Joined on Sep 25, 2012


Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15
On article Ten one-of-a-kind cameras from the 21st century (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

Woodlink: I wonder how many images still exist that were made from these cameras?

I have thousands from my Sony DSC-R1, a fabulous camera for its time that I still own (but hardly use now), alongside my more conventional Canon 5D mkIII

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 06:51 UTC
In reply to:

whtchocla7e: film wasn't just a 2d array of finite integer values either. it had soul, man :(

The sensor is analogue, the signal is then converted by an analogue to digital converter (ADC) which can be up to 16 bits. That's a significantly wider range than you get from film - even Kodachrome 25, which I used to use all the time.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2013 at 06:57 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: I don't think think the photographer is dissing film. He has done a remarkable job of representing the tv show in its mood and colour palette. If I wore a hat it would go off to him.
It's more like DPreview had taken the photographers line out of context and is using it to create a title to provoke anti film discussion.
Lets see some 25iso film on medium or large format and see how sharp that is.
And to take it a step further, lets look at 2-4 ISO tin or glass plates (I know, it's technically not film). I have a modern 3 ISO image captured on 8x10 tin that is sharper than anything digital can produce.

You mean sharper than anything '35 mm' digital can reproduce. Try comparing with the Hasselblad H4D-200, a medium-format camera directly descended from the classic studio photographer's favourite film camera, but with 200MP resolution. That has more resolution than the best available Zeiss lenses, and lenses were never the limit in the days of film. Think of a 60-inch wide print at 300dpi, so it is still pin-sharp viewed from a foot away!

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2013 at 06:46 UTC
In reply to:

Provia_fan: Film was never this sharp because it was more faithful than digital is. It's almost like the old vynil vs CD debate. Are CDs really better because it cuts off unwanted frequencies?

Typical comment by someone who doesn't understand that 33.33 vinyl has less bandwidth than CD, and *much* less dynamic range. OTOH, it has loads more distortion! :-)
BTW, film is basically digital, as a single grain (actually clump of grains after development) is either black or white, the difference being that film has the equivalent of around 12 bits of resolution, but good modern sensors have around 14 bits. Please also get over the notion that digiital has 'stairsteps', dithering removes that issue, leaving a smooth dynamic range much wider than any analogue medium (especially true of vinyl vs CD, but also applies to film vs digital).

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2013 at 06:32 UTC

I had a similar discussion with a friend who photographed a near-miss at an air show where a jet fighter is on full thrust, afterburners, everything flat to the wall trying to avoid hitting the ground on a slow pass that went a bit too low. Great shot, but in the mostly green and grey background there is a red/white striped pole which is very distracting. When I suggested that the shot would be better with the pole removed, his (somewhat pretentious IMO) reply was "Certainly not - that shot is *far* too important for that!"

Food for thought - absolute accuracy to the scene, or removal of a distracting irrelevance?

Link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 07:12 UTC as 51st comment
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: Nikon's brutal side.......

BTW, Nikon microscopes are helping to cure cancer...........

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 07:41 UTC
In reply to:

scottmontreal: Why are most of the comments supportive of Nikon aiding killing trophy animals, not addressing this point: "research by Scientific American magazine research that suggests the practice may have contributed to a halving of the population of lions in Africa over 30 years." It is not about free choice or the market - as animals don't have that option, do they?

If you think that a rifle 'scope is truly helpful in hunting dangerous game, you have certainly not been stood 30 yards from a charging rhino.......

BTW, lions are *really* nasty animals whose numbers do need to be held down. Funny how no one wants to preserve their canine counterpart, the hyena, even though hyenas don't kill babies sired by a different father, like lions do.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 07:39 UTC
In reply to:

kozack: People, where is your common sense?
What is wrong with rifle scopes and "black continent"?
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

Actually 'blackhet' is just an ignorant fool - *real* conservationists understand that trophy safaris are *funding* game conservation, without them the African elephant would probably be extinct in the wild.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 07:36 UTC
In reply to:

B1ackhat: All you ignorant buffoons who are incapable of compassion or empathy can make all the jokes you'd like, but I won't buy another thing from Nikon as long as they support trophy hunting. I won't support Nike, Subway, Modell's, Proctor & Ganble, and a slew of other companies so what's one more?

I have lots of empathy - but not for ignorant fools who don't understand that it's dangerous game safaris that support game conservation. I presume you *do* support Obama killing innocent civilians in perfect safety?

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 07:34 UTC
In reply to:

CollBaxter: As to these scopes and the rest used by hunters. I am not pro hunting or anti hunting. I live in Africa and here we are pragmatic about it. Poaching is the problem not organized controlled hunting. Most controlled hunting takes place on game farms where you pay for what you shoot. These farms are the corner stone of conservation in Africa as these game farmers breed animals that would have normally been allowed to die out. They put a value to the animal and therefore it is protected. They also know to balance nature they have to have non valuable assets. So if people want to visit to satisfy some blood lust or primitive urge then they are welcome to come with their expensive toys and pay for to get their rocks off. It we did not have this the farmers would have moved in cows .

As to scopes go into a gun store and see how many brands there are. Nikon is one of many. They screwed up when they mentioned safari. A true wild lion is not a Disney character that eats coco pops.

Well said - I get really bored by bleeding hearts who want to protect fluffy seal cubs but not rare scorpions, and especially by those ignorant fools who do not understand that dangerous game safaris are funding most of the game conservation in Africa. Funny how those same people (invariably American) don't seem to have a problem with radio-controlled US drones killing women and kids in Afghanistan at no risk whatever to their pilots............

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 07:32 UTC

So you think it would be better if hunters used inferior 'scopes, thereby reducing the chance of a clean kill? BTW, serious hunters of dangerous game have traditionally used double rifles with open sights, allowing unrestricted vision and a very fast second shot.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 07:27 UTC as 72nd comment | 5 replies

In 'years to come', you will not be able to turn off autoposting, because the government will insist that all citizens wear Google Glass (or more likely the implanted equivalent.......) all the time. After all, if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear........

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2013 at 07:27 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

Esign: For Nikon users, Capture NX 2 is the only RAW converter you need. I guess Canon user will also say that of DPP. How much market share is now covered?

Guessing is dangerous - I use a Canon 5D mkIII and I definitely get better results from Photoshop ACR than from DPP.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2013 at 08:31 UTC
In reply to:

T3: People seem to be ignoring the significance of the built-in Wifi and GPS. Sure, narrow-minded photographers will ignore anything that doesn't specifically impact picture-taking. But we're living in a new age now, and not everyone is so narrow in their perspective of what a camera can and should be able to do. Most cameras are already more capable in the picture-taking department than most of their users ever will be. Things like Wifi and GPS acknowledge that we now live in a very web-connected and location-intelligent world, and these things are very important in today's new least for those of us who are smart enough to embrace what these new features allow us to do. But alas, there will still be people who will say "if it doesn't help me take better pictures, it's a pointless junk feature!" Then they'll go back to pixel peeping details and differences in IQ that no one will ever notice anyway.

I think the more important point is that the cost of the WiFi and GPS features could have been put to better focusing. WiFi and GPS are useful features, but a smartphone can do that and take pictures too, leaving the *serious* photography to the SLR.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2013 at 11:15 UTC
Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15