T3

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 1, 2003

Comments

Total: 3984, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

T3: "You press the button, we do the rest"

For those who don't know photography history, that was Eastman Kodak's slogan and that's how they got started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Press_the_Button,_We_Do_the_Rest

It seems like this is the same philosophy that Relonch is using. You press the button, and they'll take care of the rest. That might rankle "serious" photographers who think this was "lazy" and an affront to photography, just like it did back in 1888 when George Eastman first introduced the "You press the button, we do the rest" business model. But I do think it's a nice option to have for those who just want nice, post-processed, edited images from RAW files, but don't want to do anything more than to compose the image and press a button.

@Yake - You're probably too young to realize this, but people exactly like you slammed and lambasted Apple for being too proprietary and too limiting, haha! You probably don't realize that Apple wasn't always the hugely popular company that they are today! You really have to go back to Apple's earlier years to realize that Relonch is very much like what Apple was doing years ago-- and people just like you really, really hated it. But as I said, anytime you break from the "norm", there are always going to be people who disapprove. People would write long, detailed articles on why Apple was doing it all wrong, and that they offered no "significant advantage". But Apple stuck to their guns, Steve Jobs stuck to his vision of simplification and integration, in spite of massive criticism by people like you who disagreed with him. Michael Dell of Dell computers famously said, when asked what he'd do if he were CEO of Apple: "I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders". LOL

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2017 at 02:58 UTC
In reply to:

Kai Griffin: It's almost impossible to imagine where on this planet the target demographic for such a product exists, because surely for someone baffled by a few buttons and dials (some of which have the word "auto" emblazoned on them in green), the ubiquitous smart phone with its typical single button, will do the job for them. I'd be very surprised if I ever saw one of these in the wild.

@anticipation_of - You're probably too young to realize this, but it's not a one-size-fits-all world. The other issue is that you are seeing this as a camera rental service. But that's only one part of it. It's really an end-to-end service that includes the APS-C camera with 30mm f/2 lens, 4G service, automatic uploading, and image editing/post-processing of RAW files. If you're just concentrating on the camera, then you're only seeing part of the picture. It's more of an end-to-end camera+processing service.

https://petapixel.com/2016/12/13/99-per-month-relonch-promises-great-photos-single-click/

BTW, I owned a Samsung NX30 with 30mm f/2 (apparently it's what Relonch is using). I can tell you that the image quality from this combo was really fantastic. I really wish Samsung never got out of the business. Better IQ than your average smartphone? I definitely think so.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2017 at 02:48 UTC
In reply to:

T3: "You press the button, we do the rest"

For those who don't know photography history, that was Eastman Kodak's slogan and that's how they got started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Press_the_Button,_We_Do_the_Rest

It seems like this is the same philosophy that Relonch is using. You press the button, and they'll take care of the rest. That might rankle "serious" photographers who think this was "lazy" and an affront to photography, just like it did back in 1888 when George Eastman first introduced the "You press the button, we do the rest" business model. But I do think it's a nice option to have for those who just want nice, post-processed, edited images from RAW files, but don't want to do anything more than to compose the image and press a button.

@Yake - There are plenty of businesses built around proprietary devices, software, or hardware. For example, there's a small company called Apple that requires "special" hardware to run their software. For many years, they were criticized for this. People like you said, "Special hardware: not such a good idea!" But it seems like Apple are doing ok, last time I checked .

My point is that it certainly is not unprecedented for a company to decide to use "special" hardware for their products or services. In the case of Relonch, they've decided to simplify the camera as much as possible, while also building 4G and software into the camera to automatically upload ever image. (I wish my cameras could do that!) I think they are following the Apple philosophy of simplification, integration, and providing an end-to-end service. I applaud them for following their vision, regardless of the outcome. It's not easy breaking from the norm.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2017 at 02:18 UTC
In reply to:

T3: "You press the button, we do the rest"

For those who don't know photography history, that was Eastman Kodak's slogan and that's how they got started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Press_the_Button,_We_Do_the_Rest

It seems like this is the same philosophy that Relonch is using. You press the button, and they'll take care of the rest. That might rankle "serious" photographers who think this was "lazy" and an affront to photography, just like it did back in 1888 when George Eastman first introduced the "You press the button, we do the rest" business model. But I do think it's a nice option to have for those who just want nice, post-processed, edited images from RAW files, but don't want to do anything more than to compose the image and press a button.

@Yake - No, but this one does. If you think you have a better business model, then start a different business. That's the great thing about a free market: if you have an idea, then start your own business and try it out!

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2017 at 00:59 UTC
In reply to:

T3: "You press the button, we do the rest"

For those who don't know photography history, that was Eastman Kodak's slogan and that's how they got started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Press_the_Button,_We_Do_the_Rest

It seems like this is the same philosophy that Relonch is using. You press the button, and they'll take care of the rest. That might rankle "serious" photographers who think this was "lazy" and an affront to photography, just like it did back in 1888 when George Eastman first introduced the "You press the button, we do the rest" business model. But I do think it's a nice option to have for those who just want nice, post-processed, edited images from RAW files, but don't want to do anything more than to compose the image and press a button.

You guys are thinking of it as a camera service. I think of it as a photo editing service. For those who "just want photos", yes, there are plenty of options out there. But I do think there is room in the market-- or at least some markets-- where people would pay to have their images edited for them. Frankly, there have been plenty of occasions where I would love to have my images edited for me. This obviously won't work in some lower-income places. But in certain markets, like Palo Alto, where the median home value is $2.6 million:

https://www.zillow.com/palo-alto-ca/home-values/

...it can certainly work. Certain people in certain areas would certainly be open to paying a small price to have someone just edit and optimize their images for them so they can spend their time doing other things. I love to shoot, but I hate editing my images.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2017 at 00:26 UTC
In reply to:

Zigmont: Wait -- it's April 1? If not, this is the stupidest and most complex solution to a non-problem I've ever seen. Figures, it was created by one of those micro-brain idiots in Siliconjob Valley. Failure 100%.

"Figures, it was created by one of those micro-brain idiots in Siliconjob Valley."

Right, nothing good ever comes out of Silicon Valley:

http://techfluff.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/siliconvalley-1.jpg

The hotbed of technology and ideas is...Baltimore. LOL.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 22:36 UTC

"You press the button, we do the rest"

For those who don't know photography history, that was Eastman Kodak's slogan and that's how they got started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Press_the_Button,_We_Do_the_Rest

It seems like this is the same philosophy that Relonch is using. You press the button, and they'll take care of the rest. That might rankle "serious" photographers who think this was "lazy" and an affront to photography, just like it did back in 1888 when George Eastman first introduced the "You press the button, we do the rest" business model. But I do think it's a nice option to have for those who just want nice, post-processed, edited images from RAW files, but don't want to do anything more than to compose the image and press a button.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 22:29 UTC as 36th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

SilvanBromide: Strikes me as more like the end of beginner photography than the "future" of it.

How on earth is someone ever going to learn how to use controls that they don't even have access to. Without that access they are heavily limited in what they can achieve and are forever stuck in total-novice mode. Supporting people to learn is not about hampering them and preventing them from learning.

@SilvanBromide - The same has been said of smartphone photography. I guess that's why smartphone photography never took off. Seriously though, I don't think this is going to be any more "discouraging" or "alienating" than the simplicity of shooting with a smartphone.

And also keep in mind that selected images are edited and sent back to you, which I think would be very encouraging because it shows how good your photos really can be. I think a lot of beginning photographers get discouraged because they think their photos suck compared to what they see online, but the reality is that a lot of what they see online is just the product of editing and post-processing. So since the service edits your photos for you and sends you back "finished" images, I think that can be very encouraging. It helps people to realize, "Hey, maybe my photos don't suck so much!"

I'm an experienced photographer, but there are plenty of times that I wish someone would edit my photos for me!

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 22:11 UTC

If I were the photographer, I would have made sure to get payment upfront...just in case the bride and groom didn't survive the shoot.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 22:01 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

SilvanBromide: Strikes me as more like the end of beginner photography than the "future" of it.

How on earth is someone ever going to learn how to use controls that they don't even have access to. Without that access they are heavily limited in what they can achieve and are forever stuck in total-novice mode. Supporting people to learn is not about hampering them and preventing them from learning.

Oh God, it's another "the end of photography" rant. I don't think that's the case at all. I think it just makes photography more accessible, and anything that makes photography more accessible is good for photography. It gives people a taste of photography, and if they want to move to something more advanced then they are certainly able to buying their own camera. I know plenty of people who are into serious photography now who got started by shooting with the Instagram app on their smartphones! And a lot of these people would have never picked up a camera if it hadn't been for their smartphone.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 21:55 UTC
In reply to:

T3: It's the camera equivalent of bicycle sharing services in major cities. I don't think it's a bad idea. As we move forward into the future, ownership will become less and less popular. In the future, we'll even have car-sharing services where you can order an auto-driving car to show up at your house for you to use for the day. Millennials are showing that they are less and less interested in "owning" things. It's already happened with media like music and movies. They don't feel the need to own CD's and DVD's. The older generation thinks this is crazy, but that's how things are these days.

Anyways, getting back to my original point, I see this as the equivalent of bicycle-sharing services. Hardcore cyclists obviously still want to buy their own bicycle, but if you are just a casual rider who needs a bike of the day to coast around on, you don't want to own. Likewise, the same can be said of these cameras.

@anticipation_of - You're being short-sighted. I think this is just a start. Keep in mind, people like you looked down upon streaming services for music and movies too. People are always skeptical of new things, new paradigms. You also have to keep in mind that with the Relonch camera you are shooting with a 30mm f/2.0, shooting with an APS-C sensor, and the service edits the images for you and sends them to your phone. I can see the appeal of this service, especially for someone who has no time or desire to edit photos. I just think the cost should come down.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 21:46 UTC
In reply to:

Kharan: This project is obviously looked at with derision by most enthusiasts and pros, but Allison does have a good point in her article - the younger generations are far more agreeable to just rent things for short periods instead of owning them. Another characteristic of these people is that they want to dabble in the most incredible, pointless endeavors,especially if they’re outdated.
I think that a truly interesting business niche would be to rent them nice, fully-working medium format systems and lab time, to have them experience the joys of old photography without the hassle of needing to own and care for all that stuff. Include an intro class with Ecuadorian coffee and you’re all set :D
I’d be interested in such a service, especially since MF photography has become impossibly expensive (digital) or difficult (there’s a single remaining lab in my country that processes MF film, and they’re effing expensive).

@anticipation_of - "Paying $1 a pop for something that’s normally free is not a very enticing proposition, let me tell you."

Right, because buying a camera is totally free. There is a high cost of ownership if you really took a look at all the costs associated with owning things.

As for what Relonch is doing, I think it's a good start. I think it's very cool that there is 4G built into these cameras. Everything zips up into the cloud.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 21:36 UTC
In reply to:

Kharan: This project is obviously looked at with derision by most enthusiasts and pros, but Allison does have a good point in her article - the younger generations are far more agreeable to just rent things for short periods instead of owning them. Another characteristic of these people is that they want to dabble in the most incredible, pointless endeavors,especially if they’re outdated.
I think that a truly interesting business niche would be to rent them nice, fully-working medium format systems and lab time, to have them experience the joys of old photography without the hassle of needing to own and care for all that stuff. Include an intro class with Ecuadorian coffee and you’re all set :D
I’d be interested in such a service, especially since MF photography has become impossibly expensive (digital) or difficult (there’s a single remaining lab in my country that processes MF film, and they’re effing expensive).

"the younger generations are far more agreeable to just rent things for short periods instead of owning them."

That's spot on. The younger generation is far less interested in ownership, which is probably smart since things move so quickly these days. New products are constantly coming out. You buy a product, and before you know it a new model has come out. I just bought a new Lexus last year, and I think it may be the last car I ever own because I anticipate that in the future I'll just pay a monthly fee for a car-sharing service where I can just request a self-driving car through an app, and it'll show up at my door so that I can use for certain period of time.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 19:09 UTC

It's the camera equivalent of bicycle sharing services in major cities. I don't think it's a bad idea. As we move forward into the future, ownership will become less and less popular. In the future, we'll even have car-sharing services where you can order an auto-driving car to show up at your house for you to use for the day. Millennials are showing that they are less and less interested in "owning" things. It's already happened with media like music and movies. They don't feel the need to own CD's and DVD's. The older generation thinks this is crazy, but that's how things are these days.

Anyways, getting back to my original point, I see this as the equivalent of bicycle-sharing services. Hardcore cyclists obviously still want to buy their own bicycle, but if you are just a casual rider who needs a bike of the day to coast around on, you don't want to own. Likewise, the same can be said of these cameras.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 19:03 UTC as 46th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Kai Griffin: It's almost impossible to imagine where on this planet the target demographic for such a product exists, because surely for someone baffled by a few buttons and dials (some of which have the word "auto" emblazoned on them in green), the ubiquitous smart phone with its typical single button, will do the job for them. I'd be very surprised if I ever saw one of these in the wild.

First all all, your concerns about buttons and dials are already addressed by this camera because all of those things are covered up except for the shutter button. Secondly, the analogy for this rental camera is the rental bicycle. A lot of people don't want to own a bicycle because it seems too complicated to maintain. They'd rather just use a bicycle-sharing or rental service, which are so popular in many cities these days. This is the camera equivalent of these bike sharing services:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/50f746fde4b00d3480c91f8b/t/5125fa0de4b001d57f7c8cf2/1361443342150/bicing-city-bicycle-hire-barcelona-spain_001p.jpeg

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 18:52 UTC
In reply to:

MirosIav: Panasonic G1 124 x 84 x 45 mm, Panasonic G9 137 x 97 x 92 mm. What happened to micro in Micro Four Thirds?

@MirosIav - I would say that m4/3 is already a pretty small market-- certainly smaller than APS-C-- and so it would be even more difficult to expect m4/3 to offer the perfect camera for every kind of user. You're just going to have to accept that and deal with it.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 18:26 UTC

Can't wait to use this for birds in flight!

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 05:35 UTC as 107th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

M Chambers: And this is better than simply buying a prosumer camcorder with a gyroscopic lens how?

Yep, clearly didn't read the article. Apparently he can't read and can't watch or even listen to a video.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 16:42 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Don't get me wrong. I am happy to see all these fast lenses coming out. Mostly just because it gives Photograghers more choices. However I don't really see the need. Seems to me it is just more marketing than anything. I could be wrong.

"Anything I would want to shoot a 16mm lens for. Would also need a larger area in focus."

Don't assume that all images shot at wide angles need to have deep DOF. Think more creatively. The 24mm f/1.4 on FF is a popular lens amongst wedding photographers because it allows for a wide angle while still offering a lot of control over DOF, including shallower DOF when shot wide open and at closer range. Here are some examples from the Canon 24/1.4L on FF:

http://www.melissajill.com/blog.cfm?postID=1023

The Sigma 16mm f/1.4 on APS-C would be a close equivalent to the 24mm f/1.4 on FF, but at a fraction of the cost. It's a great option for APS-C shooters. A Canon 24/1.4L II is $1549 (not including the higher cost of a FF body). The Nikon 24/1.4 ED is $1796. A Sigma 16mm f/1.4 is ~$450. Yes, the 24/1.4 lenses on FF will offer shallower DOF. But the Sigma 16/1.4 on APS-C gets you close, and at a much lower cost.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 02:39 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

VadymA: I understand the hypnotic appeal of f1.4 number for photography crowd, and why Sigma is trying to position it lenses in this niche and not worried about almost ridiculous increase in lens size, but is it really necessary for wide angle? I find when I use wide angle, even with f2.8 fixed aperture, I try to stop down as much as I can to keep most of the frame in focus. Isn't it the whole point of wide angle - to make the surrounding environment part of the composition, even for portraits? For those reasons, I find a good OS much more important for wide angle than the blurry “byproduct” of larger aperture. So other than price, I don’t see much of an appeal in this lens.

First of all, the beauty of a short focal length is that you can get a lot in DOF even at fast aperture, especially if the focus point is a little bit farther. Secondly, who says you can't take a wide angle portrait where the background drops off with focus, while still having it be part of the composition? The surrounding environment can definitely still be part of the composition without being tack sharp! In fact, I love that option. Sometimes your subject can get "lost" in a busy wide-angle surrounding environment, so I like a bit of drop-off in focus sharpness even in a wider shot.

Also, 24/1.4 is a great focal on FF for wedding reportage. This Sigma 16/1.4 would be the closest thing to that for APS-C. See examples of 24/1.4 wedding shots, mostly wide open, here:

http://www.melissajill.com/blog.cfm?postID=1023

I think you just need to think a little more creatively.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 18:25 UTC
Total: 3984, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »