SteB

SteB

Lives in United Kingdom North Shropshire, United Kingdom
Joined on Apr 3, 2007

Comments

Total: 355, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

PC-dot-Com: Way too much over reaction.

@jkochich - It's actually now 8 deaths in the US. Next week it will be far more, and far more the week after. The death rate from COVID-19 is 20-100x greater than for flu.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2020 at 03:35 UTC

The whole premise of this article is fallacious. This premise is that this is a Chinese problem. Yet most experts say this will be a global outbreak. It won't be the shortage of Chinese components which will be the problem, it will be that manufacturing and transport will close down everywhere, and not just in China. There will be a far bigger problem outside China than within it.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2020 at 03:30 UTC as 57th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

SteB: One things for certain and that is the rumours were completely accurate. Obviously these rumours emanated from someone who had been to Canon briefings for dealers, or maybe beta testers. The other details released by the rumours sites are probably derived from these briefings. As they were likely repeating what they were told from memory it's likely some information may have got distorted in the telling. However it's still likely to be in the right ball park.

It's likely the rumours about the R6 are correct. Canon probably just wanted to make a development announcement about the R5 to lay down a marker to indicate to photographers that they will have R cameras that are competitive with or possibly outperform all other FF mirrorless cameras. I think it likely that Canon didn't announce the development of the R6, because as many speculated these cameras will probably replace the DSLR lines with the same designation and didn't want to cannibalise sales in the mean time.

What I mean by the above is the the R and RP lines will probably become obsolete if the R5 and R6 are essentially to replace the DSLR lines with the same numerical designation. If the R6 line is to replace the 6D line, and it seems likely given from the rumours sites saying it didn't have a full magnesium body and lacked an LCD top display, I don't see how it would leave a space for either the R or RP, given an entry level type camera with IBIS, 12 fps mechanical and 20 fps electronic would leave no room for in between models. I suppose it would be possible for their to be an updated 30+mp camera in between, but I doubt it.

I suppose they could cut the price of the RP and have it for a while as a basic entry level camera. But I don't see either the R or RP remaining around long if the pricing of the R6 is in 6D territory. I think the R and RP were simply placeholders so people could use the RF lenses already released. But the manufacturer never like to say a camera is obsolete.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2020 at 08:19 UTC

One things for certain and that is the rumours were completely accurate. Obviously these rumours emanated from someone who had been to Canon briefings for dealers, or maybe beta testers. The other details released by the rumours sites are probably derived from these briefings. As they were likely repeating what they were told from memory it's likely some information may have got distorted in the telling. However it's still likely to be in the right ball park.

It's likely the rumours about the R6 are correct. Canon probably just wanted to make a development announcement about the R5 to lay down a marker to indicate to photographers that they will have R cameras that are competitive with or possibly outperform all other FF mirrorless cameras. I think it likely that Canon didn't announce the development of the R6, because as many speculated these cameras will probably replace the DSLR lines with the same designation and didn't want to cannibalise sales in the mean time.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2020 at 08:04 UTC as 274th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

1Dx4me: i find it that this camera is catering to video guys rather than photogs! that doesn't sound good. people can go out and buy dedicated 8K video cameras at great prices, why they can't leave us alone? what a disappointment.

It will be primarily a stills camera as FF cameras in this niche are primarily bought by professional and enthusiast stills photographers, who also shoot video. Canon already produces a range of video specific cameras.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2020 at 07:49 UTC
In reply to:

2stepbay: Lovely pictures. Advances in technology over the past 10 years have been profound allowing everyone to see the world and the cosmos unlike ever before. Regardless of what, who, or to what is impacting the environment or to what extent such actions are having on climate patterns, it’s nonetheless important for mankind to strive to be much better stewards of our home planet. We can start with over population. Over population, regardless of species, has never been a lasting strategy on Earth. Ultimately at such times historical records show the environment has reorganized itself, creating a new balance. Sometimes that means mass extinction. Never a good day for earthly inhabitants. In all respects we can do better environmentally and socially. Generations of future children are depending on it.

@Bev81 from France

It's nothing to do with political correctness or ethics, it's to do with mathematics and population dynamics. There is no practical way to stop the population growing for some considerable time, during which if we don't address the climate and ecological emergency, then a large proportion of the human population will starve to death. No it won't just be poor people in far off countries, because our civilization would collapse and this starvation would be in every country.

As for finding another planet, it's now 48 years since the last person walked on the Moon, I watched it live. Everyone thought it would be just a few more years before we flew to Mars. We have been unable to fly one person to our nearest planet, let alone billions to more distant planets. The richest 10% produce 50% of all global emissions, and the poorest 50%, only 10% of emissions. It's not just about population, but consumption.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2020 at 04:07 UTC
In reply to:

2stepbay: Lovely pictures. Advances in technology over the past 10 years have been profound allowing everyone to see the world and the cosmos unlike ever before. Regardless of what, who, or to what is impacting the environment or to what extent such actions are having on climate patterns, it’s nonetheless important for mankind to strive to be much better stewards of our home planet. We can start with over population. Over population, regardless of species, has never been a lasting strategy on Earth. Ultimately at such times historical records show the environment has reorganized itself, creating a new balance. Sometimes that means mass extinction. Never a good day for earthly inhabitants. In all respects we can do better environmentally and socially. Generations of future children are depending on it.

@Bev81 from France. Certainly it is a good idea to reduce population growth, the birth rate etc, using fair and ethical means. It really needs more international cooperation to be effective and not discriminatory. The size of the overall population is a problem and my main point was simply to point out that there's no ethical means to address the climate and ecological crisis in the window of opportunity for reasons the paper I linked to explains. This is simply because often some people mistakenly imply that population control is an alternative means of solving this problem.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2020 at 20:42 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: Just a reminder to the climate change deniers on here. Every single major scientific organization in the world i.e. the type the represents that field of science at national or international level, in every field of science, in every country in the world broadly supports the description of anthropogenic climate change as summarised by the IPCC. I know of not one single exception. Most have statements, or web pages openly stating this. Every time I challenge deniers and contrarians to give an exception to this they can't.

This is despite the deniers trying to flannel the public with the lie that climate science isn't proper science (it is), or that it is politically motivated (it isn't).

We mustn't forget that this is not merely a climate crisis, because as the IPBES Global Assessment details, it's a general ecological crisis and even if the climate crisis did not exist, we would still be facing an existential threat to our civilization, because of biodiversity loss, and much more.

@Finy

The IPCC the inter-governmental panel on climate change is the UN body which collates and assesses scientific evidence on climate change and produces reports to inform governments on the state of research and the risks associated with climate change. It doesn't do any scientific research itself.
https://www.ipcc.ch/about/

It's not one of the scientific organizations I referred to. I simply said these scientific organizations, which represents particular fields of science and their practitioners at national or international level, broadly agree with the summaries of anthropogenic climate change ACC that the IPCC produces. Most of these organizations have web pages or declarations stating this. My point was simply to illustrate that there is broad scientific agreement on ACC regardless of the field of science or the country or regime that organization is from. Contradicting the claim that climate science is somehow not real science or it's conclusions controversial.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2020 at 20:36 UTC
In reply to:

2stepbay: Lovely pictures. Advances in technology over the past 10 years have been profound allowing everyone to see the world and the cosmos unlike ever before. Regardless of what, who, or to what is impacting the environment or to what extent such actions are having on climate patterns, it’s nonetheless important for mankind to strive to be much better stewards of our home planet. We can start with over population. Over population, regardless of species, has never been a lasting strategy on Earth. Ultimately at such times historical records show the environment has reorganized itself, creating a new balance. Sometimes that means mass extinction. Never a good day for earthly inhabitants. In all respects we can do better environmentally and socially. Generations of future children are depending on it.

There is no question as to the contribution anthropogenic carbon emissions are having on the climate. Every single scientific organization in the world, in every field of science (not just climate science), in every country broadly accepts the description of anthropogenic climate change as summarised by the IPCC. There are no exceptions. It is hard science accepted as fact by the vast majority of scientists in all fields who do not have an ideological reason to deny it.

This peer reviewed paper explains both human population why population control can make no useful contribution to addressing environmental impacts in the limited window of opportunity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2020 at 07:11 UTC

Just a reminder to the climate change deniers on here. Every single major scientific organization in the world i.e. the type the represents that field of science at national or international level, in every field of science, in every country in the world broadly supports the description of anthropogenic climate change as summarised by the IPCC. I know of not one single exception. Most have statements, or web pages openly stating this. Every time I challenge deniers and contrarians to give an exception to this they can't.

This is despite the deniers trying to flannel the public with the lie that climate science isn't proper science (it is), or that it is politically motivated (it isn't).

We mustn't forget that this is not merely a climate crisis, because as the IPBES Global Assessment details, it's a general ecological crisis and even if the climate crisis did not exist, we would still be facing an existential threat to our civilization, because of biodiversity loss, and much more.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2020 at 07:05 UTC as 27th comment | 5 replies

I don't really use Flickr for storing images, and despite having been a pro user for quite a long time, I've still got less than a 1000 images on there, just using it to share interesting photos. So I'm really going to have to think about this.

What's more Flickr hasn't been working properly for me for a couple of years, and just hangs up and is sort of buggy. It really isn't what it used to be. Probably time to ditch the pro account.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2020 at 23:12 UTC as 20th comment

I don't think this statement actually says what a lot of people are claiming it says. We already know that Canon is concentrating on RF lenses and the the current DSLRs which were already in R&D and are now being released like the IDx mkIII could be the last in their line of DSLRs. This is because by time their replacements are needed we will be several more years down the line, the R system will be far more developed then.

The EF lens line up is already fairly complete. There are lenses needing updates, but not that many. Companies only release lenses if they think there will be a demand, and that is what Canon is saying.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2020 at 11:41 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies

As I said originally, the criteria was very inconsistent. The original Sony A7/R cameras, which have been superseded by several iterations of much better cameras, were pitted against the latest iteration of the Nikon D800 series cameras. So what was this about, the most innovative camera released in the last 10 years, or the best. If the criteria had been consistent the A7/R would have been pitted against the original D800, or the A7 III/A7R IV against the D850.

I have no bias here as I'm a Canon user. I just cannot understand the criteria used here as the cameras nominated varied between the first in the line of cameras which have been updated with much improved iterations, middle models, and the latest models in these iterations.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2020 at 11:21 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

obsolescence: To find sensor spots, shoot a clear sky at the smallest aperture available.

It's even more effective if you have a macro lens. This is because at 1:1 or smaller, the effective aperture of the smallest aperture on your lens, will be at least 2 f-stops smaller, meaning the dust spots will be even more visible.

Attach the macro lens. Set it on your smallest aperture, focus the lens at it's closest point, aim it at an even area of illumination like a cloudy sky, light colour wall etc, using a low ISO. Your exposure will be in seconds. Just keep moving the camera around slightly for the period of the exposure for even illumination. Then do an auto levels adjust on your image, and all the marks on your sensor will be crystal clear. Prepare to be horrified. You only need to get rid of the clear marks as the rest will not show up in ordinary images.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2020 at 12:43 UTC

The claim in the video that these were water droplets on the lens, and not sensor spots was almost certainly wrong. These were most definitely sensor spots. Objects on the lens will always show up as blurred areas in the image, and not discrete circles. The technical reason for this is that objects or marks on the lens are so far out of the depth of field that they will be completely out of focus. The marks in this video have clear boundaries.

I think it is somewhat remiss of DPreview to highlight videos that mislead it's readers with technically inaccurate explanations.

If you see spots with clearly defined edges and shapes in your images like this, you need to clean your sensor, not your lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2020 at 12:35 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article Have your say: Most important cameras of the 2010s (416 comments in total)

There's been some incredible cameras in the last decade, which are so much better, than the digital cameras in the preceding decade. However, I'm not going to vote, because that list is somewhat arbitrary, and it is very difficult to understand the criteria. It includes innovative cameras which have now been superseded by even more capable cameras, and contrarily the latest great cameras, which are the pinnacle of previous iterations.

Let me give some examples of this. It has the Nikon D850, the latest iteration of that line, and which many regard as the best all round DSLR made. Yet it has the Sony A7/R the original cameras of this line, now superseded by much better cameras in that line. It has the original Olympus OMD E-M5, now superseded by much better cameras. It has the Panasonic GH5, the latest in that line. So what is the criteria, is it cameras that were innovative at the time, or is it about the best camera of that type/line? It's muddled and confused to say the least.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2019 at 12:27 UTC as 50th comment
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: I don't have a lot of good to say about these pictures. There are excellent photographs here, of course, but many of them look fake and it takes quite a stretch to include some in the "wildlife" category.
The eagle with bucketloads of HDR is repulsive. Its presence amongst the award winners strips the contest of its credibility.
I know some will reply "show us your photos, then", but this is my opinion. I don't feel any need to flatter the photographers (or graphic artists).

@Santamonica812

Shooting into the light like this means you're going to have to do tonal adjustments. But I don't see anything which couldn't be achieved with the highlight, shadows, exposure, along with the black and white point sliders in Lightroom.

I think the whole concept of "over-processed" is false. There is this idea some people have that the standard settings for JPEGs are some type of pure setting. this is simply not true. Firstly our eyes see far more dynamic range than these settings (our brains also process visual images), and secondly these are arbitrary parameters to render average scenes. All you're effectively doing is altering these parameters to suit the lighting of a scene, and trying to make it more as we would actually see the scene which is often very difficult to create. If we look at a high contrast, high dynamic range scene, we see details in highlights and shadows well beyond what is captured on standard JPEG settings, which are themselves artificial.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2019 at 09:18 UTC
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: I don't have a lot of good to say about these pictures. There are excellent photographs here, of course, but many of them look fake and it takes quite a stretch to include some in the "wildlife" category.
The eagle with bucketloads of HDR is repulsive. Its presence amongst the award winners strips the contest of its credibility.
I know some will reply "show us your photos, then", but this is my opinion. I don't feel any need to flatter the photographers (or graphic artists).

No, you pre-empted that people would ask you this rather obvious question, and gave no cogent explanation of why you wouldn't. I saw what you said, and if you can't demonstrate your photographic abilities, it says your opinions are meaningless. You have not addressed my point that the Eagle photo looks like this because of fill-in flash, and not HDR as you falsely suggested. The information clearly says it was taken with a wide-angle lens using fill-in flash. Maybe you just don't know what fill-in flash is and how this sort of photo is taken.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2019 at 15:10 UTC
In reply to:

walker2000: The first shot is amazing, but I'd like to know how much post processing was done. If it is real decisive moment, I admire it.

@David M. Anglin

Firstly, the rules of the competition require all short-listed entries to provide the original RAW file or unedited file type the photograph was taken in for authentication. In the past at least 2 winning photos have been disqualified when investigations found there was deception with the description. Once when the Wolf featured was found to be a tame animal from a zoo and then when a Giant Ant-eater was found to have been a taxidermy specimen. Given this I think they would have subjected all winning entries to close scrutiny.

Almost certainly the misalignment is caused by this being a frozen moment from a fast moving moment, and it is quite normal for the eyes to be temporarily out of alignment as the animal tries to track what is happening.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2019 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: I don't have a lot of good to say about these pictures. There are excellent photographs here, of course, but many of them look fake and it takes quite a stretch to include some in the "wildlife" category.
The eagle with bucketloads of HDR is repulsive. Its presence amongst the award winners strips the contest of its credibility.
I know some will reply "show us your photos, then", but this is my opinion. I don't feel any need to flatter the photographers (or graphic artists).

Please do show us your supposedly pure photos?

The Wildlife Photographer of the year has some of the strictest rules on how images were taken. See the rules on the link below. As regards processing allowed, certain adjustments "are permitted providing that they comply with the Competition’s principles of authenticity so that they do not deceive the viewer or misrepresent the reality of nature.".
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/competition/adult-competition/rules.html

By claiming that the Eagle photo was created with "bucketloads of HDR" you demonstrate that you have minimum understanding of wildlife photography. The effect is actually created with fill-in flash, and you'd be aware of this if you'd actually bothered to read the description of how the photo was taken.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2019 at 13:44 UTC
Total: 355, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »