randfee2

Joined on Mar 24, 2015

Comments

Total: 163, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

derfotograf: Impossible in Europe, especially in Germany: Streetlights have to be dimmed down, shops and offices must turn off lights after 8:00 pm, public buildings are no longer illuminated. We returned to the dark age, thanks to our unqualified government and sanctions for Russian energy. I envy everyone who does not currently live in Europe.

I'm german too and I would LOVE to see us switch of all unnecessary lighting during the nights, at least after 90% of the population are asleep. Not just because it's a waste of energy, but also because it's always simple to add light but merely impossible to remove it.
Riding the cars and bikes have lights, why not carry a flashlight if you want to see more as a pedestrian. I'm from the countryside, I grew up "in the dark" and it was beautiful. I never complained about it, needed to see when on foot without enough moonlight?... grab a flashlight!

As a night owl with hobbies photography AND astronomy, I would pay to have all the lights switched off, because when I actually want to go to sleep, the stupid (because always on) street light across the road keeps me awake for longer than necessary, that's also a side effect affecting many.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2022 at 22:20 UTC
On article Review: DJI Osmo Mobile 6 (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

owenleve: Are ya kidding m with these video samples? Again, WHAT A JOKE DP

I thought the same thing. low quality, mostly standing around not really showing what a gimbal is supposed to do!

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2022 at 00:27 UTC

That sharp all the way, wow! Great lens for the range and money!

Sony E-mount is the new EF-mount apparently. Wide variety of lenses left and right.
No words on how I envy Sony E-mount owners these days. I've been with Canon from 2001 and I just barely did forego switching when the R5 arrived (great cam). I went for Canon 20 years ago and STAYED because of the lens choice on EF mount. Shame RF is locked down now...

...I'd get this lens for trips in a heartbeat!

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2022 at 20:50 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply

I hate to say this but us hobbyists are bound to use EF/RF adapters for decades to come... not the compactness I was hoping for when looking at other DSLMs but that's what it is. Tons of good, well working EF lenses out there that will be the better value for a long time to come.
I would prefer cheaper RF lenses of course, they're better, more compact but just too pricey.
Anyone expecting falling prices is delusional IMHO, inflation was long overdue, it's not sustainable.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2022 at 14:20 UTC as 7th comment

stuff like this should never be allowed das a patent!!

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2022 at 22:05 UTC as 3rd comment

I guess everybody here knows, 'It's all about the lenses, less the camera". Well then:
for years many (including me) were saying: not going to switch to Sony, far too few lens options and what's there is very expensive.
I stayed with Canon and finally upgraded to R5 when it came out - no RF lenses though.

Now, 1.5 years later I have to admit, I wonder if I should have switched. For almost a decade I wanted the dynamic range and noise behavior of Sony Sensors, Canon (almost) caught up with the R5.
Now I keep wished I had access to all of the E-mount lenses!
Canon doesn't even bother to open the specs for the mount. I'm not sure how much longer I will take this - Canon is too pricey for a hobbyist and there seems nothing in the pipeline fro cheaper lenses.

I'll keep using my EF glass, but with the adapter it's longer and bigger, fine, but the AF for video is choppy and not super smooth how it could be.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2022 at 21:56 UTC as 1st comment

I have a similar setup. I find it almost impractical to use microscope objectives even at 2.5x hand-held because of their super shallow depth of field. With the R5 however, I just up the capture rate and then throw away 95% of shots, then it becomes just a sorting issue ;-)

I also regularly mount my cameras on a laboratory microscope. That + a good sample holder/rotator delivers even more stunning photos as one can do proper focus stacking and place and rotate (mostly dead) samples to one's liking. Adding a few optical fibers for illumination works wonders too. I can only recommend it... going beyond typical 1x macro photography is a whole new world... then again, I'm a physicist and true optics nerd - I like it :P

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2021 at 21:51 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

deep7: I find that photo amusing. Due to the small sensor, the earth and vessel are both perfectly in focus at decently useable aperture. You'd be tripping over yourself to reproduce that on the DSLR and maintain a fast enough shutter speed!

hm... I wouldn't think so. The phone camera is fixed aperture and you can obviously go much smaller that the equivalent aperture of maybe 10... resulting in smaller circles of confusion (unsharpness/blur) in relation to the image/frame. Also it is super bright up there, IF you're on the sunny side that is.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2021 at 22:51 UTC
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: Now imagine transferring that over a USB 2.0 lighting port....in 2021.

@Impulses, Wifi isn't even the bottleneck here, it's your internet connection. even 10Mbyte/s via WiFi is 80Mbit/s upload! Most people don't have that!
So the problem is partly due to Apple being entirely unrealistic, living in their symmetric gigabit fibre to the home bubble. I would actually not complain much if iPhones would allow a third party software like PhotoSync to actually work in the background and push all data to my local server at full WiFi speed, but having to upload to some internet server is not just unrealistic but also useless to me. I don't want the data there, I want it on my computers and storage!
I don't use even USB-3 USB-Sticks anymore, just USB-C 3.1 or 3.2 SSDs for data transfer if needed. My time is worth more than the extra cost of that.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2021 at 19:10 UTC
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: Now imagine transferring that over a USB 2.0 lighting port....in 2021.

@ all wireless lovers... waste of energy!

If you do wireless transfers all the time, your battery will obviously deplete... an annoyance and actually wasteful. If the cable transfer speed were decent, I could just transfer 100GB in <3mins and charge too!

An issue almost nobody seems to think or care about.
Everything wireless is a waste of energy compared to a wired connection. All those wireless lovers don't seems to care about the environment. Do the math. For the wireless charging iPhones alone we likely need an extra Gigawatt at peak times, basically your average coal or nuclear power plant JUST BECAUSE people are too lazy to put in a cable!

think about that for a second!

I and fellow scientist all over the globe working our asses off trying to save energy and create more of it cleanly only to see our efforts vaporised by dumb companies and selfish people that simply don't care... like apple and others.. with their wireless waste of energy!

perfect example for it ;-)

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2021 at 18:52 UTC
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: Now imagine transferring that over a USB 2.0 lighting port....in 2021.

@du four...
any idea how long it will take to transfer hundreds of gigabyte by your typical WiFi connection? probably an hour... yes, you can get the fastest WiFi 6 APs but if you don't sit right next to them for optimal performance but walk around (isn't that what WiFi is for?) your performance will likely not get past 30-50Mbyte/s, IF that! Because, surprise, not even 5% of the population even in our first world countries have Internet upload speeds of 400Mbit/s (=50MByte/s). Not gonna happen! ... And apple doesn't offer any option to push the data within your WiFi to your own storage, of course not :P

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2021 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: Now imagine transferring that over a USB 2.0 lighting port....in 2021.

@Ad12...
maybe because they literally promised to stick with lightning for 10 years when they released it, because so many people (apparently) have expensive accessories like active speakers and such.

Another possibility is greed.. they get license fees for every lightning cable, port and compatible devices.
Greed would also apply since they made all other file transfer options but iCloud a pain in the *** to use. Other apps are limited in background activity, so they can't transfer the large amounts of data even if you wanted them to!

Quite often with Apple it isn't even about the greed but only about stubbornness, thinking they know better (remember antennagate: 'you're holding it wrong'). I still think USB-C only on their laptops ridiculously stupid, yet they don't care.
I think they often are so full of themselves, they might truly believe they're doing everyobody a favor by trying and nudging us towards iCloud and do everything wirelessly... wasting energy, waiting longer :-(

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2021 at 23:00 UTC
In reply to:

Martin Ocando: Aha, good news. Now, how do you plan to transfer that multi GB file to your computer. Lightning at 480Mb/s? I think a plastic cup and a cord might be faster. Is just illogic not to have USB-C on an iPhone that can record such a huge file format.

my iPhones never reach anywhere near 60MB/s... more like 25MB/s!
It's ridiculous at this point.... one of the obvious drawbacks, yet I will upgrade from the X, I want the better cameras and display etc.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2021 at 22:54 UTC
In reply to:

Imager of: Then I’ll wait for the 10tb iPhone to be safe.

right.... so you can wait roughly 5 days and 3 hours to copy your footage to your computer or other storage via superb USB 2.0 that the iPhone Lightning port offers?.... super great. :-/

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2021 at 22:52 UTC
In reply to:

Absolutic: Watched all of these already. I am upgrading from 11 Pro max to 13 pro (non-max, i want to go smaller). I skipped the 12. The only reason I am upgrading is because of the better cameras (although I am a little concerned about F2.8 tele camera. On my 11 max, the F2.0 tele camera is the weakest of the cameras already in terms of autofocus and image quality. And on 13 they went from F2 to F2.8, does it mean focusing will be even weaker?). Nevertheless, the larger sensors and better UWA and WA camera sensors are quite welcome. Is Apple finally allows you to shoot RAW photos out of the box in the native camera app, do do I need to use 3D party apps like Adobe Lightroom to shoot RAW>?

@Rishi,
I'm aware that it's not just a stack of same exposures, they have to include exposure variation otherwise they'd never reach this level of dynamic range.
From what I see, they also apply some kind of filtering for noise and sharpening and therefore lose quite a bit of detail, at least the iPhone 12 series did.
Very interesting to find out more about this. Job wise I'm a photonics/laser/optics physicist any my group works with cameras and sensors of all classes. I might engage in it when I get the 13Pro. Wehn I do, I'll let you know and post it somewhere here.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2021 at 11:33 UTC
In reply to:

Absolutic: Watched all of these already. I am upgrading from 11 Pro max to 13 pro (non-max, i want to go smaller). I skipped the 12. The only reason I am upgrading is because of the better cameras (although I am a little concerned about F2.8 tele camera. On my 11 max, the F2.0 tele camera is the weakest of the cameras already in terms of autofocus and image quality. And on 13 they went from F2 to F2.8, does it mean focusing will be even weaker?). Nevertheless, the larger sensors and better UWA and WA camera sensors are quite welcome. Is Apple finally allows you to shoot RAW photos out of the box in the native camera app, do do I need to use 3D party apps like Adobe Lightroom to shoot RAW>?

@ Rishi,
have you guys done a comparison of the typical single frame RAW one can snap with any of the 'pro' photo-apps in iOS compared to Apple's ProRaw... or do you know of such a comparison elsewhere?
I've taken a ton of RAW files on the iPhone over the years and depending on the situation I always snap a bunch of (raw) photos and then stack them later (if they turned out good enough). I would be really interested to see ...
* How good apple's stacking is (hopefully median, not mean, for how many images?)
* How good the alignment is
* if it really yields much higher SNR than a a bunch of standard RAW files stacked "manually"

So many pixel peeping has been done and is still going on with the higher end cameras where there is barely any progress, I'd really enjoy seing you guys doing more technical analysis on phone cameras in RAW or ProRAW vs. HEIF... why not.

I'm still on the iPhoneX, ordered the 13Pro now that the ultrawide is variable focus and supports RAW as well.

thanks!

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2021 at 19:17 UTC
In reply to:

randfee2: I'm not surprised that this is a killer feature. I've been wondering for years why it didn't reappear earlier!

Key question: is this patented by canon?

I agree... subject selection is definitely the limiting factor here and I can't think of a faster or better way than just looking at it once besides a fully fledged neural interface.
I'm just an amateur but with my R5 and the Sony's use here and there for event photos and a little sports. By far the most cumbersome UI is choosing the subject!
Eye selection is a UI game-changer IMHO, a revelation not just action photographers can benefit from, but EVERYBODY that takes photos of people, animals or other moving subjects.

If I were Canon I'd hammer down the cost of this and put it in all cameras ASAP.
... and I haven't even tested it. If they didn't mess it up it's automatically great - looks like most reviews state exactly that.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2021 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

randfee2: I'm not surprised that this is a killer feature. I've been wondering for years why it didn't reappear earlier!

Key question: is this patented by canon?

well if it holds, this could remain a big unique selling point for sports photographers during the next decade then. But likely, there is some kind of workaround for Sony or Nikon to implement it differently.

.... I'm still really curious why nobody implemented it sooner, after the EOS 3 was taken off market in 2007 (which is much later than I would have thought).

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2021 at 16:22 UTC

does anyone have RAW files of all three cameras - or a source for some?

ta
Arnold

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2021 at 16:16 UTC as 13th comment

I'm not surprised that this is a killer feature. I've been wondering for years why it didn't reappear earlier!

Key question: is this patented by canon?

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2021 at 12:06 UTC as 22nd comment | 2 replies
Total: 163, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »