|
I read an article where they were discussing the ongoing effort to abandon the functional, but archaic camera obscura for some other natural light-kinking phenomenon such as a box with a cooler in the top, and a heater in the bottom, to harness the fata morgana. Spectral Flex, or something like that.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
xzzy posted:I think that guy's writing style is incredibly annoying. In general, I don't see the reason why cameras will continue having mirrors and prisms in them. Looking through the lens could only be accomplished with a mirror when there's film in the back. The trend continued with digital, partly because of inertia, but mostly because LCDs are laggy, and looking at one to compose is terrible and disorienting. If that hurdle is overcome, however, I see no reason for dSLRs to continue as the dominant tool for people 'serious' about photography.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
Kodak Chapter 11 incoming!! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140841495542810.html#ixzz1iXH9hi5R
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Cockwhore posted:In general, I don't see the reason why cameras will continue having mirrors and prisms in them. Looking through the lens could only be accomplished with a mirror when there's film in the back. The trend continued with digital, partly because of inertia, but mostly because LCDs are laggy, and looking at one to compose is terrible and disorienting. If that hurdle is overcome, however, I see no reason for dSLRs to continue as the dominant tool for people 'serious' about photography. I think we'll see a major shift in perception if Canon or Nikon come up with a pro-level mirrorless camera. It doesn't even have to be a whole new thing, more like a 1D with a mirrorless system in it so legacy lenses and accessories would still work. Kind of a transitional model. Same body, new guts. You'd get blisteringly fast frame rates without all the extra wobbly bits like the mirror and aperture moving around plus it would be quieter. The key is the AF system. So far that has been the weak link in the chain. If someone can get pro AF happening without a pellicle mirror, then I think the age of the SLR will be over. If you can win the pros over, everyone else will follow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
Well he does have some good points but he also mentions that the new Sony's are DSLT's which are essentially mirrorless cameras on a DSLR body. It makes a lot more sense that the other DSLR manufacturers will go that route. Big sensors will always be better than small sensors so I don't see M4/3 taking over the professional/prosumer market.quote:If you’re not familiar with these 3rd Gen Cameras, you may ask, “Why can’t I use my current lenses on these new camera bodies?” The answer is because those lenses are designed for bodies with a mirror that flips up and down. Those bodies need to be _extra-thick_ to make room for that medieval reflective trapdoor. So, your current lenses focus the light too deep for the new supermodel-thin 3rd gen cameras. Yes, there are converters that let you use them, but it defeats the purpose and advantages of having an ultra-small flexible lens system. This is just silly. There is no reason to abandon a platform because there is 20mm of wasted space if you get rid of the mirror. DSLR's are ergonomically better because they fit snug in your hand so it isn't just the mirror that warrants their size. I could see cameras shrinking if SLT becomes standard but I wouldn't want anything smaller than Rebel sized anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
Gravitom posted:This is just silly. There is no reason to abandon a platform because there is 20mm of wasted space if you get rid of the mirror. DSLR's are ergonomically better because they fit snug in your hand so it isn't just the mirror that warrants their size. I could see cameras shrinking if SLT becomes standard but I wouldn't want anything smaller than Rebel sized anyway. It's probably safe to say that cameras will shrink because it'll make them seem modern and sexy, but the smart decision will be to use that extra space to cram in more awesome. Bigger battery, more processors, multiple card slots, maybe an ethernet jack or something to increase options for getting images off the device.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
What's the best example of an electronic viewfinder you will see today? I'm curious in comparing one to The Real Thing in a conventional DSLR. Something about e-Viewfinders just rubs me the wrong way. Mainly because my idea of an e-Viewfinder is from P&S bridge cameras which is typically out and out terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Well, I just talked to the director of HR and he's almost as bad as everyone else. Despite the fact that I brought a printout of the relevant passages of Title 17 and explained what work-for-hire entails, the company apparently still feel that not only do they have complete and total ownership on anything that I've taken on the clock (which is not the case with 99% of my photos), but that anything taken on my weekends from public areas with my own equipment fall into some sort of gray area and are still somehow partially theirs due to me being employed by them (on other days of the week) and the photos having some value/interest to the company. It sucks. Moral of the story: Work and photos don't mix in any way whatsoever. e: Unless you have a contract that has been reviewed by your attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:What's the best example of an electronic viewfinder you will see today? I'm pretty sure the Fuji X100 but that's secondhand info. However I have tried the Nikon V1 and was very impressed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
http://eirikso.com/2011/01/04/one-year-in-one-image/ One image equals one column of pixels in this timelapse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
Had a pretty negative experience ordering from Adorama. A friend and I went in on an order of HC-110 (I threw in some film since it's quite a bit cheaper in the US versus Japan). Due to a fuckup in their system, our Japanese zip code got chopped off, so the package got sent back to them. Adorama immediately cannibalized our order, taking my Acros 100 out and selling it to another customer (it's now on backorder). They didn't tell us it had even been sent back until my friend asked, they were waiting on more Acros  As soon as we found out we told them to cancel the Acros (I can get it here, just costs twice as much), which they didn't refund until my friend checked and realized they hadn't credited to him. The CSR my friend was emailing was kinda rude, on top of that. So yeah, last order I make at Adorama.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Had a pretty negative experience ordering from Adorama. A friend and I went in on an order of HC-110 (I threw in some film since it's quite a bit cheaper in the US versus Japan). Due to a fuckup in their system, our Japanese zip code got chopped off, so the package got sent back to them. That sucks, they've always been super nice to me. They messed up an order once but more than took care of it. Nothing beats Canons customer service though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:So yeah, last order I make at Adorama. I would e-mail Helen and see what she can do for you to make things right, that's a pretty bad experience, and she usually goes above and beyond to try to get things right. Or if you ever order from B&H you can contact Henry directly and he'll fix whatever was hosed up. I prefer B&H because when the big boss man will help you out directly, it makes me feel better about things. Although Mrebates works with Adorama  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Kodak Chapter 11 incoming!! Should I start stocking up on Portra and Tri-X now? edit: I'm only an occasional film shooter, but goddamn is this news depressing me. burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Jan 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Should I start stocking up on Portra and Tri-X now? Oh god I forgot about Portra You know, as much as I rag on them for all the hipster bullshit they do, would Lomography have enough money to buy some of those patents? Despite their shortcomings, they do seem passionate about analog photography. And I'm curious what will happen to Arista Premium 400 if Kodak goes toes-up. Since it's re-branded Tri-X, would it disappear too? :\ I guess so...
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Oh god I forgot about Portra  )_
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
I doubt their film patents are still valid since they expire after 17 years or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
Why doesn't Kodak make professional cameras? They make the sensors for the M9 and high end Hasselblad's but sell nothing but zooms and crappy point and shoots? They should be where Fuji is. LG even bought their OLED tech and are realeasing razor thin HDTVs with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
East Lake posted:Why doesn't Kodak make professional cameras? They make the sensors for the M9 and high end Hasselblad's but sell nothing but zooms and crappy point and shoots? They should be where Fuji is. LG even bought their OLED tech and are realeasing razor thin HDTVs with it. They did, for a while, but for some reason they never took off. For some niche applications, they are actually still the choice, due to lack of IR and AA processing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:What's the best example of an electronic viewfinder you will see today? The 2.1 million dot one that resides in an A77, an NEX-7 or the attachable one for an NEX-5n is the the highest resolution EVF on the market right now. It's not perfect, but it's pretty impressive and the exposure preview it provides is drat nifty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
Cockwhore posted:I read an article that proclaims the coming death of the dSLR, and its replacement by mirrorless cameras. What do y'all think? Reichstag posted:Yeah I don't think I'm going to take the CarrotFlowers posted:I like how he posts a picture that he took with a dslr as an example of why we don't need dslrs with the caption of "I took this with a dslr, but I didn't have to!" Well yeah...same could be said for any photo. Thank you. Someone at work posted that internally earlier today and a bunch of people jumped on board in agreement. I couldn't believe how stupid some of his points were. I laugh every time I see someone with a NEX because they inevitably are using a lens that makes their camera just as big as my 50D w/ 17-50 and twice as awkward to shoot with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 06:32
|
|
very seriously.
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I laugh every time I see someone with a NEX because they inevitably are using a lens that makes their camera just as big as my 50D w/ 17-50 and twice as awkward to shoot with. This is because the NEX has a really short register distance, so it can mount virtually any lens ever made. You can get some great lenses for cheap because no one shoots cine lenses anymore, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
The NEX also has a sensor that can run a stop or two faster than the one in the 50D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Pretty cool little interview on cave photography. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yjVrdOT31dA
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 07:00
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Thank you. Someone at work posted that internally earlier today and a bunch of people jumped on board in agreement. I couldn't believe how stupid some of his points were. While he may be crying "the sky is falling" way too early, the man basically pioneered HDR and is a drat smart guy with a vast knowledge of cameras, technology, and the world as a whole. He may very well have information we don't have access to (he is invited to big companies like Nikon/Google all the time). I don't see DSLRs going anywhere soon, but that guy is too smart to just cry wolf for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:the man basically pioneered HDR That's a strike against him in my book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 12:56
|
|
|
He's trying to drive web hits and get linked around places to try and increase his audience. Taking an extreme position on something is just trying to get people to read it. It depresses me how many of his borderline mediocre images I recognise around the internet. Sometimes I feel like people have been spoiled by generations of competent photographers in advertisers and magazines that they sort of become invisible so eye catching techniques like hipstamatic or HDR become excessively popular because they break up the tedium of competent and "standard" photography.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
Ken Rockwell has a friend, he likes the 18-200 and uses it on FX, I'm out. http://www.stuckincustoms.com/nikon-18-200-review/ read the comments and look out for Zachery Jensen's brilliant reply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Medusula posted:Ken Rockwell has a friend, he likes the 18-200 and uses it on FX, I'm out. haha, I wish there was some kind of central photography authority that would beat people with billy clubs for using an 18-200 on a D3X.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:haha, I wish there was some kind of central photography authority that would beat people with billy clubs for using an 18-200 on an SLR. Fixed that for you. Why use a camera with interchangable lenses when you are just gonna slap a superzoom on there and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Pretty cool little interview on cave photography. Other than the weird non-sequitur on government in the middle, that was pretty cool, thanks for sharing!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:haha, I wish there was some kind of central photography authority that would beat people with billy clubs for using an 18-200 on a D3X. Somehow these people can justify spending bucks on a D3x but can't afford the extra bit more and get a 28-300 full frame instead of the 18-200?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
HPL posted:Somehow these people can justify spending bucks on a D3x but can't afford the extra bit more and get a 28-300 full frame instead of the 18-200? I feel bad for having a 24-105. I want to trade it for a 24-70.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
dunkman posted:I feel bad for having a 24-105. I want to trade it for a 24-70. I totally would, but then again I'm a sucker for f/2.8 zooms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Medusula posted:Ken Rockwell has a friend, he likes the 18-200 and uses it on FX, I'm out. I can't believe I just read this thing. The FX 28-300 costs like $100 more and he'll get full uncropped shooting  $100 is like the camera-dollars equivalent of twenty five cents in your pocket, especially with a D3x around your neck. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jan 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
I know this is "no advice," but do any of you guys know a photographer or PPA health insurance group? I am really struggling for new insurance, and I am having a hell of a time finding anything decent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
Are you part of a professional organization? ASMP and the like have special insurance-stuff I'm pretty sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
I'm a member of PPA, but I haven't seen any mention of health insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
PPA is lobbying for healthcare reform because lack of coverage is a big problem http://www.ppa.com/articles/131/Photographers-Speak-Out-in-Congress-on-Health-Insurance-Reform.php Have you looked at Freelancers Union? It's not cheap but it's better than trying to get an individual rate from a major insurer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
I have individual coverage from Anthem on a high deductible health plan and contribute to a qualified health savings account. It's more flexible than some group plans I've looked for as a sole proprietor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 22:28
|
|
