonic and Sony have offered special programs for professional users in that area for years.

You can contact them for guidelines on article submission.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 02:32 UTC
On article Pro Services: Are they worth it? (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kharan: Nice US-centric article that is useless for the majority of visitors to this page (or at least the active users of the forums).
Didn't Fuji, as well as Olympus, roll their pro support out?
What about cinema? I'm sure that Panasonic and Sony have offered special programs for professional users in that area for years.

Good idea. Why don't you write that article covering all the world and cine too?

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 02:05 UTC
In reply to:

Ruy Penalva: No surprise at all since Canon repeatedly said in the past it would wait such market to grow steadily before enter in it. Now Canon will let the mirror fall and get in that profitable market.

I dunno. That strategy worked out for them with autofocus.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2018 at 15:27 UTC
In reply to:

Klaus Schroiff: Not surprised. I'm working for a traditional jp company in a different field.
JP managers are extremely risk averse till the very last minute. That's exactly how Canon, Nikon and Pentax are acting.
Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji had that very last minute moment years ago which is why they went full-throttle into mirrorless.

Maybe Canon and Nikon will come up with a better mirrorless system at some stage but why care anyway?
You may use an adapter for your old lenses but the AF speed will be dismal compared to a native mirrorless lens. With the adapter, the combo will also be longer at the very least. At best this is an interim solution.
And always keep in mind - companies are NEVER loyal to customers thus why should you be loyal to companies? I'm always surprised that the photographic market is almost pseudo-religious with people hanging on to "their" brand throughout life.

Greg OH, Yes, we see the Canon logic of that in their EF-S lens line--why they don't produce long EF-S lenses, for instance. So we probably won't see a "full" EF-M lens line either.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2018 at 15:12 UTC
In reply to:

caterpillar: When I first saw this, I thought, this will be good for videographers. The negative comments of some were from the POV of a photographer, not videographers.

From someone who shoots video especially long clips, this might make sense. Events where the speeches or presentation can be long (recitals, plays, concerts, etc) will understand this product. We usually can't grab a seat. Think of standing for 30-80 min shooting video standing up.

Also, there are some old folks who can't be up for long. Or some with some problem being on their feet. Old folks. I, for one have arthritis. I can walk for an hour, but standing for 10min, I have pain in my feet can start becoming unbearable.

Some sports (baseball, softball, soccer, track & field) when shooting in the filed itself may find this useful. Same with some outdoor shoots in the wild.

Don't diss it if you can't see its value. Some people may actually have use for this. In any case, the market will decide the fate of this product.

"Events where the speeches or presentation can be long (recitals, plays, concerts, etc) will understand this product. We usually can't grab a seat. Think of standing for 30-80 min shooting video standing up. "

Bingo. I'd have used this myself just yesterday.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

Chris Gibbs: Run & gun videography, this'd be brilliant for music events.

Run and Gun videography, for sure. My first thought. I know exactly when and where I'd use such a thing.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2018 at 22:38 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Actually, I think the current situation is good enough. You can only sue someone, if you can prove a substantial loss and if you have a stable enterprise that can afford suing.

Small claims are to haphazard and very hard to really prove that they are for real. It would be more annoying than of any real benefit to make that simpler.

If you want to "punish" those that break Copyright laws, I think they shall be fined instead.

Roland Karlsson, not true. In the US, if you have registered your copyright, there are penalties attached above and beyond any provable losses. The copyright registration make the case a slam-dunk and those penalties make it worthwhile for lawyers to take the case. The problem is that "you can't squeeze blood from a turnip." The current law provides satisfaction only if the infringer has deep pockets. And it still takes considerable time and effort. The small claims approach streamlines the process and provides outcomes that actually reap results.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2017 at 00:16 UTC
In reply to:

RDKirk: So according to the given specs, at three feet it's 1000 lumen, meaning it's only 250 lumen at six feet. That's the equivalent of a 20-watt incandescent bulb.

Not exciting to me. Sure not exciting at over 300 USD.

I can buy a much cheaper video LED with a lot more power than that, or a much more powerful Godox AD200 HSS TTL flash with interchangeable bare-bulb head or focused speedlight head for the same amount.

Also, CRI can be extremely misleading for LEDs. No LED source has a true full spectrum, so it's easy to fudge the CRI numbers. I'd want to see some real test result reviews.

Interesting discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iUIKUXm3Po

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 11:56 UTC
In reply to:

RDKirk: So according to the given specs, at three feet it's 1000 lumen, meaning it's only 250 lumen at six feet. That's the equivalent of a 20-watt incandescent bulb.

Not exciting to me. Sure not exciting at over 300 USD.

I can buy a much cheaper video LED with a lot more power than that, or a much more powerful Godox AD200 HSS TTL flash with interchangeable bare-bulb head or focused speedlight head for the same amount.

Also, CRI can be extremely misleading for LEDs. No LED source has a true full spectrum, so it's easy to fudge the CRI numbers. I'd want to see some real test result reviews.

Barty L, It's dimmer than a 20 watt bulb.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 23:52 UTC

So according to the given specs, at three feet it's 1000 lumen, meaning it's only 250 lumen at six feet. That's the equivalent of a 20-watt incandescent bulb.

Not exciting to me. Sure not exciting at over 300 USD.

I can buy a much cheaper video LED with a lot more power than that, or a much more powerful Godox AD200 HSS TTL flash with interchangeable bare-bulb head or focused speedlight head for the same amount.

Also, CRI can be extremely misleading for LEDs. No LED source has a true full spectrum, so it's easy to fudge the CRI numbers. I'd want to see some real test result reviews.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 20:36 UTC as 25th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

contadorfan: Very curious. Why did Lynn Goldsmith wait 33 years to file suit?

Not Andy's best work. I think the AW Estate should settle by handing over all these lame portraits to Goldsmith.

A magazine rarely buys more than limited license to use a work, and I'd be surprised if Vanity Fair bought more than a license for more than that.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 21:05 UTC
In reply to:

RadGuy: Goldsmith has no case, unfortunately. It's a derivative work of Goldsmith's photograph. And it hasn't impacted Goldsmith's ability to sell her original photo. She'll lose in court.

I don't understand why you say that. According to the government (taken from copyright.gov:

"Right to Prepare Derivative Works
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare,
or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of
that work. The owner of a copyright is generally the author
or someone who has obtained the exclusive rights from the
author. In any case where a copyrighted work is used without
the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection
will not extend to any part of the work in which such material
has been used unlawfully. The unauthorized adaption of
a work may constitute copyright infringement"

That reads to me that "derivative work" is no magic phrase that eliminates the need for permission from the copyright holder of the original work.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 21:00 UTC
In reply to:

DavidsfotosDotCom: I would rather know what they think their BEST lens are! Are they favorites because they designed them, because they are better than Zeiss or why?
How about a follow up with these question?

Going along with blackcoffee17, even asking what they think are their best lenses might be a matter of which lens was the most challenging, even if the final design wasn't particularly outstanding in image quality. I can easily see a guy from the FD age being more proud of the last lens he designed with a slide rule and ingenuity than any designed with the aid of a computer.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 23:43 UTC
In reply to:

Petak: We are so lucky to be able to see a cadavre and a killer in the biggest quality. Looking forward to the 3D presentation executed by the trained professionals from AP next time. As for bravery - the photographer was most likely asked by the terrorist to stay and take pictures as the media coverage is an essential (if not the main) goal of these acts of terror. In such cases I consider the media to be more of an accomplice than a hero.

Suggesting with zero evidence that the photographer had the favor of the terrorist is morally low.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 12:28 UTC
In reply to:

jonathanj: Personally I'd add an LCD screen protector - camera LCDs seem far more prone to pick up scratches than phones or tablets. Generally I take the camera down to a local phone shop and ask them to cut a clear phone protector to fit - not all of the will make the effort, but those that do can generally do it faster and neater than I can.

Canon DSLRs (at least those with fixed screens) already have protectors. The exposed screen surface is actually a plastic cover held on with a strong adhesive tape. You can Google for instructions on changing it, or sent it to a repair shop.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 17:19 UTC

Leibovitz

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2016 at 16:00 UTC as 17th comment
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (760 comments in total)

Kodak Box Brownie Hawkeye, 1966. First camera after I became permanently addicted to hypo was a Petri 7s, and a Yashica D TLR soon after that.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 23:55 UTC as 66th comment
Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18