Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
 1 
 on: Today at 06:48:39 AM 
Started by david distefano - Last post by Ken R

I believe camera makers have removed the sense of urgency for users to upgrade by creating products capable of very good to amazing image quality and advanced capability. Compared with 5 or 10 years ago, the average digital camera of today or even from 2-3 years ago (whether it is a $2,000 Canon or a $40,000 Phase One) is so capable that the urge to look for the "next great thing" is not near the level of the past. That doesn't keep us from wanting to see the next great thing, but whether we buy it or not is another matter. For many, while the desire may be there, the need is not as great. That is why camera sales in general, are not on the upswing. Want to reignite camera sales? Stop making such good ones.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

Bingo!

The innovation and development breakthrough curve has flattened. What we see mostly with new products now are slight improvements / refinements of previous products. Not necessarily a bad thing.

 

 2 
 on: Today at 06:48:13 AM 
Started by Willow Photography - Last post by KLaban
It's good to hear these backs are still valued and used. Just ridiculous value for money!

 3 
 on: Today at 06:47:34 AM 
Started by JB Rasor - Last post by BartvanderWolf
It's possible if the filter holder is visible to the lens. The Lee system for example mounts in a way that the filter holder is very close to being flush to the lens. You can mount (2) 2mm filters without vignetting.   No problems with the 16-35 Canon.

Not sure how yours mounts and the size of your filters.

I agree, with Paul. Hard to say what the exact cause is without seeing an example though. Vignetting is usually caused by a mechanical obstruction like a filter or lens hood's edge, or by the lens construction which creates a more elliptical exit pupil instead of a circular one. Light fall-off is usually caused by ray travel distance, magnification, and oblique incidence on the capture medium/sensor.

In addition, depending on the physical thickness of the filter, the more oblique the rays are traversing through the filter, the more they get attenuated. I also get additional light fall-off (!) with the Lee Big-Stopper, but there is no vignetting because the filter is plenty large enough.

Cheers,
Bart

 4 
 on: Today at 06:46:39 AM 
Started by DanielStone - Last post by davidgp
I have the GF1, the main drawback it is the noise starts to show up at ISO 400... it was good back them, but now it shows its age comparing to other m4/3 solutions...

 5 
 on: Today at 06:45:13 AM 
Started by Rajan Parrikar - Last post by Justinr
For these guys neither the view nor the weather conditions matter. It's all about equipment. I've probably posted this story before, but since I'm an old guy I'll post it again:

On a weekend back in the sixties I took my family to one of the small towns in Colorado for an outing and to participate in a photo show. My third son, who was still in grade school, brought along a well-composed shot of a rock formation in a small canyon he'd made with his box camera and that we'd printed in my darkroom. When he won a prize, one of the contestants became very irate that HE hadn't won anything, while this kid with a box camera had. After all, he explained, he had the very latest and most expensive equipment it was possible to buy, so his work had to be better than work that came out of a box camera. I started cracking up and I was afraid he was going to try to deck me, but the guy in charge of the show stepped in and calmed things down. I was laughing all the way home.

On the same lines I've just got back from a bike trip to France where I was honoured to have a midday meal with a gentleman of that country who could probably be best described as leading the peasant way of life. This was not some fancy life style choice but the way he has always lived, from his garden and surrounding woods in a remarkably genuine manner. He was a magnificent figure with such character in his face that I was itching to capture it but the D3 was simply not equal to the task, it needed something like a box camera to do him justice, it needed the grain and purity of film to portray his connection to the rural world from which he had emerged and will, no doubt, return. I've never been a fan of digital for true portraits and this occasion simply confirmed my thoughts. The Nikon never made it out of the bag.

 6 
 on: Today at 06:42:02 AM 
Started by digitaldog - Last post by ripgriffith
I will say this:  he (Gary Fong) does make good flash diffusers.

 7 
 on: Today at 06:41:52 AM 
Started by plugsnpixels - Last post by chez
Meaning what exactly?

Meaning that sometimes being different from the crowd makes you stand out. The number of people in the various galleries supports this.

 8 
 on: Today at 06:37:49 AM 
Started by Colorado David - Last post by JohnBrew
I sell about half and half.

 9 
 on: Today at 06:36:23 AM 
Started by KLaban - Last post by joneil
An update on this story as of August 21st:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-cannot-be-copyrighted-us-regulators-say/

partial quote from the article:
----------------------------
United States copyright regulators are agreeing with Wikipedia's conclusion that a monkey's selfie cannot be copyrighted by a nature photographer whose camera was swiped by the ape in the jungle. The animal's selfie went viral.
The US Copyright Office, in a 1,222-page report discussing federal copyright law, said that a "photograph taken by a monkey" is unprotected intellectual property.
Wikipedia says the public, not the photojournalist, owns the rights to ape's pic.
"The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit," said the draft report, "Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition." [PDF]
----------------------------------

Personally, I think the monkey should get paid....
Smiley


 10 
 on: Today at 06:35:51 AM 
Started by digitaldog - Last post by Simon Garrett
It's tempting to think people like this are stupid, but not necessarily.  You see this sort of behaviour on forums at times, even from people that very obviously aren't stupid. 

He's got something wrong, but can't countenance the idea of being wrong.  So he digs himself in deeper and deeper, and subconsciously redirects possible guilt at being wrong into anger at anyone that points it out, getting more and more abusive to anyone around. 

It's a character defect that we probably all have to some extent and is nothing to do with intelligence.  How much easier to say "Oh, sorry, I got it wrong" early on, than later, having invested so much personal credibility into the wrong idea.    At that later point, any rational reassessment of one's ideas becomes very difficult.   

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad