Tim Sewell

This 100%! And the thing about those measures is they work! That's why I'm so exhausted by these debates. 
Even when you adjust the numbers to account for its small population, Vermont has the second lowest rates in the country. Why? It's not because it's rural since that didn't spare the Dakotas from having the highest numbers in the country. It's not because it was remote, given it bordered New York and Massachusetts, two states that were ravaged by COVID-19 at one point. It's not because they aren't testing; they're 7th in testing per million. 
It's because they require masks, put limits on how many people can be in stores and restaurants at once, restricted gatherings, etc. Common sense stuff that even after 500,000 have died people still argue against or call "slavery." 

Medically justified, temporary, standard public health measures aimed at containing a deadly pandemic are not slavery - the view of the world betrayed by such a characterisation is either simplistic or solipsistic.
I'm very sorry for your father's suffering - but really, what is the alternative? Do hospitals allow normal visiting by relatives and friends who may unknowingly be spreading a virus that could kill not only the patient concerned but also many others in the hospital who are highly vulnerable? Or do they devote hours of scarce nursing time helping said visitors to don PPE to a clinical standard?
All of the measures enacted around the world have their basis in the fact that we are faced with a virus that many can spread without even realising they're infected, but which for many others is a death sentence. In other words - they call upon those who in the main can withstand the infection to temporarily undergo some personal detriment - be it economic, social, emotional or to their own mental health in order to protect their fellow citizens who might not be so lucky.
You say it's your right to take the personal risk of getting sick or dying. But what of the health worker treating you who you infect and goes on to die, or to have their life blighted by long Covid? What of the rights of the key worker infected because they have no choice but to continue to work and mix who is denied a hospital bed because you - who was exercising his rights - have taken it up due to entirely avoidable infection? Why do your 'rights' (really just a conviction that you shouldn't be inconvenienced or disappointed along with everybody else) trump theirs?

Medically justified, temporary, standard public health measures aimed at containing a deadly pandemic are not slavery - the view of the world betrayed by such a characterisation is either simplistic or solipsistic.
I'm very sorry for your father's suffering - but really, what is the alternative? Do hospitals allow normal visiting by relatives and friends who may unknowingly be spreading a virus that could kill not only the patient concerned but also many others in the hospital who are highly vulnerable? Or do they devote hours of scarce nursing time helping said visitors to don PPE to a clinical standard?
All of the measures enacted around the world have their basis in the fact that we are faced with a virus that many can spread without even realising they're infected, but which for many others is a death sentence. In other words - they call upon those who in the main can withstand the infection to temporarily undergo some personal detriment - be it economic, social, emotional or to their own mental health in order to protect their fellow citizens who might not be so lucky.
You say it's your right to take the personal risk of getting sick or dying. But what of the health worker treating you who you infect and goes on to die, or to have their life blighted by long Covid? What of the rights of the key worker infected because they have no choice but to continue to work and mix who is denied a hospital bed because you - who was exercising his rights - have taken it up due to entirely avoidable infection? Why do your 'rights' (really just a conviction that you shouldn't be inconvenienced or disappointed along with everybody else) trump theirs?

I wonder it what possible universe being asked to reduce social contact and to take simple precautions like wearing a mask in enclosed spaces, during a pandemic that has so far killed half a million Americans (and many more the world over) can be characterised as 'slavery'. I mean, it's not like there's any shortage of examples of *actual* slavery available to see in the historical record of the good ol' USA.

I wonder it what possible universe being asked to reduce social contact and to take simple precautions like wearing a mask in enclosed spaces, during a pandemic that has so far killed half a million Americans (and many more the world over) can be characterised as 'slavery'. I mean, it's not like there's any shortage of examples of *actual* slavery available to see in the historical record of the good ol' USA.

I wonder it what possible universe being asked to reduce social contact and to take simple precautions like wearing a mask in enclosed spaces, during a pandemic that has so far killed half a million Americans (and many more the world over) can be characterised as 'slavery'. I mean, it's not like there's any shortage of examples of *actual* slavery available to see in the historical record of the good ol' USA.

I wonder it what possible universe being asked to reduce social contact and to take simple precautions like wearing a mask in enclosed spaces, during a pandemic that has so far killed half a million Americans (and many more the world over) can be characterised as 'slavery'. I mean, it's not like there's any shortage of examples of *actual* slavery available to see in the historical record of the good ol' USA.

It's hard to say it's gone wrong. It's so-called creative destruction. There's simply no need for a mass consumer camera market any more. Every home used to have a camera, be it a compact, a SLR, a Polaroid or whatever. No-one needs those any more because everybody (even the children) has a phone that will take better snaps with fewer skills, in a format that allows instant sharing.

It's hard to say it's gone wrong. It's so-called creative destruction. There's simply no need for a mass consumer camera market any more. Every home used to have a camera, be it a compact, a SLR, a Polaroid or whatever. No-one needs those any more because everybody (even the children) has a phone that will take better snaps with fewer skills, in a format that allows instant sharing.

Given the FX denomination - Sony's cinema line - I'd be surprised if it has a stills mode at all, likewise IBIS. I think people looking for something comparable to, or an alternative to the A7Siii are probably barking up the wrong tree here. I'd look upon this (subject to further info) as Sony's riposte to Canon's C70. I'm not in the market for a new camera (and if I was I'd prefer the form factor of the FX6) but this - especially at the rumoured price -  looks like it could be an extremely tasty option!

I think so too. but the price is really at the advantage of the Sony with a bigger sensor, even if it needs the dedicated XLR adapter to be able to compete with the C70 in the sound department.
But the only unknown remains the presence of a built in ND or even better E-ND.
If it has this feature, it's way more interesting that the Canon C70 in my opinion.

A Super/Mafer clamp is like a mini hydraulic press.  As I mentioned above, it can crunch through many items/materials that other clamps cannot.  Due the heightened leverage involved, clueless folks tightening that type of cam-action clamp have damaged and ruined location pieces and caused material failure resulting in accidents.
 
If one has no experience with such clamps, one should avoid them.
 
Clamps should almost always be tightened to be firm -- not just "sufficient to make sure they won't fall."
 
 
That might seem like a good idea, but the torsion stress makes such an offset rig precarious and sets it up for failure, which is undesirable and unsafe -- even if the CG is inside the balcony.
 
In addition, with such positioning, the grip items might creep into the bottom of the frame.
 
 
Do not use fishing line.  Use something with a high enough test strength that holds knots well.  If you can tie a bowline and a clove hitch, you are good.  Extra points if you can tie a trucker's hitch, which is very useful for tag lines.
 
In regards to pick points, the more solid they are, the better.   A chair is probably not good for the balcony scenario, unless it is very heavy... likewise with a water bottle.  I would first look for pick points that are part of the building structure.  They need to be significantly inside from the edge of the balcony, and the higher up, the better.  Sometimes two pick points are necessary if there is not one far enough inside.
 
On a balcony the primary safety should be a tag/guy line that prevents a rig from going over the rail -- not a safety cable that "catches" the rig if it falls (as you suggested).  Of course, using a safety cable in addition to a tag line is good practice.
 
 
Actually, the clueless and uninitiated need to "be careful," especially when they contemplate rigging anything at altitude (which they should generally avoid).
 
It is misguided and dangerous to think that rigging a camera on a balcony rail is a "physics problem" or that doing so somehow involves "math."  If one has to calculate the stress tolerances of location items, such an endeavor should be abandoned.  As Murphy's Law suggests, failure is often more probable than one anticipates -- especially for a cocksure newbie.  Additionally, the odds of failure are compounded by all of the unknown variables one encounters at a location.
 
What one really needs when rigging at altitude on location is a strong sense of safety, along with a good deal of experience in anticipating and preventing/avoiding the various failures possible.  Such qualities are often found in grips and set electricians who have been around the block a few times.
 
If one doesn't have the proper sense of safety nor rigging experience, it is best to avoid rigging a camera to a balcony rail.
 
However, speaking of physics, I would like to reiterate that the physical properties of tempered glass are complex and that clamping to glass should never be attempted.
 
Here is a lecture on breaking glass cued to the start of the section on tempered glass. Note that the lecturer states that if one tries to modify tempered glass in the slightest, "fun things will happen!"
 
Tempered glass is primed to explode into little pieces.  As shown in my above links above, strong flex stress or a tiny tap in the right spot can shatter tempered glass.   Here is another video showing that tempered glass can take strong, broad impacts, but a local tap can cause it to shatter.  In addition, the risk of shattering is exacerbated by any tiny damage or imperfection in the glass or by any stress added by a rig/clamp.
 
Here is a closeup of the stress on a block of glass generated by a C-clamp, in a photo taken with a polarimeter setup:

As more force is applied, the stresses increase.
 
Here is a similar image showing stress lines on a clear block of plastic that deforms more easily than glass:

 
These stresses are not visible when one tightens a Super/Mafer clamp onto a glass balustrade.
 
So, although a drunk person falling on a glass balustrade might not be a problem, a tiny impact and/or clamping force on a local spot of the glass might cause that balustrade to shatter.  That could ruin one's day.
 
I have the benefit of years of experience as a member of an IA studio mechanics local working a set electrician and as a grip.  If a new guy joined the crew and announced that they had postgraduate level physics and math, they would start out huffing cable, sandbags and carts just like every other newbie.  The sense of safety, rigging techniques and set protocols has to be developed.
 
In the meantime, don't put towels or t-shirts inside overhead clamps, always use a substantial tag line (with solid pick points) on a balcony rig, and avoid attaching anything to location structures...  oh, and never clamp to glass!

The benefits of digital are, of course, undeniable - in fact this forum wouldn't exist were it not for the advent of large-sensor video and many of its enthusiast members, myself included, would never have been able to even get into a position where these discussions are possible without it.
We have 2 competing sets of desires when it comes to large sensor video. On the one hand we want more resolution, greater bit depth and higher frame rates (all of which improve the ROI for professional users); while on the other, we want sensors that will satisfy our aesthetic desires which for most of us align much more with the organic nature of celluloid than they do with pristine Rec709 video. Perhaps those two desire sets will never be compatible, but unfortunately there will never be sufficient sales to enthusiast users to justify pro-sumer/consumer level equipment that abandons the megapixel/frame rate race in favour of a lower resolution with film-like DR etc.
I was having this discussion (sort of) with a couple of occasional photo shooters just on Friday. they were saying that there was now no discernible difference between film and digital. I disagreed. I can certainly easily differentiate the stills I shoot on film, to those I've shot on digital - even though I generally process the latter to look as much like the former as I can. The organic, random, chemical nature of silver halide photography gives a highlight roll-off - and just as important, a roll-off to underexposure - plus a transition from in to out-of focus that simply can't be achieved in a grid matrix of photosensitive receptors. That look is at once closer to and further away from what we see with our own eyes and that is where its magic lies.

Hi all
I just thought I'd share this with you, for those who may not know about these new lenses. They are called Dulens APO Miniprimes and come in PL or EF mount (they have interchangeable mounts) and cover "full frame" (as in 24x36, and apparently some even cover the 44x33 MF sensors).
All are f/2.0 and the T-stop (which will be marked on the lens) varies from T/2.3-2.6 depending on which lens.
72mm thread, 80mm OD. 270 focus rotation marked in both metric and imperial.
Right now they have/working on 21mm, 31mm, 43mm, 58mm, 85mm, and are discussing a 24/25mm and 120mm macro.
"VC coating" described as "very special rainbow flare and creamy bokeh." Their aim is to make lenses with some character and a more vintage aesthetic as opposed to clinical perfection.
THEY ARE NOT REHOUSED LENSES OR REDESIGNS. They are designed from the ground up.
The 43, 58, and 85 are shipping first in batches - right now they're only selling the 3 lens kit. It says "the Final market price for third batch would around 750USD" - unclear if this is for the entire batch or per lens. Wording sounds like the entire set, but that seems too good to be true. Unless they mean $750 each in the third round (batch) of sales. The first two rounds have sold out.
The first batch is due to ship out after this month but COVID may delay it a bit.
The third batch is still open for pre-orders as far as I know. Here's what they say to get on the list:
 
They have no website but here is a link to the Facebook post in their group that explains everything (including what I've described here). You can join the group there. That seems to be the only "website" presence they have, though you can email them obviously.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/406961286682447/post_tags/?post_tag_id=707462599965646
They seem to be working on a lot of different options and seem to be asking for a lot of feedback from people - regularly posting pics of lenses and different colors of the barrel/markings, etc, asking for input.
I'm very excited to get my hands on one and try it out. It's even cheaper than the SLR Magic APO Microprimes (which are my favorite budget cinema lenses) - those also cover "full frame" and are apochromatic, with a vintage-esque drawing style.
*I am not affiliated with them whatsoever, I just came across them and thought I'd pass it along*

It's hard to say it's gone wrong. It's so-called creative destruction. There's simply no need for a mass consumer camera market any more. Every home used to have a camera, be it a compact, a SLR, a Polaroid or whatever. No-one needs those any more because everybody (even the children) has a phone that will take better snaps with fewer skills, in a format that allows instant sharing.

Very very few FX9 owners could 100% replace their FX9 with a Sony a1, they're too drastically different.

MUCH K!!
MANY FOCUS!

The embargo for the a1 reviews ends today so if anyone needs me I'll be working on my thumbnail...

Well the other part of the equation is that digital cameras last a long time for most consumers and semi-pro's. Unless you do timelapse with mechanical shutter beating your shutter to death, how many shots a year do you put on your camera ? 5K ? 10k ? with a shutter good for 150-200K releases you've got 15-25 years worth of life with that camera. Longer if you use it less. Couple that with minor improvements in resolution for mid to lower priced cameras, minor improvements in DR, those two big selling points just aren't . Most cameras are in the 20seomthing megapixel range and even the higher 36MP sensors aren't that much of a jump up for _most_ users when their current camera is perfectly good for their needs. Only 4K displays has pushed the res limitation a bit. Until we have mass market 6K (computer) or 8K screens will anyone feel any real need to push the pixel count up on the sensor. Current cameras produce really respectable DR and color for the most part. More than good enough for most people's needs now and for a while. 
 Maybe the only real thing that might push someone to get a new camera body is better AF. We have most of that with phase detect and face recognition thats pretty good, again for most people's needs most of the time.
with feature needs covered, the want to upgrade is low, esepecially when looking at the price of new cameras. Fuji has done well with good retro design in the bodies, great color that is their own, and kept pricing for the S35 cameras affordable enough what while its a decsion of thought to get a new one like a Xpro3, its not such a giant investment you really have to plan and think it out hard for a lot of people. indeed keeping it under $2k + APSC has proven a good combination.

It's hard to say it's gone wrong. It's so-called creative destruction. There's simply no need for a mass consumer camera market any more. Every home used to have a camera, be it a compact, a SLR, a Polaroid or whatever. No-one needs those any more because everybody (even the children) has a phone that will take better snaps with fewer skills, in a format that allows instant sharing.

Pity the enthusiast! 'pro-sumer' models have always been supported by healthy sales of point'n'shoots. Take those away and, as @Marcio Kabke Pinheiro says, we'll be left with pro cameras at pro prices and Leica-level enthusiast models. people will be able to snap 500MP pictures of us weeping, on their wristwatch cams.

Well of course - but history is littered with dead industries whose players failed to foresee the full effects of technological change. But in terms of actual hardware, there was and is literally nothing that could save mass-market camera sales. You have to remember that the vast majority of the millions of point'n'shoots that used to be sold every year weren't in daily use - they sat in drawers, brought out for the annual holiday, birthdays and Christmas. People who worked in mass-market photo labs used to laugh about rolls of 24 frames that were bookended with snaps from 2 consecutive festive seasons. So when you arrive, accidentally (don't forget, cameras in phones started out as a minor value-add) at a scenario where everybody has a far higher (for them) quality camera in their pockets all the time that they don't even have to think about putting in there - well; tell me what camera makers could have done to their products to make them attractive enough for Joe Schmoe to put his hand in his pocket for a separate device that he has to remember to get out of the drawer.
It's by no means a happy situation, but it is what it is and it's where we are. With the benefit of hindsight we can debate whether or not it was inevitable. We can posit ways in which CaNikon etc could have safeguarded their businesses - but the ways in which they could have done that, including the strategies Andrew suggests, might have saved their businesses, but wouldn't have done anything to preserve any kind of market for consumer cameras sufficient to continue supporting higher end gear for enthusiasts.

It's hard to say it's gone wrong. It's so-called creative destruction. There's simply no need for a mass consumer camera market any more. Every home used to have a camera, be it a compact, a SLR, a Polaroid or whatever. No-one needs those any more because everybody (even the children) has a phone that will take better snaps with fewer skills, in a format that allows instant sharing.

In the 1990's, a good capable and forward thinking management at Canon would have been in talks with Adobe, and would have bought a controlling stake in the company. Out from that, the company would have sprung all kinds of software and technological services, before going into online photo sharing in a big way, 5 years before Facebook.
In the early 2010s, a good and correct thinking Nikon management would have been deep in talks with mobile networks around the world and Apple, looking to create a standard e-sim for all customers so that their network contracts worked with the multiple devices they own. Rather than a sim card, onboard chip could hold digital subscriber info and connect to 4G networks. When the 4G era really got going, therefore, camera companies would all have the connectivity ready to go in their DSLRs and mirrorless cameras and a one-button press to share shots online. Also, larger back screen, touch screen UI, in-camera editing and filters, plus proper OS to run it all.
None of this ever happened of course which is why the chart looks like it does above, rather than being the fault of consumers switching to smartphones. It is more that the Japanese camera corporations did nothing to mitigate it.

It's hard to say it's gone wrong. It's so-called creative destruction. There's simply no need for a mass consumer camera market any more. Every home used to have a camera, be it a compact, a SLR, a Polaroid or whatever. No-one needs those any more because everybody (even the children) has a phone that will take better snaps with fewer skills, in a format that allows instant sharing.