Gordon Zernich

I suppose this proves that marketing budgets, e.g. all expense paid trips (to Hawaii, etc.) & drinks for reviewers for positive write-ups and videos only goes so far.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/10/16/the-trump-manufacturing-jobs-boom-10-times-obamas-over-21-months/?fbclid=IwAR0-EIvHqXnD9d8yU5d1PGXdTWQH6i8d8DpIFgw0nsvp0XbACEsUTqP33_s#763caf535850

The Trump Manufacturing Jobs Boom: 10 Times Obama's Over 21 Months

eh, it's a bad situation with "free trade" and "fair trade".

I was going to look into a Huawei cellphone and compare it with the One Plus 7. Then this trade issue came up. 

It's not that a cellphone is a "must have" with me. It certainly would be great to have a better one. The one I have I received for free for signing up to a carriers phone plan two years ago. So it's cheap with not much or a processor, little memory and a camera that usually blows out highlights easily.

Surely these new cellphones have very, very good cameras.

These newer cellphones, I'm sure, have been eating up mirrorless camera sales. 

So, my thoughts are a mirrorless camera with better picture quality and wifi or Bluetooth capabilities teamed up with a rather average cellphone with a decent processor and memory capacity. Any suggestions?

One Plus 7 starts at $700, right?

So I'm ambivalent about the cellphone/trade issue. Overall the issue affects many other industries in the states, especially agriculture. 

Yeah, it's nice to have a top notch cellphone, but it's not a big deal if it's not-so-top shelf as far as I'm concerned. Back in the day that would be called "keeping up with the Jones"". And rather have a bridge or mirrorless camera that takes better picture quality and matched with a cellphone that can upload the media to wherever. 

Any suggestions for that better mirrorless or bridge camera? 

On 11/24/2018 at 2:01 PM, chrisE said:

Read my post. I don't need it, but it could be handy. Of course, all the (wannabe?) "pro's" out there who shoot everything perfect, don't need to crop or reframe in post. ?

What I wanted to say if you don't understand it, is that it can be useful to have a higher resolution to crop/re-frame.

excellent point; thank you

18 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

On day 3 and 4 of Photokina, I collaborated with Dave Altizer of Kinotika to record the first episode of EOSHD TV and an EOSHD Podcast.

We discuss insider topics such as a rumoured on-chip ND filter by Panasonic, Fuji's "super full frame" medium format strategy and round up some of the highlights of Photokina (including the Panasonic S1R).

Read the full article

what a motley crew of the mirrorless counterculture ... okay, I'm in ...  yet that highlight/glare on your forehead ... geez! Come on, man! Got your hands full anyway! Good luck on the podcast: it's certainly needed and overdue. Congratulations 

On 9/17/2018 at 5:38 PM, Gordon Zernich said:

Could you provide an clip or two of that effect?

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

I continue to see this waxiness even at low ISOs in footage I’ve shot with the X-T2, just one more reason I stopped shooting Fuji a long time ago.

Could you provide an clip or two of that effect?

16 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

You can get blown out highlights shooting with anything though. You have to expose for highlights to avoid that and raise shadows in post. Which not everyone wants to do and of course if the highlights are too bright the shadows may not be able to be lifted enough.

that's a gem: thank you

16 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said:

I was shooting Eterna---it is a film simulation between the standard simulations and Fuji F-Log. Eterna is not, strictly speaking, a truly flat profile. F-log is what should be used on bright days like I was shooting on. It will give you a full 12 stops of dynamic range...not too shabby by any means.

The reason I didn't use F-log is because I was trying out these FD lenses for the first time and trying to properly judge exposure and dynamic range in F-log would only complicate things. I wasn't trying to demonstrate dynamic range. I was only trying to show how you can shoot non-electronic, fully manual lenses in the X-H1 because of the 3 axis internal stabilization the camera provides. If I'd been trying to do something finished and professional I would have shot more on a tripod, definitely shot in F-log, been more careful with my exposure over all, and graded things carefully in editing. But in this I was only trying to say you can get some pretty good images with a lot of character, very fast speeds, and not have to spend thousands of $$ on expensive lenses. That's why I mentioned the footage was shot on FDs...never before was possible on Fujifilm cameras. You can do the same with Rokinon cinema lenses--but they're heavier.

Thank you very much

2 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Actually, I was not in AWB. I never shoot AWB. My kelvin was set on 5600. That day at the zoo the light was all over the place, with varying clouds, etc. There was no hunting for white balance. The camera was recording what was there in a given situation. If I had been doing something serious I would have white balanced almost every scene. Considering the situation I might have been better off. and gotten more uniform results using AWB.

Thanks for being honest. Mostly I read here and try to learn (when the discussion doesn't go way over my head). 

I'll make no major purchases until retirement.

That said, I noticed blown out highlights in both videos and was getting disappointed by it. Like, geez, I get that same result shooting with an older bridge camera with a one inch sensor.

So, okay, thanks for clarifying part of the blown out highlights issue. There are probably other factors involved with that ... so that's why I'm here to learn.

The  Eye-Detect AF looks good in the video, but what is with the highlights in the background? It looks blown out to me. What's with that.

your critique is like a breath of fresh air

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

RX1mk2

no 4K video, no IBIS, no telephoto lens on the RXmk2 unless I'm missing something

14 hours ago, Mokara said:

They will have newer versions of the RX10. But the improvements will be incremental, similar to what is done with the RX100. Development costs will be contained by keeping the body/mechanicals largely the same and just updating the internal electronics as silicon is improved. There is a market for high end small sensor extreme lens cameras.

Sony already have a FF bridge camera. It is called the RX1. 

that's what I'm talking about FF, include 4k video + IBIS, fast zoom lens: bridge

So, what is the cost & profit margin for Samsung with this full frame sensor? Sure Samsung could supply other manufacturers ... however, a full frame bridge camera with a fast telescopic lens is undeserved in the marketplace. For the right price it would be a great travel camera and certainly better than a smartphone. I'd buy it quickly.

Perhaps a silly idea, but why couldn't Samsung put it in a bridge camera with a great, fast telescopic lens and blow up the market? That keeps expenses on the Samsung side way down.

Most camera manufacturers will need to provide more value in their product ... the next iPhone is said to have an excellent camera; it will put pressure on the Sonys and Panasonics to deliver more value.

Probably get more out of YouTube reviews/tutorials than this streaming: this has less to do with consumers than it does with corporate customers; that said, thanks for the streaming.

5 minutes given to A7S

It does not offer  H.265 HEVC (High Efficiency Video Coding)? I do not claim to know much, but I do not live at 12 Under Rock Drive.