Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Posts for: rehess
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 593 next>>
Jul 20, 2019 10:04:20   #
billb800si wrote:
Over the past five years, Sony has done more to push digital imaging forward than just about anybody else. But their incredible pace of innovation is straining an industry that just can’t keep up, and the cracks are starting to show.
Earlier this week, Sony released yet another a7 camera. It’s the fourth a7R Sony has made in less than 6 years, and the 10th full-frame mirrorless camera it’s released over the same period—all while adding 7 more cameras to its APS-C E-Mount system, debuting the G Master line of high-end lenses, and dominating the compact camera space with the RX series. Oh, and we might be adding the long-rumored a7000 and a7S III to that list by year end.
Backed by the R&D of their image sensor division and the might of the Sony Corporation’s pocket book, Sony has done more, innovated faster, and marketed better. As a result, they can be credited with forcing Nikon and Canon to dive into full-frame mirrorless, spearheading revolutionary technologies like Eye Autofocus, turning sports photography upside down with the release of the 20fps Sony a9, and wooing a huge number of YouTube creators with the a7s II and a7 III.
In short: Sony is currently the driver of innovation in the photo industry.
They did this by bringing the annual refresh cycle of consumer electronics over to digital imaging, where only compact cameras used to be updated yearly (you know, before they died a gruesome death at the hands of smartphone manufacturers). Laptops are refreshed every year. Smartphones are refreshed every year. You can expect a new model of Sony’s TVs every year. So Sony took a similar approach with cameras, releasing new full-frame mirrorless cameras almost every year since the first a7 and a7R debuted in 2013.
But if Sony’s innovation has been a boon for an industry that might have otherwise fallen asleep at the wheel, this shortening of the research and development cycle is threatening to destroying it.
Over the past five years, Sony has done more to pu... (show quote)
It is fine for Sony to release a new camera every year - but I don't need to purchase a new camera every year. I am now retired, but for many years I was a software developer. Even at the height of my career, I made no attempt to purchase the most modern up-to-the-second computer; one that could do what I needed to do was adequate. We purchased a Win3.1 computer in 1987, a Win95 computer in 1995, a Win2K computer in 2000, ...
 
Jul 20, 2019 09:03:42   #
GrandmaG wrote:
I've seen the pictures the younger generation gets with their iPhone 10's. There're just not very good, IMO. I just can't think of the phone as a decent camera. It's just convenient, that's all. I have taken and printed a few decent 4x6 pictures from my iPhone XS.
Our standard are different. I didn’t like our daughter’s wedding pictures, taken by the ‘pro’, because none of them is level. They are allowed to have their own standards - and they do!
Jul 20, 2019 08:52:10   #
jerryc41 wrote:
Wait two years and get an even better version of the A7R, at a higher price.

That is how Sony operates - make a small step forward, issue a new camera, but continue the older ones, each a step further down in price. This does work for them.
Jul 20, 2019 08:15:59   #
Architect1776 wrote:
How fast has your Sony I, II and now III become obsolete?
Yesterday's news.

In fact, posts discussing this camera yesterday are on page 2 here, such as

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-601111-1.html

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-600990-1.html
Jul 20, 2019 08:06:51   #
cactuspic wrote:
Didn’t Shakespeare write that there was nothing new under there sun?
That was Solomon - but he was in a discouraged ‘funk’.
Jul 19, 2019 23:28:21   #
drucker wrote:
I'm also from Oregon and visited Chicago a few years back as a birthday gift to my wife who wanted to see the King Tut Exhibit that was at the Field Museum. Also visited the Museum of Science and Industry and enjoyed the view from the Sears Tower. That view included the freeway exit where we were involved in a wreck that nearly demolished our rental car that had less than 200 miles on it. Luckily we walked away with only a few bruises.

Yes, the exhibits at the Field are incredible and I have photos nearly like yours -- I especially like the gorilla, the photo doesn't really show his size -- ours includes our son standing by the case making a face at the gorilla.

I grew up in the Midwest and we had family in the Chicago area, so I had visited the museums several times.

Did you happen to visit Buckingham Fountain for the evening light show?

Dennis
I'm also from Oregon and visited Chicago a few yea... (show quote)
i was raised in suburban Downers Grove in the 1950’s; we often drove in for music and lights at Buckingham Fountain; only many years later did I appreciate what my Dad did in making that drive.
 
Jul 19, 2019 23:11:08   #
Haydon wrote:
Connecticut has two native species of white and brown pelicans. White ones are considerably rarer. You don't see them because you aren't a bird photographer and I suspect you limit your distance in traveling. That's been evident in your previous posts when I mentioned areas worthy of traveling to and your response was essentially "too far". That's not criticism more as an observation.

https://www.facebook.com/CTFishAndWildlife/posts/three-white-pelicans-have-been-spotted-in-old-saybrookhttpsyoutubetzu3mvuo6nq/914954605208295/
https://animals.mom.me/sea-birds-connecticut-9362.html
Connecticut has two native species of white and br... (show quote)

For seven years we lived along the Connecticut River in Massachusetts, but we never thought of driving down to the Connecticut shore to see pelicans. We did see brown pelicans down in Florida once, though.
Jul 19, 2019 20:17:09   #
mitchumky wrote:
Almost any flat-bed scanner will work. If your printer has a flatbed scanner, you are set to go. it’s all in the settings.
Set the resolution to at least 800dpi and the scan depth for “0”. Emulsion side of the negative facing the glass. Wear cotton gloves to keep the oils from your skin off the negative.
The OP needs a scanner that has a light source in the lid so that the light will pass through the negative.
Jul 19, 2019 19:56:30   #
photogeneralist wrote:
I'm unclear on how pixel size in a sensor can effect diffraction. In my undestanding of optics, diffraction is generated by the scattering of light as it passes through a small hole (aperture/iris) before the light even reaches the sensor.
Diffraction is caused by the aperture, but it is interpreted by the sensor. In essence a point spreads out at the aperture to become a small blob; if sensor pixels are large enough, the entire blob will hit just one pixel, but if they are small enough, the blob will touch several pixels.
Jul 19, 2019 18:58:15   #
User ID wrote:
Whatever you been inhaling, you're obliged
to share .... especially if it's brownies !

What in the part you quoted is confusing you?
You do understand the pixel-shift part, don't you??
Jul 19, 2019 18:49:22   #
RichardTaylor wrote:
Even my 8MP Canon 350D IQ was ok at the lower ISO values.
My latter camera purchases had much better IQ at higher ISO values, better erganomics, and in some cases better focussing.
I had one also - actually I had two - each eventually had terminal processor issues, but even before they died, the resulting images gave me less detail than the newer cameras {harder to read print, for example}, and gave me less freedom to crop that did the Pentax K-30 which replaced the second one.
 
Jul 19, 2019 18:12:04   #
n3eg wrote:
My first SLR was the Pentax Auto 110, which led to using a similar format (micro four thirds) with digital.
I now have a K1000 and a ME in my collection along with some PK / M42 lenses and adapters.
I also have the Q10 for using with C mount lenses.

Do you also have an adapter allowing you to use the 'Auto 110' lenses on your Q-10?
Jul 19, 2019 18:06:13   #
dwermske wrote:
OK, let's see if I have this right. RAW is not an image format but CR2, NEF, DNG, etc. are image formats and they are RAW image formats. RAW is a generic term for "ALL" RAW image formats. However, RAW files can be turned into images but only from known RAW image formatted files. Simple concept, RAW is a whole bunch of different image formats that can be turned into images. Is that it?

That is correct. The importance of this concept is illustrated by the Original Post. One of the files posted was of the form *.ORF - which is apparently a proprientary Olympus format; the Shotwell program which was preinstalled on my Linux computer seems to know how to interpret it, but if I had a Win computer with programs normally installed on it, I doubt if I could look at it. This is not an isolated instance; often someone will post a "RAW" file, assuming that everyone here can view it as routinely as we view JPEG, GIF, PNG and TIFF files - we need to understand that a 'raw' file is normally a proprietary format, and the usual expectation is that the artist will adjust/modify it before releasing a something that is to be viewed generally. Showing a 'raw' file is conceptually similar to showing a negative instead of a print or slide {if s/he intended to use the image as rendered automatically by software such as Shotwell, then s/he might as well use the JPEG produced by the camera}
Jul 19, 2019 17:13:53   #
dwermske wrote:
Just like JPG and TIFF, the file types you defined tell you the process to use. My point is that they are all IMAGE file types.

but 'raw' tells you nothing - that was my point.
Jul 19, 2019 16:52:15   #
rmalarz wrote:
Apparently, you want to become semantically argumentative. A RAW file, to be technical, is a data file which, through the use of software to interpret it, will produce an image on a screen. It is nothing more than data, and proprietary at that. Similarly, any of the other files, jpg - gif - tif, etc., are data files, but standardized so that programmers can include interpretative code within programs and applications to produce the images their data represent. These are all simply data files interpreted to produce an image.

I'm sure if I wanted to spend the time doing it, I could use excel to produce an image. However, it still remains an excel file whether it produces an image or not. Excel can be used to produce some very impressive graph files. The graphs are derived from the data within the excel file and require software procedures to render them visible as graphs.
--Bob
Apparently, you want to become semantically argume... (show quote)
JPEG, TIFF, etc are file types - once you know what type you have, you know how to interpret what you have; ‘raw’ is a collection of types - CR2, NEF, DNG, etc; you need to know what type you have before you can start thinking about interpreting it.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 593 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.