http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php Discussion forum on digtal photography topics hosted by Digital Photography now, see http://dpnow.com en Tue, 21 May 2013 20:46:31 GMT vBulletin 30 http://dpnow.com/forum2/images/misc/rss.jpg http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=370 Tue, 21 May 2013 09:06:16 GMT If you're a Flickr user and you haven't been there for a day or two you will be in for a surprise because the veteran photo (and video) sharing site has had a long-overdue make-over.

On top of that the many of the old restrictions on ordinary non-professional grade accounts have gone. Free users can now upload as much as a terabyte (1,000 gigabytes) of photos, and the maximum photo size has been increased from 10MB to 200MB - in fact that's more generous than the Pro limit of 50MB.

In fact Pro accounts are no longer available for new registrations although Flickr promises to continue paid-up Pro account subscriptions and renewals indefinitely. Pro account users will retain premium facilities like enhanced statistics and be free of ads. Free accounts can also be ad-exempt for an annual $49.99 fee.

The new default page after you log in now features large photos from your Flickr contacts. Any groups your are a member of are also shown. Go into your photostream and you are presented with a patchwork of your own photos. It's almost like a celebration of your work and I feel it's a big improvement on what we had before.

Personally, I was never inclined to purchase a Pro account and I suspect that I was not part of a minority. Yahoo!-owned Flickr has seen the light and bitten the bullet. Some commentators are saying it is too little and too late, and that Flickr still won't attract the really big swathe of smartphone photographers who already expect more for free from Flickr rivals.

But for more 'dedicated' or 'thinking' photographers - especially those who have already embraced Flickr, the changes should mainly be welcome.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dpnow/ ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=370 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=369 Mon, 20 May 2013 10:14:36 GMT *Tech is great - but are we letting ourselves down by not exploiting tech for the sake of quality?* With compact camera sales in nose-dive -... Tech is great - but are we letting ourselves down by not exploiting tech for the sake of quality?

With compact camera sales in nose-dive - reducing year on year between 25 and 50% - we shouldn't be surprised to see people using camera phones instead; I do and in one sense I make no apology. But in another sense I know that I am sacrificing image quality for convenience.

Even if you use a system camera with interchangeable lenses, the likelihood is that the zoom lens you are probably using is a lot slower than the f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses that were commonplace once. Even f/2.8 is considered faster than average these days. An f/2.8 standard lens was once considered a low budget choice.

It's the same with audio. I used to be an amateur audio buff. It was such a struggle to get decent audio quality unless you had a big budget. Perception of the ultimate audio experience was rather esoteric and often required hardware minimalism - tone controls? Horror! Today, however, many of us rely on cheap and nasty headphones and speakers and digital audio quality that would send hifi purists running for the hills.

I can even add the TV experience to this high-tech is worse proposition. Standard definition (SD) TV on a shiny new LCD or plasma HD TV is, frankly, rubbish compared to what we were used to on the good old cathode ray tube TV. Get to near to an HDTV and you can see details obliterated by hordes of heaving pixels. Even at a good viewing distance and even with an HD source the problem of noise in dark areas of a scene can be all-too evident.

Yes, it's true that digital technology removes many of the nasties that were symptomatic of the analogue age. For photographers these would be things like limited ISO range, lens distortaion and aberrations that are so easily corrected now, image stabilisation for low light, very high optical quality of lenses thanks to modern digital design and manufacturing, almost limitless possibilities in post-processing and no need to wait for results. And you can get those results to friends and strangers in seconds via the Internet.

Of course, we now seem to spend most of our time appreciating photography on-screen. Again, I suggest that the luxury of enjoying and discovering a great image - on a superbly produced print - is just that - a luxury these days.

I would be the last to lambast technological developments. I am - at heart - a gadget and technology geek; I can't get enough of it. But I do find it bizarre to observe that for many people, maybe even MOST people today, technology delivers inferior quality. It seems the priority these days is immediacy and ease of use. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=369 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=368 Mon, 13 May 2013 18:01:03 GMT All the signs are that Nokia will be unveiling a new Lumia Windows Phone handset tomorrow (Tuesday 14th May) and the emphasis will be on what the... All the signs are that Nokia will be unveiling a new Lumia Windows Phone handset tomorrow (Tuesday 14th May) and the emphasis will be on what the smartphone will be able to do in camera mode. Nokia has been running a teaser video to that effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9rdaDK-YQ

Speculation is that the new smartphone will incorporate Nokia's remarkable 41 megapixel PureView camera first seen in the Symbian-based Nokia 808 Pureview. However, there are some saying that Nokia may debut the first smartphone to feature revolutionary matrix-lens technology from Pelican Imaging, a start-up that Nokia has invested in. The Pelican camera is a compact and, importantly slim, device that uses an array of 4x4 mini lenses. Like Lytro technology the camera records focus field data so you can refocus the image after it has been snapped.

I will be attending a press briefing tomorrow morning so watch this space! ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=368 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=367 Wed, 08 May 2013 08:18:26 GMT Image: http://dpnow.com/files/blog/adobe_logo.png Adobe has revealed that Creative Suite 6, including Photoshop CS6, will be the last edition of...

Adobe has revealed that Creative Suite 6, including Photoshop CS6, will be the last edition of the suite to be sold as a physically packaged retail form. You won't even be able to buy the next release as a download to own for ever. Instead, you will have to take out a subscription to Adobe's Creative Cloud service.

Adobe says it has already attracted a half a million Creative Cloud subscribers and by moving away from a cycle of developing and releasing new versions of the Creative Suite every 18 months or so means new features can be released to users without having to wait for the next release.

However, the news - revealed at the annual Adobe Max conference yesterday - has generated widespread criticism among the Adobe faithful. Many regard the change in strategy as self-serving for Adobe and not in the interests of many of its users. Many seem to be asking why the choice of a version of the Suite or one or more of its components as an owned product has been taken away. Many CS owners are still contentedly using versions several years old, which may not be that surprising considering how expensive it is to buy in the first place. Now, for continued use of the product you will need to maintain a subscription. Regardless of whether or not this may be better 'value', the fact that Adobe has removed the option of being able to own a version of the suite for ever is a big gamble.

There is no shortage of alternatives to Adobe's Creative Suite programs. There is no doubt that Adobe sets a very high standard for its software, but its rivals are not that far behind. Only time will tell, but this Creative Suite news could end up being a major opportunity for Adobe's rivals. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=367 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=366 Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:37:06 GMT Jessops to live on but probably only in name as an online retailer Image: http://dpnow.com/images/9082.jpg Reports in the last 24 hours... Jessops to live on but probably only in name as an online retailer



Reports in the last 24 hours indicate that Dragons' Den entrepreneur Peter Jones has acquired the Jessops brand and selected other assets from the failed photography chain's administrator, PwC.

Details remain unclear but none of the 187 Jessops stores are apparently included in the deal, although there are some rumours that a number of the stores may be acquired by Jones' co-Dragon, Theo Paphitis, who runs the Ryman stationery chain.

Undisputably, Jessops is a well-known photography retail brand name and Jones could well be seeking to exploit the brand exclusively online. Jessops had already developed an online retail infrastructure which may require minimal modification to kick-start a Jessops 2 business.

Jones also has a long history from his time selling mobile phones - one of the industries attributed to the demise of Jessops, so don't be surprised if the re-born Jessops also sells smartphones and tablets. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=366 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=365 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:22:01 GMT *Cloud hangs over high street electronics retailing after failure of Jessops* Image: http://dpnow.com/images/9082.jpg Although the signs... Cloud hangs over high street electronics retailing after failure of Jessops



Although the signs haven't been good for a long time the news that Jessops was going into administration last Wednesday was a shock. Perhaps even more surprise was the sheer speed at which things went down hill after that. By Friday it was clear to the administrators that the entire Jessops business could not be salvaged and all Jessops stores duly closed their doors for the last time, with around 1300 staff left without jobs.

Jessops has, largely, been rightly criticised for uncompetitive pricing, poor stock selection in-store, and variable quality of in-store staff. On the other hand Jessops had worked hard to integrate their online presence with stores so you could order via the website and opt to collect your order from your local store. The website was also able to tell you which stores had what you wanted in stock. Unfortunately, in my experience my local Jessops rarely had what I wanted in stock and a special order would have cost a lot more than ordering it from Amazon or eBay.

Feedback from readers suggests that many had abandoned Jessops for a long time already. The increasing rarity of really knowledgeable staff in the stores coupled with increasing price competition from online stockists ultimately combined with a stagnation in sales of compact cameras because of smartphones. On reflection, the fact that Jessops lasted this long is, in itself, a minor marvel.

The next big question is - what future is there for electronics retailing in general? Comet, the No.2 electrical product retailer went bust just a few months earlier and the Dixons Group comprising PC World (UK) and Currys has struggled with profitability for several years. Most UK towns have a wide selection of phone stores, but apart from those specialist stores selling computers and other electronic products are actually remarkably rare.

Unlike fashion/clothing and home furnishing stores where you really need to go and explore the merchandise in person, to try it on, with digital cameras and other electronic goods we are often happy enough to read some reviews - if that - before making a choice and ordering online.

In these times of austerity price is now usually the top considieration. And it's not just UK-based online retailers stealing business from our high streets; vendors from overseas can now compete strongly.

So is all this basically in favour of us, the buyers? Technology has never been such good value thanks to the intense competition. Many of us do lament the passing of the friendly, informative and helpful local camera shop. But are we being over-sentimental? Websites like ours now provide the kind of information we might have expected from an expert sales person behind the counter in a camera shop. We no longer have to trust a salesman, we can share experiences with each other and hopefully get closer to the truth than ever before.

So maybe the passing of companies like Jessops, Comet and others like them to date and into the future is just an evolutionary direction that we can put down to progress? ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=365 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=364 Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:18:32 GMT *New terms and conditions mean Instagram users are in danger of giving the Facebook-owned photo-based social media service commercial rights to their... New terms and conditions mean Instagram users are in danger of giving the Facebook-owned photo-based social media service commercial rights to their photos

Are you an Instagram user? Well, the Net is suddenly full of advice on how to download your Instagram photos and close your Instagram account. This is an angry response to Instagram's proposed change to its terms and conditions which basically means that you will eventually give Instagram commercial rights to any photos you upload to its service. And you won't get anything in return. The new T&Cs come into force on 16th January 2013.

For the record, Instagram isn't claiming ownership or exclusive rights to your photos, just rights so that they can use your photos for their own commercial purposes. You won't have any say in what they do with your photos.

It's suggested that, to date, Facebook has not successfully made Instagram make a profit. The proposed T&Cs change is clearly designed to make it easire for Instagram to make more money.

It could be argued that Instagram, being a free service, is simply asking for a little something back. And the probability of one of your photos being exploited commercially by Instagram is very small. But for many Instagram's strategy is akin to a self-serving legalisation of the right to steal their images.

Facebook bought Instagram 8 months ago for almost a billion dollars. Instagram was just two years old but had been very successful in developing a free social media network based around users' photos, mainly uploaded via smartphone and tablet apps that enabled you to capture and easily stylise your photos before uploading them to the Instagram network.

Recently there has been controversy because an Instagram service feature which enabled your photos to be easily displayed on Twitter was withdrawn. Now some are suggesting that Instagram has stepped over the line with its photo-rights grab and that the service could receive such a backlash that the future of the service might be thrown into doubt.

I feel very strongly about the preservation of rights to one's own photography and so I will also be closing my Instagram account today. Hopefully, Facebook will sit up and take notice of the protests.
]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=364 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=363 Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:45:48 GMT 29 year old Swedish artist, Fredrik Saker, doesn't have a photo on his picture ID driving licence card; it's a painting. In fact it is a self-portrait. However, the painting is so life-like, even when viewed at a size much larger than a passport photos, that nobody thought it was anything other than a photo. The licence issuing office compared the picture with an earlier photo and were convinced it was a routine photo of the applicant a few years older.

Saker went to great lengths to get his painting to be as photo-realistic as possible and from all accounts he has pulled it off. Part of Saker's inspiration was that the wording of the licence application instructions requests a recent likeness of the applicant and doesn't specifically insist that the image be a photograph of the applicant.

It's a remarkable story and you can read more about it on the BBC website (this might not be accessible in all countries) see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20739778 ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=363 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=362 Fri, 07 Dec 2012 22:57:03 GMT I have the bad luck to have my main email address known to spammers who send the same spurious commercial emails to me over and over again from ... I have the bad luck to have my main email address known to spammers who send the same spurious commercial emails to me over and over again from hundreds of different email addresses a week (500+ this week). Some of these messages have been sent to me in mildly different forms almost every day for months and months.

You can't reject messages from IP address or domain name sources because the spammers change these constantly. What they hope to achieve is beyond me. I have never responded to any of these emails and never will and because they are sent relentlessly I would have thought very few people would respond to them. I'm tempted to think it's a malicious prank that has gone loopy.

The situation has forced me to implement several measures on our mail server, including a challenge/response filter. This at least stops the spam from getting onto my PCs and my smartphone, but systems like this mean you still need to check that innocent emails aren't filtered.

I can only wish that whoever it is that runs this stupid operation gets a dose of his or her own medicine in one form or another one day. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=362 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=361 Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:12:45 GMT I've been to see the inaugural London Gadget Show Live at Excel London

After being offered a press pass for the first London-venue for the Gadget Show Live, I ventured down to Docklands to see what was what, with an eye out for imaging-related exhibits.

If you are pondering on whether or not to visit the show bear in mind that it's only three days long, including today (Friday) so Sunday 2nd December is the final day. The show is only about a third of the size of the more familiar version many of you may have already visited at the Birmingham NEC, although the organisers point out that the new London show is about the same size as the first Gadget Show Live in Birmingham four years ago.



The show is located in Hall S8 - just look out for the rather modest Christmas tree!



I welcome site for photographers is a stand from photography gear distributor, DayMen International, whose brands include Joby (Gorillapod mini/bendy tripods) and Giottos (above).



LG has a large stand showing off its TV technology, including a big 84 inch 4K2K ultra high definition TV which is priced a cool £22,500. By the looks of things it will serve as a fantastic living room display for photo slide shows. I recently wrote about 4K2K on this very blog.



Naturally, the Gadget Show is full of computer game attractions, like this big xBox stand. More on gaming further down.



But back to photography and Canon was the only major camera brand to exhibit, mainly focusing on compact cameras, but there was plenty of pro gear to play with too.



Bubblepix is a company we have also covered here on the blog before. This British outfit have produced an ingenious smartphone add-on lens that enables you to record 360 degree stills and videos. Initially for iPhone 4 and iPhone 5, they're showing a prototype Android version running on a Samsung Galaxy III. A prototype iPad version is also being shown. You can buy the iPhone version off the stand at a useful show special price, too. We hope to get hold of a review sample at some point.



Windows 8 has been a topic of discussion on the forum recently and Microsoft has invested heavily in its exhibit at the show.



Rotolight, who sell camcorder stabilisation and on-camera lights might be of interest at the show.



Back to gaming and here could be your first opportunity to get hands-on with the new Nintendo Wii U hand-held console.



Finally, Top Gear fans will be pleased to find that the hot BBC car program has a presence, including a simulator ride.

Overall, I found the show a bit quiet today, maybe because it's school week day and I expect it to be busier over the weekend. The organiser is predicting a very good attendance. It may well be worth a visit, especially if you are looking for unusual Christmas presents - this is very much a selling show as well as a showing one.

If you have been to the show, please do let us know what you thought of it. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=361 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=359 Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:17:53 GMT *My 3G is now running much faster since EE launched 4G service here in the UK* A few weeks ago, in anticipation of the launch of 4G mobile date... My 3G is now running much faster since EE launched 4G service here in the UK

A few weeks ago, in anticipation of the launch of 4G mobile date service here in the UK I expressed some scepticism that it would be that useful.

In that blog post I pointed out that I was already able to get a very acceptable 4 megabit download speed using 3G. Well, now that my service provider (EE, or as once was Orange and T-Mobile) has launched 4G I was surprised to notice a significant improvement in my 3G speed. 4G is not available yet in our area and my Galaxy Note smartphone is not 4G-ready anyway, but I'm now getting as much as 9 megabits download speed. That compares very favourably with the typical 15 megabits that early adopters are reporting for EE 4G service. 4G does offer a much higher upload speed - again about 15 megabits compared to 2-3 megabits I'm getting on 3G.

Admittedly I am just about 100 metres from a mast here at the office, but even at home where we usually have a very poor signal I am getting 2-3 megabits on 3G.

I think that the only thing that will persuade me to adopt 4G sooner rather than later (I'll capitulate at some point, I'm sure but my current phone contract has another 18 months to run) is if reports indicate that signal strength and speed are more consistent than with 3G. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=359 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=358 Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:04:19 GMT *DSLR AF is better but CSC AF is faster and more accurate -how can that be?* For many the key weakness of mirrorless compact system cameras... DSLR AF is better but CSC AF is faster and more accurate -how can that be?

For many the key weakness of mirrorless compact system cameras compared to DSLRs is autofocus capability. After reading that you may be surprised to learn that Both Panasonic and Olympus claim their CSCs have the fastest autofocus of any commercial cameras, including DSLRs.

Mirrorless cameras use the main imaging sensor to determine focus using a system called contrast-detection. It's accurate because the sensor itself is the focus measuring device and it's fast because lenses for mirrorless cameras have been highly optimised with low-inertia lens elements and mechanisms to enable fast adjustment of the focus point. Single-action autofocus on static subjects is indeed very fast and blows DSLRs into the weeds. But where DSLRs still reign supreme with their phase-detection systems using separate sensors is in continuous autofocus.

Phase-detection systems can estimate correct focus and even the direction the focus needs to be adjusted right at the start of a focus action, tricks contrast detect AF can't emulate. This also makes it easier to focus on subjects like birds in flight and other subjects that are moving around all the time.

The problem for mirrorless cameras is that you need a mirror to divert the light to be checked for focus to the focus sensor. Olympus currently has a big challenge on its hands because it has promised its Four Thirds DSLR system users a camera that will work without AF compromise with its renowned Four Thirds lenses - which simply don't focus too well on mirrorless Micro Four Thirds camera bodies. A sign of this concern is the unearthing of an interesting patent filed by Olympus last year, ironically on the same day of the Japanese Tsunami disaster. The patent was spotted by the Japanese blog called Egami. You can look at the blog via Google Translate but our correspondent from Japan, Yoshi, has very kindly translated the page for us, including some of his comments:



Olympus filed a patent for detecting focal points of a lens "in front of the subject" and "behind the subject"

Olympus has filed a patent that improves the focusing speed of contrast-detect AF. By using micro lenses with different heights A,
B and C as are shown in the diagram, it enables to detect "just-in-focus", "behind the focus" and "in front of the focus".
That in turn makes it possible to have features that until now only phase difference AF could have.
(it must be a little bit slower than the phase difference AF - the writer's personal comment)
When they succeed in establishing the production technology required for placing micro lenses with different height ( on the sensor), we can expect contrast AF with even faster AF speed.

- The patent number: 2012-189874
publication date: 4th Oct., 2012
application date: 11th March, 2011 (Oh, this is the day we had the heavy earthquake, Oly was applying a patent on that date! - my remarks)

- for one pixel each, one micro lens with four light reception areas: RGbGrB
- the distance (or height) between light reception plane and micro lens is differentiated;

* 3 kinds of distance/height
* this gives 3 kinds of focal points - "just in focus", "in front of" and "behind" the subject are detected.

The writer thinks that this patent will not only improves the simple AF speed of contrast detect AF but also improves the capability of focusing fast moving subjects.
This in turn makes it possible to use "normal" 4/3rd lenses without frustrations from slower AF.
It is however not known if they succeeded in developing the actual production technology. Even if they did, the device can only be used in the center of the lens, as the light reception efficiency at peripheral zone of lenses are not ideal.

So (the writer thinks) the normal 4/3rd lenses that can be used on this new sensor will be limited.

The superiority of phase difference detect AF over contrast detect AF is now limited to tracking capability of fast moving subjects.
By using image processing technology, the speed difference between the two AFs will be minimized in future.

So (the writer thinks) the normal 4/3rd lenses that can be used on this new sensor will be limited.

The superiority of phase difference detect AF over contrast detect AF is now limited to tracking capability of fast moving subjects.
By using image processing technology, the speed difference between the two AFs will be minimized in future.

A big thank you to Yoshi for this translation!

So to summarise the idea is that if you can strategically position three different heights of microlens on the sensor you can pinpoint where the focus is just in front of and behind the correct focus position. This could optimise the performance of contrast detect AF, bringing it closer to the capability of phase detect AF. How close is not yet known and of course this is just a patent - like most patents, the idea may not actually be achievable in a commercially viable form. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=358 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=357 Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:18:48 GMT Japanese blog site, Egami, keeps an eye on what's happening at the patent office and they have just spotted an intriguing patent application by Nikon that appears to be centred around enabling a camera to take photos automatically when it is tossed in the air.

Camera-tossing is nothing new - Jamie Harrison, when he was technical editor at What Digital Camera magazine, wrote an article about camera-tossing at least 4-5 years ago. Basically, you set a short timer delay, release the timer and throw the camera (carefully!) up in the air just before the shutter fires. Hopefully a) you catch the camera as it falls, safely, and b) the camera takes an interesting picture! You can also simply leave the camera in video mode for some dramatic motion picture action.

Cameras are now often fitted with motion and orientation sensors that work with in-camera digital levels and image stabilisation systems. Nikon would seem to be aiming to use these sensors to trigger the camera's shutter at key positions in its trajectory when tossed in the air.

This all sounds rather fun, but will it ever be implemented? I'm sure someone can do the statistical calculations, but just how often would the camera end up on the floor rather than back in the hands of its relieved owner? And how much would you think Nikon would have to factor in the cost of repairing and repairing cameras fitted with 'toss-photo' mode? And what would you call photographers using this feature...? *LOL

You can read more on Egami, via Google Translate, here:

http://translate.google.com/translat...p%2F2012-10-15 ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=357 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=356 Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:56:32 GMT Image: http://dpnow.com/files/blog/hp1050.jpg Here it is, a HP DeskJet 1050A all-in-one ink-jet printer and scanner purchased at Tescos for...

Here it is, a HP DeskJet 1050A all-in-one ink-jet printer and scanner purchased at Tescos for £24.99

There has been some debate here in recent weeks about the viability of ink-jet printer manufacturers and the cost of inks. Quite by coincidence a retired family member needed a new printer and I ended up purchasing a HP DeskJet 1050A for just £24.99 at the local Tesco supermarket.

The 1050A uses two disposable ink cartridges, one black and one with three colours, with integrated print heads. It's not really designed for photo printing but you can use photo paper if required. The printer itself is lightweight but it would be unfair to call it flimsy. It's reasonably compact and looks more expensive than it cost.

The person who will be using this printer primarily uses it for printing documents rather than photos, and for copying. HP recommends a duty cycle of between 250-500 pages printed per month. I doubt this printer will be used by its new owner to print more than a couple of hundred sheets in a year. The scanner section can operate at up to 1200ppi.

With such a budget price you don't get an automatic paper sensor or auto print head calibration. Neither do you get a PictBridge compatible USB port for direct printing from a camera and there are no memory card slots. When setting up the printer a test sheet is automatically printed and this must be placed in the scanner for analysis so the print heads can be aligned.

As for controls, you basically have a button for mono copying and another for colour copies. The 1050A is not very fast at copying but it's not terribly slow, either. Printing results on plain paper looked very good, with no sign of banding.

A standard set of black and colour ink cartridges can be bought for under £20 while an XL cartridge set is just under double the price but contains double quantity of colour ink and 2.5x the quantity of black ink. But yes, an XL ink cartridge set at around £39 is £15 more than the original cost of the printer.

I personally can't see how HP can produce the 1050A and supply it to be sold by a retailer for £25 and avoid making a loss if the buyer doesn't buy any genuine HP ink.

But so far so good with the 1050A for my relative - it's cheap and easy to use and perfect for its purpose. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=356 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=355 Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:19:29 GMT Four years on and undoubtedly the CSC has revolutionised the camera market, but not entirely across the globe How does that saying go? Ah yes,... Four years on and undoubtedly the CSC has revolutionised the camera market, but not entirely across the globe

How does that saying go? Ah yes, lies, damned lies and... statistics. I get fed statistics from camera companies on a regular basis (yum!). Sometimes they fit a pattern and sometimes not. What doesn't seem to be disputed is that mirrorless system cameras or CSCs (compact system cameras) are making a big impression in parts of Asia where DSLR sales are either flat or slowly declining. Until four years ago when Panasonic launched their Micro Four Thirds Lumix G1 model the CSC sector simply didn't exist. In Japan today around half of all sales of interchangeable lens cameras are CSCs.

CSCs are popular in some part of the world but not others

But the market penetration of CSCs is not unform across the globe. CSC sales in the UK are strong, with around a third of system cameras being mirrorless, but on mainland Europe sales are generally weaker with around half the UK's share, and it's the same in the USA, where the appetite for DSLRs seems relatively undiminished.

All major DSLR manufacturers now make CSCs too

Canon was the last DSLR manufacturer to commit to a CSC system with its EOS M platform, but like arch-rival Nikon's N-system CSCs there is little overlap with existing DSLR models and functionality. On the other hand, Panasonic Lumix abandoned its foray in to DSLRs by launching Micro Four Thirds and the G1. Olympus, another Micro Four Thirds manufacturer, has practically ended DSLR production although it has promised to produce cameras in future that will support users of its DSLR lenses. Samsung, too, ended its DSLR partnership with Pentax once it got its own NX CSC system up and running. Pentax, itself, has hedged its bets and launched a very small sensor CSC system in the form of the 'Q' which has no impact on its DSLRs. That leaves Sony Alpha and its Minolta-derived DSLR legacy system. Well, it now looks like all future models will be fixed-mirror SLT (single lens translucent), but of course Sony does have a mirrorless system, called NEX and this definitely competes with DSLRs.

What regional factors might influence CSC popularity?

Maybe it's straightforward to explain why the Asian market has greeted CSCs so enthusiastically. CSCs are smaller, less bulky and lighter than DSLRs. Small is cute in Asia. One of the raisons d'etre for CSC is to tempt compact camera users to go for a system camera when such people were unlikely to buy a DSLR. This has probably been realised in Asia more than anywhere else.

In the UK I definitely see a lot of DSLR owners investing in CSCs because they have been tempted by a smaller and lighter alternative to their big and heavy DSLRs and lenses. Some use a CSC as a convenient second camera, especially for travelling. The CSC cause has undeniably benefited from strict baggage restrictions imposed by low cost airlines, for example. Such photographers have kept their DSLR gear, but others have cashed in their DSLR gear altogether in favour of CSCs.

I wonder if the budget airline baggage factor simply doesn't apply nearly as much in continental Europe and the USA? This might explain, in part, why CSCs have not taken off quite so brightly as they have in Asia and the UK. Another explanation may be that the relatively large hands of Americans and Europeans guide their owners towards camera designs that are not quite so small and potentially fiddly to use.

And how about you?

So I'd like to ask my readers: did you consider and reject the possibility of buying a CSC? Have you actually gone for a CSC and did it replace or supplement your DSLR? And of course, why? ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=355 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=354 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:47:57 GMT *Forget about Full HD, 4K TV is coming and it could be all down to photographers* 4Kx2K TV is being positioned by Hollywood and the TV industry as... Forget about Full HD, 4K TV is coming and it could be all down to photographers

4Kx2K TV is being positioned by Hollywood and the TV industry as the natural successor to today's Full HD. 4Kx2K resolution is up to 4096x2160 pixels (3840x2160 pixels for 16:9 wide screen content). That compares with 1920x1080 for Full HD and 1280x720 for standard HD. A 4K screen is basically 8 megapixels compared to 2 megapixels for 1080 full HD.

4K sounds impressive but it could be 8-10 years before 4K becomes established with broadcasters. Some even ask why we need it at all because to them 1080 Full HD is good enough. So what does four times the resolution mean compared to 1080 Full HD? Apple's latest 'Retina' display iPads already exceed full HD resolution, as do some high end workstation monitors. So part of the argument is that we already need higher resolution video to keep up with display technology.

TV manufacturers would dearly like to have a new standard to build new products for. In Japan Toshiba has had a 4K TV on sale for over a year, although it does cost around 9,000 Euros. The easiest bit is to make compatible TVs, but that's no good if there is no 4K content to play on your shiny new 4K TV. Or is there?

4K-capable stills cameras coming soon?

The signs are that consumer digital cameras will soon be available with 4K video recording capability, perhaps within the next 18 months. Canon has already announced a 4K-capable 'C' version of its EOS-1D DSLR and there are several pro-spec. video cameras capable of recording in 4K format.

The 4K-capable consumer cameras predicted to be just around the corners are digital stills cameras, like we have today but with a 4K video option alongside the familiar HD video mode. You would then watch your clips by connecting your camera to a 4K TV via a cable or even wirelessly, or via a removable storage device like a memory card. 4K content could soon be offered by online services like You Tube.

4K popularity could be driven by still photography display quality

Not only will 4K video recorded on stills cameras be the first way of capitalising on 4K displays, but there is a school of thought that these displays will be loved by photographers because 8 million pixels promise to show your stills in the kind of glory that today's Full HD displays can't. Someone pointed out that to make a high quality photo print at the same size as, say, a 60 or 70 inch TV display would cost well something approaching £100. You can show as many photos as you like on a big 4K display for nothing more than the initial price of that display.

So there you have it - you won't see 4K broadcast TV for up to a decade but 4K TVs will appear well in advance thanks to the introduction of stills cameras that can produce 4K content - in both stills and video formats. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=354 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=353 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:16:30 GMT Just the other day Julia was at the office and needed some papers that were at home but where I was but I had no idea which ones so I switched on... Just the other day Julia was at the office and needed some papers that were at home but where I was but I had no idea which ones so I switched on Skype using my smartphone, called her on her computer at the office and after the usual silliness (which I am sure will wear off) at the novelty of video-telephony (I was spinning myself around keeping the front camera as steadily as possibly on my face...) I then switched to the main rear camera and in seconds I was able to locate the papers Julia needed by showing her what was there and with her directing me accordingly, thanks to the camera feed.

Now that's what I call a successful and useful use of video calling.

Some phones don't have a front facing camera but I reckon I'd have been fine just by listening to what Julia was saying - it wasn't critical for her to see me during the call and I would still be able to share the main camera view with her.

We quite frequently use Skype instead of a phone call if we know we are at our computers and Skype works very well when I am abroad. Several of our friends routinely use Skype to keep in touch with friends and relatives abroad, too. While you can connect to real phone numbers with a chargeable call, I've never done that and can't see that I ever will, so not only is video calling great, there is basically no extra charge for using it.

And it only seems like yesterday that video-phone watches on Thunderbirds seemed like a distant dream. Come to think of it - how come portable video telephony rarely featured on Star Trek? Or should that be 'will' feature... ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=353 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=352 Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:55:07 GMT Image: http://dpnow.com/files/forum/mobile_speedtest.png My 3G smartphone can already connect to the internet reasonably fast - but only under...

My 3G smartphone can already connect to the internet reasonably fast - but only under ideal circumstances, so will 4G make that much difference?

There has been a lot press coverage in recent days about the imminent launch of 4G mobile broadband service in the UK, starting with EE (Everything Everywhere - which used to be the merged T-Mobile and Orange networks). The UK has been pretty slow to adopt 4G compared to many other countries and there are few smartphones currently on sale in the UK that can actually take advantage of it. And there are two competing standards, too - LTE (Long Term Evolution) which is what EE and its competitors in the UK will roll out shortly and Mobile WiMax, which has been popular in the US and some Asian countries like Korea.

But I am rather sceptical about all the fuss. In theory my 3G Samsung Galaxy Note should be able to download 3G data at over 10 megabits and some say 3G HSPA+, which my Note supports, is capable of over 40 megabits. That would be faster than our fibre (FTTC) broadband which is about 38 megabits.

The problem is that I often struggle to get a fast 3G data connection. At my office there is a mast just a hundred or so yards away and so I get a reasonably good connection; almost 4 megabits down and about 1.5 megabits up. But nine times out of ten the speed I 'enjoy' is just a fraction of that.

So I am wondering if 4G will make that much difference. Sure, it may be 10x faster on paper, but will the every day routine experience be blunted by the usual problems of location in relation to masts and of course physical obstructions sapping the signal.

And in any case - even at just 4 megabits, my monthly download allowance of 750MB would be exhausted in just 25 minutes. How long would it last with 4G? ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=352 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=351 Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:48:47 GMT *Kodak follows Lexmark and announces plan to stop manufacturing ink-jet printers* Image: http://dpnow.com/images/Kodakinkjetprinter1.jpg This... Kodak follows Lexmark and announces plan to stop manufacturing ink-jet printers



This is Jaime Cohen Szulc, then Eastman Kodak vice president and general manager for consumer products in Europe, Middle East and Africa, posing for DPNow during his presentation at the launch of Kodak's new ink-jet business, in February 2007. The product in front of him was Kodak's first EasyShare 5300 all-in-one ink-jet printer/scanner copier.

After just five and a half years Kodak has given up on its ink-jet printer business. Sales of Kodak EasyShare ink-jet printers will cease early in the 2013, although supplies of ink will be maintained indefinitely. The news follows Lexmark's similar announcement a month ago.

It had been thought that Kodak' ink-jet printer business was safe from the widespread collapse of most of Kodak's imaging business empire and here in the UK television advertising for Kodak printers has been aired only weeks ago. With Lexmark withdrawing from the market you might have thought that Kodak would have benefited from reduced competition, but it isn't to be.

Kodak's strategy was slightly different from its competitors. We understand Kodak, unlike its main competitors, did not manufacture its own printers, instead relying on a third-party manufacturer. The main Kodak marketing strategy was competitive cost per page and ink Kodak ink cartridges were generous in size and Kodak printers were not generally sold at ridiculously low prices. Kodak also concentrated on fade-resistant pigmented inks. But none of this appears to have earned long term commercial success.

With Kodak and Lexmark out of the game the main remaining ink-jet printer brands are HP, which is currently trying to stem multi-billion dollar losses across its business from PCs to printers, Canon, and Epson. Brother is another small brand.

With concern that consumers simply don't feel inclined to print photos any more and pressure from suppliers of cheap third-party inks, there has to be concern that we will see more negative news in the ink-jet sector and possibly an increase in the cost of printers. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=351 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=350 Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:15:20 GMT I've just watched a case study on the BBC TV consumer advice programme, Rip-Off Britain. To say that this case irritated and frustrated me might not surprise you as most of the cases broadcast by this programme document the unfair treatment by uncaring organisations on hapless members of the public. But this time I am irritated and frustrated by the programme itself because I feel they have badly misrepresented the complaint over allegedly high costs of printer inks - a topic that concerns many DPNow readers when printing photos.

The case study in question documents the experience and opinion of an office administrator at a bowls club. The club purchased a high-end Epson all-in-one ink-jet printer/scanner/copier, although crucially the model they chose was not intended for office use. The administrator appears to like the printer but hates the cost of genuine Epson ink-jet cartridges. He goes on to say that he is not interested in colour and would even like to replace all the colour cartridges in the printer with black ones. He compares his printer with a car and asks why he has to use expensive Epson ink in his Epson printer when he can use any brand of petrol regardless of the brand of his car.

The programme also used the tired old analogy between the cost of vintage champagne and ink by volume (yes, ink is more expensive). They also did a test that they admitted was unscientific and compared the cost and yield of third party inks with manufacturer inks. Based solely on costs, third party inks, in the opinion of the programme, won every time. The only sense shown in the programme in my opinion was a very brief interview with a journalist from Computer Active magazine who pointed out that many ink-jet printers are initially sold at a loss and for the manufacturer to make a profit it has to sell its ink for use over the lifetime of that printer.

So let's deal with a number of key points, firstly, the bowls club and its choice of printer. By buying the wrong printer for their needs they put themselves into the situation they subsequently found themselves in. If they didn't want colour printing why did they buy a colour printer? They should have researched their needs better and chosen a printer that offers reduced cost black ink document printing over the life of the printer. In the case of Epson, their WorkForce Pro range of office ink-jet printers would have been a much better choice over the lifetime of the printer even though the initial purchase price may have been higher. Alternatively, they could have opted for a mono laser all-in-one which would have been economical to buy in the first place and delivered much lower per page printing costs.

Secondly, why do manufacturer printer inks cost more than third-party inks? Especially for domestic ink-jet printers (and the bowls club's Epson is really a model aimed at home use rather than in the office), rightly or wrongly, the market has developed so that the hardware is often sold at cost or below cost and a profit is only made during the life of the printer if the owner buys manufacturer inks. Printers for professional use cost more to start with and this allows the manufacturer to charge a lot less for its inks per page than for its consumer printers. You must also remember that costs are not simply about the ink contained in the cartridge. You're buying packaged technology, from the cartridge design, which may incorporate a precision print head, that works to provide reliable printing and uniform colour reproduction. Some third party ink suppliers refill original manufacturer cartridges. There is no guarantee that the ink that these refilled cartridges contain will match the colours of genuine inks, nor the longevity and with some types of printer there is a genuine danger that you could prematurely end the life of your printer. The potential pitfalls of cheaper third party inks is even greater people who use their printers for photo printing. And the irony is that some companies re-manufacturing cartridges with cheap ink will enjoy much higher profit margins than the printer manufacturers.

I was left with the distinct impression that Rip-Off Britain portrayed the bowls club office administrator as another bona-fide example of someone being ripped-off and that the culprits were the printer manufacturers. But this, in my view, is simply not the case and the programme failed in its duty to study and understand the salient facts.

Ink-jet printer manufacturers don't gorge themselves in profits at the expense of their customers' expenditure on ink. Lexmark has recently decided to close its ink-jet printer manufacturing business because it has found it to hard to maintain profitability and HP is currently losing billions of dollars.

Printer manufacturers do a lot of hard and expensive work in designing and manufacturing what are complex and highly sophisticated, precision, devices. The analogy with fuel for your car completely misses the point. If you buy a pen, do you worry about the cost of the ink inside the pen? A printer is a very sophisticated pen designed to do a very specific job.

I'm not saying that the printer market is entirely undeserving of criticism. It's true that you can buy ink-jet printers that are so cheap it's hardly worth buying replacement inks instead of throwing the printer away once the bundled inks give out. I also think that the printer manufacturers have not done enough to educate the public about how to choose the best printer for their needs and argue the justification for the cost of their inks.

And, you may think oddly, I'm not saying that there are no third party inks worth buying. At the same time I can't recommend any because I have no idea which third party inks are any good. Independent testing over many years has revealed horror stories about some third party inks; where inks have faded in a matter of months, or where colours were very poor, and in the worst cases where cartridges simply wouldn't work or the printer was damaged beyond repair. Knowing this, I personally won't buy third-party inks. I might be tempted if there was a bullet-proof quality standard by which third party inks could be reliably rated. But there isn't one.

In my experience you can purchase genuine inks at very reasonable prices by shopping around. Indeed the variation in price of genuine inks can be shockingly wide. Sometimes you can opt for larger capacity cartridges that contain more ink and so deliver a lower cost per page than standard cartridges.

In conclusion, my message to the BBC's Rip-Off Britain programme is this - in the case of the bowls club and their expenditure on ink - that was pretty shoddy journalism and I can't see how they deserved the attention of your programme. They bought the wrong printer for their needs and the reasoning behind their complaint was misconceived. On top of that the programmed failed to educate the viewer about the real issues regarding ink-jet printing costs and potential pitfalls. A programme of the genre of Rip-Off Britain simply mustn't fail in the way it did in this case. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=350 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=349 Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:13:07 GMT Smartphones are eroding compact camera sales but could Android by the compact camera's saviour?


Samsung's Galaxy Android camera has been received enthusiastically

I can remember early attempts to combine compact camera and mobile phone hardware - LG comes to mind some 4-5 years ago. Such hybrids never made it to the European market and of course this was before the modern smartphone came into being. But that much-used term, convergence, is ever-present and it was inevitable that the desirable elements of a camera and a compact computing device like a smartphone would be combined in a way that goes beyond the size-limited camera capabilities of run of the mill camera phones. Now both Nikon and Samsung have unveiled compact cameras that incorporate major elements of Android smartphone innards and operating software.

The attraction of a smartphone operating system like Android is that it has developed a wide variety of abilities in response to the highly integrated hard ware functionality which the mobile phone industry has evolved. Contemporary smartphones have GPS, accelerometers, orientation sensors, WiFi, Bluetooth, large screens and more. They also have cameras but this is a relative area of weakness in nearly all examples - none have optical zoom lenses because this would make them too big and bulky, for example. While smartphone image quality has improved, it's still fundamentally limited by tiny sensors and optics. But this has been balanced by supreme versatility and convenience - take a picture or a video clip on a smartphone and it can be on a social networking site in seconds - and geo-tagged.

This convenience and the fact that you carry your smartphone with you much more of the time than you carry you conventional camera, has started to hit sales of conventional compact cameras and we are now seeing a double digit percentage in sales decline. So what is the solution to rejuvenate compact camera popularity? You guessed it - have another go at combining the best of compact cameras and smartphones.

Samsung is the largest manufacturer of smartphones thanks to its Galaxy range of handsets and, of course, tablet computers, mainly driven by Google's Android operating system. Samsung is also, of course, a major manufacturer of compact cameras, so it is probably the best placed manufacturer to bring together the two sets of technologies and their first attempt is the Samsung Galaxy Camera.

An inescapable initial impression is that the Galaxy Camera is rather big - it has a screen that is only just smaller than 5 inches diagonally. Most compact cameras have 3 inch screens. The back of the Galaxy Camera is basically one huge touch-sensitive screen. At the front is a telescoping lens that is similar to that of a typical compact camera. And there is a fair-sized hand grip for comfortable camera handling, something that no camera phone can boast.

Taking a picture on a smartphone and, indeed, the Galaxy Camera, is just the start of the fun. Of course you have the huge screen that helps you and your mates to appreciate and enjoy the photos taken more easily. You can process them with your choice of literally hundreds of photo imaging effects and editing apps - many of which are free. You can then upload them to the cloud via dozens of online photo and social networking services.

But that's not all - smartphone development is currently trying to crack that nut of voice interaction. You can't yet have a conversation with your device but it will quite impressively understand commands in single words or even brief phrases. With the Galaxy Camera you can vocally command the camera to trip the shutter when you're taking a self-portrait for example.

The wise-crackers correctly joke that you can't make a phone call with the Galaxy Camera because Samsung left out mobile phone capability. But ironically you can make a video call - just download the Android Skype app and you're away. Indeed, Skype has voice call capability which can connect to phone lines, so you can actually make a phone call with a Galaxy Camera. You can also send and receive emails, browse the web, read digital magazines and e-books, play games - you know where I'm headed.

The Samsung Galaxy Camera is a very interesting first step in the smartphone-inspired compact camera. It's ahead of Nikon's version which makes do with an older version of Android (2.3 Ginger Bread compared to the Galaxy's 4.1 Jelly Bean). But this is just the start and I expect a lot of exciting developments in this area in the not so distant future. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=349 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=348 Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:56:57 GMT *Hasselblad make-over of Sony NEX-7 more than quadruples price* Image: http://dpnow.com/files/blog/hasselblad_nex.jpg 5,000 Euros for a new... Hasselblad make-over of Sony NEX-7 more than quadruples price


5,000 Euros for a new Hasselblad these days may seem like an unbelievable bargain, but I have yet to find anyone who thinks this particular new Hassy is anything but a bizarre story here at Photokina this week.

Hasselblad, the company we all know and love from its heydays as a manufacturer of bullet-proof medium format cameras that were the Apollo astronaut's camera of choice when on the moon, has done a deal with Sony to sell customised Alpha NEX-7 mirrorless compact system cameras. While a NEX-7 sells for around 1200 Euros, your re-skinned Hasselblad version, called the Hasselblad Lunar - squeezing as much rather aged kudos out of the Apollo link, will set you back over four times as much.

Hasselblad has tinkered with the NEX-7 design, apparently to improve the ergonomics and the camera now looks bulkier than before. Some exotic natural materials can be applied to your personally customised camera, too.

But under the skin, this is a Sony Alpha NEX-7. I'd can only imagine the discussions in the meeting at Hasselblad HQ that signed this project off. I could say this is all lunacy. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=348 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=347 Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:37:43 GMT *Full Frame Frenzy at Photokina 2012* Image: http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/547/9170325.jpg ... Full Frame Frenzy at Photokina 2012


Yours truly with the smallest yet Canon full-frame DSLR. It's still a big beast though.

Three smaller than usual full-frame cameras and the first fixed translucent mirror (SLT) system camera have made their debuts here at Photokina. Sony has produced two of them; the Alpha 99 SLT and the RX1 full frame compact camera. while Nikon and Canon go head to head, respectively, with their slimmed-down D600 and 6D DSLRs.

The theme is definitely about size and weight - and reducing it. The Canon EOS-6D is Canon's smallest ever full frame DSLR, while the Nikon D600 is their smallest, too. Sony has made their full frame Alpha 99 DSLR-alternative particularly light thanks to the absence of a big hunk of glass that would have been a pentaprism if it was a DSLR. Meanwhile, the Sony RX1 is a compact camera with a full frame sensor inside.

There is no denying that the allure of full frame photography is strong as ever. ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=347 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=346 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:54:36 GMT Image: http://dpnow.com/files/blog/_9160005.jpg Taken yesterday on a sunny and warm, if sleepy, Sunday afternoon, the absence of crowds will be...
Taken yesterday on a sunny and warm, if sleepy, Sunday afternoon, the absence of crowds will be reversed during this week.

Although Photokina, the world's biggest photography industry trade fair held in Cologne, Germany, doesn't officially open its doors until tomorrow (Tuesday) the press hit the floor running today with no less than four five major camera manufacturers holding press conferences today.

I'm in Cologne to bring you the news as it happens. Keep any eye on the DPNow front page and this blog for the latest updates. You can also follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/DPNowdotcom and Facebook: www.facebook.com/DPNowblog

]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=346 http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=345 Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:21:23 GMT If you haven't yet heard the furore over the Paparazzi shots of the Duchess of Cambridge relaxing topless at a remote chateau in France, then where have you been?

I'll leave the debate over the acceptability of these pictures to others, although I personally feel the photographer and the magazine publisher most certainly did overstep the line and why shouldn't the Duchess sunbathe topless in private?

My point here is that the our Kate, and a few weeks earlier, Prince Harry, have both fallen victim to advances in camera technologies, although at very different ends of the spectrum.

Harry, of course, was caught out by the sheer pervasiveness of devices with cameras thanks to the smartphone. I wonder if this scandal would ever have happened even 5 years ago under similar circumstances.

With Kate, the problem for her is that the Paparazzi are better equipped than ever before. I haven't seen the pictures for myself, but I understand they are not very sharp. But it's also understood that the vantage point the photographer would have used is likely to be incredibly far from the chateau, lulling the Royal party into a misguided sense of seclusion.

But let's say this Paparazzi had a Nikon D800, and a 600mm f/4G ED VR AF-S, plus a 2x teleconverter, he would be equipped with an image stabilised 1200mm f/8 super telephoto lens. While Kate's image might have been tiny on the frame, with 36 megapixels and even more usable resolution with the D800E version of the camera, even if you cropped out 90% of the image you would still be left with 3.6 megapixels - more than enough for sharp A4 print - heck, I have printed 3 megapixel images to A3 and been surprised at how well they turned out.

And another thought - stick that 600mm Nikkor and converter onto a humble consumer Nikon D3200 and you have even more resolution to play with as the D3200 sensor pixel pitch is smaller than the D800's.

All this boils down to the fact that if you are a celebrity, a Paparazzi could be several hundred yards away and still get a sellable image of you. You have been warned! ]]> Ian http://dpnow.com/forum2/blog.php?b=345