T3

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

Comments

Total: 4978, showing: 4061 – 4080
« First‹ Previous202203204205206Next ›Last »
In reply to:

white shadow: For it to be successful, Sigma must not hold back on the build quality and finishing. It must have a full time manual focus capability which, for example, the 17-50 f/2.8 lacks. The 17-50 f/2.8 is quite a good lens which can rival the one made by Canon but the lack of full time manual focus is a disappointment to many who uses it.

Would it be too much to expect Sigma to make them with a quality closer to Zeiss? I believe they can. Again, it depends on their marketing strategy. Do they want to remain as a cheaper alternative third party manufacturer or a premium alternative third party manufacturer?

Yes, because it has to compete with ALL THE OTHER f/1.8 zooms in the market! Yes, the f/1.8 zoom market is so CROWDED that the only way this lens will ever survive is if it has Zeiss-level quality and finish, along with full time manual.

Seriously, though, I think the more important factor is the pricing. I think Canon's full time manual on my L lenses is a nifty feature, but I rarely ever use it to override the AF. It certainly would not be a deal breaker for me if this Sigma lacked it. And while a nice finish on the lens is a happy bonus, I care more about image quality and focus performance.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 07:21 UTC
On article What Apple announcements mean for mobile photographers (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

Menneisyys: Very poor update. The Camera app receives some, I assume, Apple-made plug-in DSP's (sepia etc., I think) but nothing like the capabilities of the great JB tool "CameraTweak".

Unfortunately, the rest of the upgrade is equally pathetic if you compare it to the latest versions of Android and even WP8 / RT.

"Unfortunately, the rest of the upgrade is equally pathetic if you compare it to the latest versions of Android and even WP8 / RT."

Unfortunately, Android still isn't quite as user-friendly and intuitive to use as what Apple produces. And Windows Phone 8/RT is really only for Windows diehards. The majority of the consumer world is largely ignoring WP 8/RT. Sadly, the primary benefit of WP 8/RT is as a place for Android and iOS to pilfer ideas from.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 03:14 UTC
On article What Apple announcements mean for mobile photographers (67 comments in total)

I'm an Android user, but I'm looking forward to getting an iPhone as soon as Apple comes out with a LARGER iPhone screen. I just like the overall Apple user experience. (I moved from Windows to an iMac just over a year ago, and have loved the move.) I like the move away from skeuomorphic design in iOS 7. Now they just need to bring out a larger iPhone and I'll gladly switch over.

Not sure about that Mac Pro though. I quite liked the previous Mac Pro industrial design. Seemed more functional.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 03:10 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

JMal: John White's interview was all meant to enlighten an industry probably bound to cut an essential aspect of its self. Concerning the part of replacing photojournalist with iPhographers he says it well: "...you can't take someone who fills prescription bottles and have them do your heart surgery."

Note: Please take time to visit my website at http://be.net/jmal

@Johnsonj - the reality is that neither is very difficult. Heck, I don't even know why it takes a human to fill my prescription at all. Someday, I'm sure it'll be fully automated, with a robot doing it. In fact, a quick Google search for "robot pharmacist" shows that they already exist.

And yes, I'm sure there are plenty of pharmacy techs who are also pretty good photographers, too.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2013 at 22:27 UTC
In reply to:

JMal: John White's interview was all meant to enlighten an industry probably bound to cut an essential aspect of its self. Concerning the part of replacing photojournalist with iPhographers he says it well: "...you can't take someone who fills prescription bottles and have them do your heart surgery."

Note: Please take time to visit my website at http://be.net/jmal

"...you can't take someone who fills prescription bottles and have them do your heart surgery."

I'd hardly compare photojournalism to heart surgery. As photographers, we like to have an over-inflated perspective of what we do, but in reality photography really is not that hard. Plus, your average workaday city newspaper photojournalist isn't exactly Steve McCurry or James Nachtwey! The idea of a workaday photojournalist being equivalent to a heart surgeon is just a ridiculous over-valuation of your ordinary, average city newspaper guy with an expensive camera who happens to get paid for it. Photography really is not *that* difficult to do, and it's nowhere close to being in the same league as heart surgery. In fact, photography--particularly your average city newspaper photography-- is actually a lot closer in difficulty to filling prescription bottles!

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2013 at 19:55 UTC
In reply to:

spidermoon: Don't think, obey and consume. No need of top photographers and writer nowday, just use emotions, take picture and videos in the very heart of action, put few comments and send them quickly to your reader, before the corpse became cold. Wash, rinse, repeat, with some ad's in the middle. That's the new news today, for brainless zombie customers.

"just use emotions, take picture and videos in the very heart of action"

Uh, isn't that what top photographers and writers have been doing for ages? They photograph, write, and deliver this packaged news in a manner that maximizes, heightens, and spurs emotions? That's what "top photographers and writers" have been doing all along. It's an artful manipulation that has been going on for decades (that, apparently, you seem to revere). The main difference now is that with less editorial commentary, less artistically manipulative photography, less glamorization of events and news, maybe we can strip away some of these extraneous layers that exist between us and the news. Rather than reading a writer's description of an event, or looking at a pro pj's single, artistically framed and composed image of an event, I'd much rather see raw video and stills, captured by lay witnesses, maybe not so artistically shot or written about, so I can see for myself and judge for myself the news.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2013 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

spidermoon: Don't think, obey and consume. No need of top photographers and writer nowday, just use emotions, take picture and videos in the very heart of action, put few comments and send them quickly to your reader, before the corpse became cold. Wash, rinse, repeat, with some ad's in the middle. That's the new news today, for brainless zombie customers.

On the other hand, why do we need pre-ordained intermediaries (journalists, photojournalists) to interpret, write, package, and deliver the news to us? A lot of unavoidable editorial bias often finds its way into that old model of news delivery. A professional writer writes a story from a certain angle or perspective. A professional photographer wants to capture or submit a picture from a particular angle or perspective.

We are now entering an age of dis-intermediation, where we no longer want or need an intermediator between us, and the information or news. Just today, I was on the web reading an interview of Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, while simultaneously listening to the video of the interview playing in the background. I quickly realized that I had no need to read the article (words written by a writer/intermediary) when it was so much better to watch the video and listen to Snowden speak the words himself! I don't need it filtered through a writer!

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2013 at 19:19 UTC
On article Canon announces EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM wide zoom (55 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: This will have the same fate as the Nikon "1" system... Oblivion.

Sometimes, great big companies like Canon and Nikon make really huge blunders... but they are too Jurassic in thinking, they just run the useless idea to the ground, at the expense of the suckered consumers...

.

Mirrorless APS-C is not "oblivion" nor a "huge blunder." This first EOS M body will seem primitive compared to the models that will be available a few years from now. And those future EOS mirrorless bodies will make today's comparatively large DSLR bodies seem as primitive as a Motorola DynaTAC cell phone does compared to a modern iPhone or Samsung Galaxy.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2013 at 02:18 UTC
In reply to:

don_van_vliet: I'm a dedicated M43 user but this lens, at this price, impresses. Similar NEX and M43 offerings are a lot more expensive. I just hope the IQ doesn't reflect the price!

@tkbslc - "Considering the EOS M body offering is pretty weak..."

Camera bodies come and go. They are the least permanent part of any system. Lenses, on the other hand, are what you tend to keep over time, as you upgrade bodies from generation to generation, model to model.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2013 at 00:37 UTC
In reply to:

fikcyjny: funny, too big for such body

Olympus 9-18mm f/4-5.6 for micro43 looks much better and smaller

Kinda sick of this "too big for such a body" nonsense. In the DSLR world, we regularly use huge lenses that make even larger DSLR bodies seem small. And yet, no one ever complains "funny, too big for such a body!"

You also have to keep in mind that sometimes it's nice to have a larger lens that's easier to grab and turn its zoom/focus rings. The Oly 9-18 f/4-5.6 is a rather tiny lens, and not quite so comfortable to use as something a bit larger.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2013 at 23:37 UTC
On article Is this the new Leica 'Mini M'? (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

Monochrom: If it's true, this camera is a gadget, not a serious rangefinder camera. Leica will have special editions of this camera to attract "i nééd this" kinda people....

On the contrary, many might call a Leica rangefinder camera an over-priced, anachronistic "gadget" catering to people more interested in mechanical gadgetry and status rather than serious photography. It's all a matter of perspective.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 07:48 UTC
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: It was nice of them to wait until after Roger Ebert's death to do this.

@Ahmet Aydogan - people want video because it offers more information than a single photo. What is a photo but a single slice of time? Video is the closest thing to actually being there. When the Boston Marathon explosions happened, it was watching the videos that gave you the best sense of actually being there. And who says you can't contemplate or revisit a video? Some videos of news events I've revisited many times, and those moving video images have stuck with me because it made me feel like I was there witnessing the event unfolding before my eyes, second by second, minute by minute. That's what video can do. How many times have the Zupruder footage of John F. Kennedy's assassination been revisited and contemplated? Countless times!

The long dominance of photos as the primary image medium of newspapers has mainly been as a result of limitations in technology: you can't put a video into a newspaper! But now that people get their news on the web, newspapers have to adapt.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 07:37 UTC
In reply to:

ryanshoots: More video sucks. Buggy players, mandatory commercials at the beginning and so on. I'll take a photo by a professional any day over 99% of the punters with an iphone video.

I understand the economics of it, but don't think for a minute that quality is going up.

People will still get their fill of news photos, but they no longer go to newspapers for it. Within minutes of an event happening, photos show up on the web. When you want news, no one is looking at the artistic "quality" of the images being produced. They just want to see what's happening as quickly as it happens. If you want pretty, high quality photos, newspapers aren't the place to go looking for them.

And the days of thinking that only a "professional" can take a good photo are long past us. Frankly, I'd say that there are a heck of a lot of amateur photographers that can easily produce better work than your average newspaper photographer.

As for railing against the rise of video, it just makes you sound old and crabby. These days, when I want to see a review of any particular product, the first place I go is Youtube, because a Youtube video review is the closest thing to actually seeing and touching a product. Likewise, video of news is the closet thing to being there.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 07:28 UTC
In reply to:

T3: As photographers, we see things in a photo-centric way. But the reality is that the Sun-Times is right on the money by moving towards "more video content with their news" and "are focused on bolstering our reporting capabilities with video and other multimedia elements." I, for one, much prefer to see news stories that have accompanying videos, rather than static photos. When I'm on the New York Times or BBC news sites, I *always* seek their video content. After all, videos are just many, many photos strung together. Video images tend to be more informative, and allows you to "see" the news better than just looking at a single photo. After the Boston Marathon bombings, I wanted to see videos from the event, not photos. So with consumers wanting more video-centric news coverage, why keep a large full-time still-photography staff? Better to just get whatever few photos you might need from freelance photographers instead, and put your money into video instead.

@Ubilam - "BTW, video is not always better and a great photo can say alot."

Conversely, one can say that most newspaper photography really isn't that "great" at all, and as a result they can't say nearly as much as video that includes sound, movement, action, commentary, etc. Most newspaper articles have, at most, one single, static, and oftentimes boring photo next to it. And it will only give you one, single fraction of a second of time, from one particular perspective. In terms of informational density, video is so much better. For example, if there's a news story of a tornado, I'd much rather watch a video of that tornado tearing through a town, rather than a static photo. Likewise, with the Boston Marathon bombings, it was the video footage that gave me a better sense of what it was like to be there, as opposed to the photos. Video gives you a much better "eyewitness, you are there seeing it" experience.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 07:16 UTC
In reply to:

DKCJB: I was recently at a local sports event with my kids and the local paper sent a reporter to cover it. She was using a little silver point & shoot and the next day the website had a picture and a 2 minute video and a short story describing things. She did the story & the photography. I don't subscribe to the paper anymore, just look at it for free on the internet. The internet increased demand for photography & is killing it off all at the same time.

@DaytonR - typically, a decent P&S will offer IQ that is plenty good enough for newsprint or website. They aren't shooting for museum display or billboards! Also, it's easier to shoot video with a P&S, too. And the reporter can slip it into his or her pocket. So a compact camera makes perfect sense in today's modern multi-media reporting environment. One person does the writing, shoots the photos, and records the video for the story. Gone are the days of having a dedicated writer who only writes the story, as well as a dedicated photographer with expensive camera equipment there just to take photos...especially for a local paper.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 03:34 UTC
In reply to:

DKCJB: I was recently at a local sports event with my kids and the local paper sent a reporter to cover it. She was using a little silver point & shoot and the next day the website had a picture and a 2 minute video and a short story describing things. She did the story & the photography. I don't subscribe to the paper anymore, just look at it for free on the internet. The internet increased demand for photography & is killing it off all at the same time.

That's a good example of where news is going: multi-media content and mult-tasking. The writer writes the story, shoots some stills, and also records video. That's where things are not only going, but where things have already gone. Gone are the days of a writer who only write the story, along with a photographer who only takes photos, and no video. That's the old way...the dead way.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 03:29 UTC
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: It was nice of them to wait until after Roger Ebert's death to do this.

I think Roger Ebert would have understood. After all, he pioneered the idea that people wanted to *watch* a movie review rather than just reading a movie review (along with maybe a few static still photos alongside it). The result was his movie review show with Gene Siskel. Even then, he realized that video was the next big thing. Likewise, the Chicago Sun-Times are simply doing that same thing with their news coverage. The Sun-Times realizes that it's not just enough to have a static photo alongside their articles. They realize that people want video. They want to watch video. They want multi-media content. They want to see and hear the news, in full-motion video. Old media was typed words on paper, and static photos. New media is typed words on anything *but* paper, accompanied by multimedia content (audio, stills, and video).

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 03:26 UTC

As photographers, we see things in a photo-centric way. But the reality is that the Sun-Times is right on the money by moving towards "more video content with their news" and "are focused on bolstering our reporting capabilities with video and other multimedia elements." I, for one, much prefer to see news stories that have accompanying videos, rather than static photos. When I'm on the New York Times or BBC news sites, I *always* seek their video content. After all, videos are just many, many photos strung together. Video images tend to be more informative, and allows you to "see" the news better than just looking at a single photo. After the Boston Marathon bombings, I wanted to see videos from the event, not photos. So with consumers wanting more video-centric news coverage, why keep a large full-time still-photography staff? Better to just get whatever few photos you might need from freelance photographers instead, and put your money into video instead.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 03:14 UTC as 55th comment | 4 replies
Total: 4978, showing: 4061 – 4080
« First‹ Previous202203204205206Next ›Last »