November 28, 2014, 02:04:38 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rienzphotoz

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 222
136
But how much of that time spent on the iPhone, is taking pictures, and how much is spent looking at porn or playing candy crush?  And is streaming video and playing games, worth spending $3300?  I submit that it is not.
I don't know about you  :P but I do not watch porn on my phone or play games (the only game I play is Chess on my phone) ... I have over 50 GB of photography, videography & photoshop tutorials from Kelby, Lynda, Creative Live etc on my phone ... the phone also takes care of my online banking, expense tracking & it works as a scanner for many of my documents, receipts etc, it has user manuals for my cameras, photography, photoshop & technology related magazines & e-books. For me and many like me its worth the money spent on it ... plus when I sell the phone, I get at least 50% of the purchase value.
At the moment, I am sitting in an equipment hut watching a groundstation track a new satellite... I have an iPad in hand and am taking movies of the spectrum analyzer screens to capture signal anomalies as the dish tracks... say what you will about iphones and the like, but sometimes they are usefull to have...

I design experiments with several scientific apps and read scientific journals on my iPhone, check email, call into meetings remotely, and even read the occasional novel. 

Apparently some people have a hard time dragging their mind out of the gutter.   ;)
And I'm happy I work with mobile solutions with all people using it in different ways. I believe Carl meant it as a figure of speach. Porn used to be a main driver for internet, both in terms of traffic and in terms of technical innovations. I am happy to admit that I have never watched and will never watch porn. But as a business driver one shouldn't underestimate it. Your science apps would likely not be available hadn't it been for porn consumers.

I use my S4 for many professional and private tasks, even taking some photos. But they have many limitations due to the form factoe.

Thanks Arctic...and tisk tisk, I say any man who claims they've never looked at porn is a liar, but then...that's par for the course with some people (and by porn I mean even a photograph...some of the photos on this site are almost soft core porn!).  But no, I don't own a smartphone, and if I did, I would not view anything like that on it!  But if you want to pretend billions of males don't view porn on their smartphones, go right ahead.  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  It even happens on work desktop machines, at least if you work for the government.  I saw it on the news!  If porn is not the main driver for the internet, or mobile internet, it's only because gaming and streaming cinematic movies such as from Netflix, are definitely now taking up all the bandwidth.
Just to set the record straight, I said "I do not watch porn on my phone;) ... for such activities I prefer to use my 60 inch TV ... coz the viewing pleasure on a big screen is more appropriate ;) ;D ... and I totally agree that most of the people who claim they've never looked at porn are liars.
Just to make sure that I am still on the subject of Canon's 250 million digital cameras, let me say that they are not a single one of those 250 million cameras are good for watching such pleasurable activities. ;D

137
There is something lacking in the feather detail on all three examples. It makes the bird seem lifeless. Is that bird a
Norwegian Blue?
That is a lifeless extinct bird :P ;D

138
Portrait / Re: Post photos of other photographers in action
« on: March 31, 2014, 12:36:32 AM »
There were some classes going on at Image Square while I was there.  This was with a 135 f/2, otherwise I'd have pulled back a bit for context.  What a place to spend an afternoon!

Jim
Did you deliberately focus on "thunder thighs"?  :P ;D ... I'm just kidding, for some reason the "thunder thighs" just seem to stick out the most in the image. ;D ... the girl has a very pretty face and her expression is perfect for the image.

139
Unfortunately, The Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f/4 OSS lens has received disappointing reviews at both photozone and SLRgear.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/24-70mm-fe-zeiss-gets-tested-by-photozone-and-slrgear-doesnt-meet-the-expectations-from-the-reviewers/
I read those reviews and that's pretty much what I feel about the FE 24-70 f/4 lens ... it is a good lens to have for about $700 (maybe $800 max, but no more) but for close to $1200 it is just not worth it, one might as well stick with the kit lens.

In fact I've read the kit lens is actually quite good for a "kit lens". Charging this premium for the Zeiss certainly makes people expect quite a bit more.

However, to my knowledge this is not a "Zeiss" lens. They only provide QC to Sony. In fact some new real Zeiss ZFE (or whatever they will be called) primes should be announced at the next Photokina.

Is the FE 50 mm f/1.8 then not a real "Zeiss" lens, either?  Pretty darn good if it's a Sony with only Zeiss QC.
The optics for all E mount lenses branded with ZEISS logo, are very much made by ZEISS ... there are some silly rumors (that ZEISS only provides QC to Sony), to justify the not so good lenses like the FE 24-70 f/4 ... which unfortunately is my very first "ZEISS" lens I ever bought  :(

140
Unfortunately, The Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f/4 OSS lens has received disappointing reviews at both photozone and SLRgear.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/24-70mm-fe-zeiss-gets-tested-by-photozone-and-slrgear-doesnt-meet-the-expectations-from-the-reviewers/
I read those reviews and that's pretty much what I feel about the FE 24-70 f/4 lens ... it is a good lens to have for about $700 (maybe $800 max, but no more) but for close to $1200 it is just not worth it, one might as well stick with the kit lens.

In fact I've read the kit lens is actually quite good for a "kit lens". Charging this premium for the Zeiss certainly makes people expect quite a bit more.

However, to my knowledge this is not a "Zeiss" lens. They only provide QC to Sony. In fact some new real Zeiss ZFE (or whatever they will be called) primes should be announced at the next Photokina.
The optics of FE 24-70 f/4 are very much from ZEISS made by ZEISS, including the anti-reflective coating ... its just that the lens isn't all that good for the money they are charging, because of which some people speculate that ZEISS "only provide QC to Sony".

141
I came across these LIFX light bulbs and wondered if any CR members have tried it for photogrpahy ... from what I saw in the youtube videos (posted below), I can think of many creative possibilities for photography ... did any of you use it? and if yes what is your opinion?
http://lifx.co/
Thanks in advance
LIFX The light bulb reinvented
LIFX Lightbulb - Unboxing Installation & Review

I bought four of them a few weeks ago, but after playing with them for a weekend, I'm not sure how useful they will be.  Color control and responsiveness is a bit weak.  The colors seem a bit harsh for my taste.  It might be better if they would also offer color adjustment based on color temperature.  The software is a bit rough, and for home use it would be great to be able to set lighting schedules for security purposes, along with lighting themes.  While the product works, it was released to market a bit early.  On the positive side, the hardware is very well done and it's easy to set up.  Just my 2 cents worth.  Most of my complaints can be fixed with better software.
Thanks ... you are the first person, I know, that has actually used this product. When you say harsh colors, do you mean that they are very gaudy or just very strong colors that cannot be adjusted to soften them?
Cheers

142
Unfortunately, The Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f/4 OSS lens has received disappointing reviews at both photozone and SLRgear.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/24-70mm-fe-zeiss-gets-tested-by-photozone-and-slrgear-doesnt-meet-the-expectations-from-the-reviewers/
I read those reviews and that's pretty much what I feel about the FE 24-70 f/4 lens ... it is a good lens to have for about $700 (maybe $800 max, but no more) but for close to $1200 it is just not worth it, one might as well stick with the kit lens.

143
I'd get it for those occasions when I want to spot a distant bird ... and for the fun of having a 2000mm fov.

144
I look forward to seeing this on a PC; I don't think my phone will do it justice.

Jim
I think the reason for the developer choosing to put it on a smartphone is the sheer number of smartphones out there and also it is more convenient to carry it around than a PC ... having said that I don't see any reason why not also have a program for PC, for those who like to use it through the PC.

I agree with your point but what I meant was that I look forward to seeing the website and the videos on my computer; actually manipulating the lights is definitely a job for a mobile device.

Jim
OK, I get it now ... its funny how a comment can be misunderstood  ;D
Cheers

145
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Patent: Tamron 10mm f/2.8 Fisheye
« on: March 28, 2014, 01:37:34 PM »
"Vibration control" ?
A stabilised fisheye ? That's funny.

Maybe for video?
Even for video one would not pan/move around the scenery with a fish eye lens because it severely distorts the scenery ... panning/moving with a fish-eye lens would make the video footage look silly and unappealing ... I'm sure a few might use it on rare occasions to get some funky video footage, but generally fish-eye lens would be used for footage that is recorded on a tripod.

146
I look forward to seeing this on a PC; I don't think my phone will do it justice.

Jim
I think the reason for the developer choosing to put it on a smartphone is the sheer number of smartphones out there and also it is more convenient to carry it around than a PC ... having said that I don't see any reason why not also have a program for PC, for those who like to use it through the PC.

147
I came across these LIFX light bulbs and wondered if any CR members have tried it for photogrpahy ... from what I saw in the youtube videos (posted below), I can think of many creative possibilities for photography ... did any of you use it? and if yes what is your opinion?
http://lifx.co/
Thanks in advance
LIFX The light bulb reinvented
LIFX Lightbulb - Unboxing Installation & Review

148
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: March 28, 2014, 08:23:53 AM »



The "ufo" cloud is my favorite!
+1 ... it very beautifully captured.

149
Hi Rienzphotoz.
Whilst you and I can work this out, I have seen to many friends, family and general public taken in by the free handset to believe that the majority of people don't fall for this marketing ploy, if you don't believe me stand in any phone store and listen to the "ooh this handset is free on the £45/ month for 24 months contract" I understand the no such thing as a free lunch mantra, but if people believe they are getting it free it, in my opinion, skews the figures. I stand by my statement about the cost ratio, and everyone these days needs a the latest smart phone but not a camera! I understand the benefit in general to the network operator etc that you mention but I think it is fairly secondary to the main issue raised here.
Just to prove I too have paid too much for phones, I was one of two people in the factory who had a wap phone when the trade centre towers were hit, I had a crowd round me waiting on my updates from the Internet!  ;D

Cheers Graham.

I don't know about your gullible friends, family and general public that you know, but when mobile service providers advertise for iPhone contracts, they do not advertise it as "free" iPhone. I hope you know that when they say 250 million digital cameras, they are not talking about only DSLRs, the figures also include the cheapest Canon point and shoot digital cameras such as Power Shot A2500 which retail for $59 ... now contrast this with the cheapest contract for an iPhone and work out the math. Also, the 250 million sales figure they've quoted here is from their first Digital camera, which I believe is over 18 years ago ... whereas the sales figure of 500 million iPhones is less than 7 years ago. By your own admission you have said that you "too have paid too much for phones", so now, going back to the commet about "putting things in perspective", the 250 million digital cameras, which Canon sold (in over 18 years), is nowhere close to the amount of iPhones sold by Apple in less than 7 years ;) 

150

Pretty cool.  In other news, Apple (according to rumor sites) just sold its 500 millionth iPhone.

Ain't perspective fun.

:D
Hi dgatwood.
Apple may have sold/produced 500,000,000 phones but most in the UK are not sold to end users in the true sense of the word, they are given away with contracts for connection to a service provider. I don't know how it is done elsewhere. Even outright purchase of an iPhone is only in the same sort of price range as an entry level DSLR+lens kit, just to put things in to perspective!  ;D

Cheers Graham.
They are not "given away in contracts", the cost of the iPhone is very much built into the contract ... in fact you actually pay a lot more that way over a period of 2 years, than buying it outright. Remember that in addition to 500 million iPhones that cost as much "as an entry level DSLR+lens kit", they've also got billions of paid downloads ... whereas majority of the "entry level DSLR+lens kit" buyers will most likely do not buy another DSLR or lens for many years (if not never) ... but an iPhone buyer uses it every single day + it generates an eco system which benefits not just Apple but also the service providers, music industry, websites advertisers, accessory manufacturers etc etc to name just a few ... and I'm pretty sure majority of iPhone users upgrade to newer models at least once in 2 years, if not less.
Just to put things in "perspective", 500 million iPhones = 500 million digital cameras (as all of them have/had a camera) which are used far more than any digital camera Canon ever made ;)
Regardless of its "poor" image quality an iPhone camera is far more useful and handy than any digital camera Canon has ever made.
I bought my Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS for $1849 (when it was on sale at B&H and it is my most "expensive" lens to date), but from the time I bought that lens I have spent over $3300 on 5 iPhones (2 for me & 3 for the wife) and I'm pretty sure I'd out spend my most "expensive" lens by at at least twice as much by the time I buy another lens of that price range ... and I think majority of iPhone users/buyers spend more money than majority of digital camera users/buyers.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/03/25/without-much-fanfare-apple-has-sold-its-500-millionth-iphone/

But how much of that time spent on the iPhone, is taking pictures, and how much is spent looking at porn or playing candy crush?  And is streaming video and playing games, worth spending $3300?  I submit that it is not.
I don't know about you  :P but I do not watch porn on my phone or play games (the only game I play is Chess on my phone) ... I have over 50 GB of photography, videography & photoshop tutorials from Kelby, Lynda, Creative Live etc on my phone ... the phone also takes care of my online banking, expense tracking & it works as a scanner for many of my documents, receipts etc, it has user manuals for my cameras, photography, photoshop & technology related magazines & e-books. For me and many like me its worth the money spent on it ... plus when I sell the phone, I get at least 50% of the purchase value.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 222