Prognathous

Lives in Israel Israel
Joined on Nov 24, 2003

Comments

Total: 378, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Prognathous: I'm only using Crashplan for a local backup (to another computer in the same network). Is this mode going to be blocked too? In other words, will the software become completely unusable after Oct 23?

Crashplan backup still works in my case between two machines at home. Have they changed their plans? One can only hope...

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2017 at 10:23 UTC

Damage control.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 16:40 UTC as 41st comment
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1452 comments in total)
In reply to:

jimjulian: Everyone please make an informed, personal choice, but have the facts: You post-processing is completely INTACT, but you can't edit further. You catalog will be perpetually available. Your Raw files are yours, and they are married to an XMP sidecar files, which contains your edits.

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/what-happens-to-lightroom-after-my-membership-ends.html

"With Lightroom 5.5, at the end of a membership, the desktop application will continue to launch and provide access to the photographs managed within Lightroom as well as the Slideshow, Web, Book or Print creations that we know many photographers painstakingly create. The Develop and Map modules have been disabled in order to signal the end of the membership and the need to renew in order to receive Adobe’s continuous innovation in those areas. Access to Lightroom mobile workflows will also cease to function. We hope this meets the expectations of our customers and we look forward to an ongoing dialog."

@MikeRan - when it comes to software licensing, perpetual (which I assume is what you allude to by "Indefinitely") does mean forever. It means that the customer has the legal right to use the software forever. Whether they'll be able to make it work forever (i.e. survive OS updates or re-installation after disk crashes) is not guaranteed, but their right to use it is.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 15:37 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1452 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedWattlebird: I'm very nervous to have all my photos, and an incalculable amount of hours worth of editing, tied up in a catalogue held at ransom by Adobe.

@Richard Butler - is this a method that Adobe officially supports and guarantees to work, or something that just happens to work now? Does the trial-expired installation enable all catalog features?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 05:58 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1452 comments in total)
In reply to:

jimjulian: Everyone please make an informed, personal choice, but have the facts: You post-processing is completely INTACT, but you can't edit further. You catalog will be perpetually available. Your Raw files are yours, and they are married to an XMP sidecar files, which contains your edits.

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/what-happens-to-lightroom-after-my-membership-ends.html

"With Lightroom 5.5, at the end of a membership, the desktop application will continue to launch and provide access to the photographs managed within Lightroom as well as the Slideshow, Web, Book or Print creations that we know many photographers painstakingly create. The Develop and Map modules have been disabled in order to signal the end of the membership and the need to renew in order to receive Adobe’s continuous innovation in those areas. Access to Lightroom mobile workflows will also cease to function. We hope this meets the expectations of our customers and we look forward to an ongoing dialog."

You *do* lose access when the last version you own of Lightroom can no longer be installed on a new version of Windows or Mac OS. Will Adobe then release a new version that supports the new OS and provide it for free to customers who purchased a perpetual license? I think everyone knows the answer.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 05:53 UTC
On article Nikon D850 Review (2037 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prognathous: DPReview: Did you ask Nikon why the camera needs extra hardware to reach 9 FPS? Could it be that technically the camera is capable of doing it as-is, but it's artificially capped to get people to pay more? I'm not aware of other cameras (including those that offer higher framerate) that has a similar limitation.

@Slideshow Bob - I have no issue with Nikon (or any other vendor) requiring users to pay for a license to get more functionality. Just say that's what it is. Don't try to claim there are technical reasons for it when other vendors clearly show that getting the top framerate can be done with regular camera batteries.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 13:24 UTC
On article Nikon D850 Review (2037 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prognathous: DPReview: Did you ask Nikon why the camera needs extra hardware to reach 9 FPS? Could it be that technically the camera is capable of doing it as-is, but it's artificially capped to get people to pay more? I'm not aware of other cameras (including those that offer higher framerate) that has a similar limitation.

@Slideshow Bob - you really think resolution and a a different type of battery are linked? If so, the smaller Sony A99 would need a different battery too, but it shoots 42MP files at 12 FPS with the same battery used in even smaller cameras. I'm pretty sure high-resolution-high-framerate doesn't require special batteries. It requires a fast processor.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 05:28 UTC
On article Nikon D850 Review (2037 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prognathous: DPReview: Did you ask Nikon why the camera needs extra hardware to reach 9 FPS? Could it be that technically the camera is capable of doing it as-is, but it's artificially capped to get people to pay more? I'm not aware of other cameras (including those that offer higher framerate) that has a similar limitation.

@awny13 - Canon's top of the line APS and FF cameras offer constant FPS rate, no upgrades needed. So do Pentax and Sony (granted the latter doesn't make DSLRs, but does make cameras with higher framerate and mechanical shutters).

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 20:29 UTC
On article Nikon D850 Review (2037 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prognathous: DPReview: Did you ask Nikon why the camera needs extra hardware to reach 9 FPS? Could it be that technically the camera is capable of doing it as-is, but it's artificially capped to get people to pay more? I'm not aware of other cameras (including those that offer higher framerate) that has a similar limitation.

Thanks for posting the other examples, but they are all Nikon cameras. How do other brands manage to deliver higher framerate without requiring extra hardware?

Any opinion whether this is artificial capping to get people to spend more or a real design limitation?

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 18:46 UTC
On article Nikon D850 Review (2037 comments in total)

DPReview: Did you ask Nikon why the camera needs extra hardware to reach 9 FPS? Could it be that technically the camera is capable of doing it as-is, but it's artificially capped to get people to pay more? I'm not aware of other cameras (including those that offer higher framerate) that has a similar limitation.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 17:55 UTC as 125th comment | 19 replies
In reply to:

Prognathous: I'll consider one when:

- It has a 24-70/2.0-3.5 lens (closer to what the Panasonic LX100 has)
- A tilting LCD instead of a side-hinge one
- Price is a few hundred dollars lower

@Ben of the North - side hinge is good for selfies, but poor for waist level photography. It's not by chance that only relatively cheap cameras use it, and that all professional cameras with articulating screens use tilting displays (or at least displayes that remain centered behind the lens)

@breschdlingsgsaelz - the point is that the lens on this one is too slow for the money. I expect something equivalent to what the LX100 offers, but acknowledge that the maximum aperture will not be the same, given that the sensor size is not the same.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 17:48 UTC

I'll consider one when:

- It has a 24-70/2.0-3.5 lens (closer to what the Panasonic LX100 has)
- A tilting LCD instead of a side-hinge one
- Price is a few hundred dollars lower

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 12:27 UTC as 119th comment | 4 replies
On article ICYMI: Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM sample gallery (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: The question is:
Is it better than SONY's FE 28mm F2? Which is twice faster and $50 cheaper.

It's relevant to Sony shooters debating between the Canon and the Sony lens ;-)

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

JEROME NOLAS: Who will buy it at this price??? Insane!!!

Just shows how much of a steal the Nikon 200-500/5.6 is, at $1400.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 23:33 UTC

> "We will now soon republish this type of camera, and Pentax 645Z should be published soon […] in a matter of days"

It's still not there. How difficult is it to add it?

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 18:29 UTC as 41st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

mckracken88: yeah fake pics, with low image quality, no thanks.
My d800 could be 3 times as heavy and i would still use it instead of a pocket phone.

With a lens, more like 10 times as heavy, but I agree. The camera is the least interesting feature of a smartphone, as far as I'm concerned.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 15:16 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prognathous: [Part 1]
> Syncing the SLR shutter and digital exposure

Modern sensors don't get so hot in long exposure. Instead of trying to synchronize, how about keeping the sensor on (like in a long exposure), and finish exposure (and transfer to the card) as soon as exposure ends? After all, the mechanical shutter is still there to limit exposure. Battery life may not be great, but there are probably ways to optimize it.

> A means of changing the digital settings

Assuming the product doesn’t also include a dedicated back (which would be the most elegant solution, but camera-specific), one way would be to include a generic module attached to the bottom of the camera, which can host an LCD screen and buttons. Communication between the sensor-cartridge can be done wirelessly.

Alternatively, don’t offer any external control or screen and require the user to open the camera back to change ISO. It’s not like film shooters are used to changing ISO mid-roll (possible, but painful).

[Part 3]
> Space for batteries and processing hardware

For the sensor-cartridge the battery should be in the place normally consumed by the film roll. Processing within this module should be minimal. I don’t think anyone would complain if the product only supported transferring (or storing) RAW files.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 13:49 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prognathous: [Part 1]
> Syncing the SLR shutter and digital exposure

Modern sensors don't get so hot in long exposure. Instead of trying to synchronize, how about keeping the sensor on (like in a long exposure), and finish exposure (and transfer to the card) as soon as exposure ends? After all, the mechanical shutter is still there to limit exposure. Battery life may not be great, but there are probably ways to optimize it.

> A means of changing the digital settings

Assuming the product doesn’t also include a dedicated back (which would be the most elegant solution, but camera-specific), one way would be to include a generic module attached to the bottom of the camera, which can host an LCD screen and buttons. Communication between the sensor-cartridge can be done wirelessly.

Alternatively, don’t offer any external control or screen and require the user to open the camera back to change ISO. It’s not like film shooters are used to changing ISO mid-roll (possible, but painful).

[Part 2]
> Keeping the cost reasonable

When compared to modern digital cameras, cost isn’t going to be reasonable for the simple reason that very few people would be interested in such a product compared to just buying a digital camera. This is a given I think, but it doesn’t make such a project impossible. Just not very likely to be a commercial success.

> Sensor/film plane alignment

The camera's film plane is solid and will take care of this. The sensor-cartridge just needs to ensure that sensor is accurately aligned within its own container (which is a something that all digital cameras need to do anyway).

> Compatibility across the dwindling supply of film SLRs

Without a dedicated-back, all focal-plane shutter 35mm cameras should be compatible, both new and old, as long as the solution adheres to the same dimensions of film rolls. At most, the horizontal centering of the sensor will need to be adjustable.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 13:48 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (285 comments in total)

[Part 1]
> Syncing the SLR shutter and digital exposure

Modern sensors don't get so hot in long exposure. Instead of trying to synchronize, how about keeping the sensor on (like in a long exposure), and finish exposure (and transfer to the card) as soon as exposure ends? After all, the mechanical shutter is still there to limit exposure. Battery life may not be great, but there are probably ways to optimize it.

> A means of changing the digital settings

Assuming the product doesn’t also include a dedicated back (which would be the most elegant solution, but camera-specific), one way would be to include a generic module attached to the bottom of the camera, which can host an LCD screen and buttons. Communication between the sensor-cartridge can be done wirelessly.

Alternatively, don’t offer any external control or screen and require the user to open the camera back to change ISO. It’s not like film shooters are used to changing ISO mid-roll (possible, but painful).

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 13:48 UTC as 94th comment | 3 replies

Summary of why this product *shouldn't* be developed:

- The low light capability of a Q camera with most Nikon lenses would be far inferior to even a low-end DSLR with cheap and light prime lenses like 50/1.8 or 35/1.8
- For those not owning a Q camera, buying one (if you can find one) and then this adapter would be an expensive affair. If one wants FF so badly, a Sony A7 won't be that much more expensive that such a kit, and is available for purchase new.
- A Q camera with a FF Nikon lens is a front heavy and unwieldy combination. The complete opposite of a Q camera with a native lens.
- The Q system is practically discontinued, and the already-tiny userbase isn't likely to grow.

So why would Metabones develop this? Could it be they don't actually intend to bring it to the market and just want the headlines? I can't think of any other reason.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 06:56 UTC as 34th comment | 3 replies
Total: 378, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »