or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › High-quality images of Apple's first orange iPod (shuffle)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

High-quality images of Apple's first orange iPod (shuffle) - Page 2

post #41 of 67
Quote:
<div align="center"><img src="http://images.appleinsider.com/ipod-shuffle-2g-orange1.jpg" width="799" height="533" alt="ND SUX" border="0" /></div><br />

i think it should be OU SUX! though.
post #42 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsnuff1 View Post

does appleinsider have a professional photographer with a 1000 dollar digital camera that goes and grabs new apple products the second they come out and take these photos? All the high res photos on applesinsider from just released apple products have the same style and or are taken by the same person it seems.

/me laughs at the idea of a professional camera for $1000.

Regardless, you could get pictures that good with a $150 point-and-shoot with a decent macro mode. It's all about the photographer, the equipment is second.
Ridiculous lucky captain rabbit king, lucky captain rabbit king nuggets are for the youth!
Reply
Ridiculous lucky captain rabbit king, lucky captain rabbit king nuggets are for the youth!
Reply
post #43 of 67
Yeah, I was going to say something about the blury egdes. I think you are right about opening the up to a another f-stop. I am just impressed with the speedi-ness of the update.
-Maciver
Reply
-Maciver
Reply
post #44 of 67
hold on, there was a "gender barrier?" in the commercial, those boobs best not have belonged to a guy.
post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maciver View Post

Yeah, I was going to say something about the blury egdes. I think you are right about opening the up to a another f-stop. I am just impressed with the speedi-ness of the update.

You mean "close down" another f-stop.
post #46 of 67
You can always go to the Public Relations area of the Apple website and find professional photos of all of the products in TIFF format. Click Site Map at the bottom of the page and find the Public Relations link.

http://www.apple.com/pr/products/
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #47 of 67
Wow... you've forgotten quite a lot.

The reason that depth of field is so shallow is that the aperture was too wide. The photographer does need to step down (not up!!!!) the aperture and take a longer exposure to get more of the shot in sharp focus.

"A macro lens will fit in any SLR camera"...

This is not really the right way to put it.

A (particular) macro lens will onlt fit the type of SLR camera it was designed for... i.e. a Canon AF macro will only fit cameras designed to take Canon AF lenses, a Nikon AF macro will only fit cameras designed to take Nikon lenses and a Minolta macro will only fit Sony . There are dozens of different mounts, and some manual lenses can be used on autofocus cameras with an inexpensive adapter.

The thing you should have said, which would be true, is "All SLR cameras have macro lenses available to fit them".



Quote:
Originally Posted by JustBrady View Post

He used a macro lens. A macro lens will fit on any SLR camera, and allow you to take insanely close pictures.
This is the reason for the blurry edge. A macro must be focused precisely. Anything merely milimeters further, will be blurry. I am not sure if you can diminish those blurry edges, by opening up the F stop more or not. (I think that is what I remember from my photography experience.)

Some consumer cameras do have a macro setting, so you can get closer. Canon's cameras have a little flower icon to represent Macro mode.

I have a photo I took of toilet paper, you can see the individual fibers. I have posted the photo at http://www.testoftimedesign.com/fibers.jpg It is high res, so give it some time. This pic was taken with a 13,000 camera, and a macro lens. Of course, you don't need a 13,000 dollar camera to take close pictures. If you like the photo, feel free to take it. If you want more macro toilet paper pics, email me. justin@testoftimedesign.com
post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo View Post

/me laughs at the idea of a professional camera for $1000.

Regardless, you could get pictures that good with a $150 point-and-shoot with a decent macro mode. It's all about the photographer, the equipment is second.

Not exactly true. There are no $150 point and shoots that can create photos looking like that with as little noise. The larger CCD of DSLRs and the higher quality/larger lenses are the general reason there's less noise.
post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsnuff1 View Post

does appleinsider have a professional photographer with a 1000 dollar digital camera that goes and grabs new apple products the second they come out and take these photos? All the high res photos on applesinsider from just released apple products have the same style and or are taken by the same person it seems.

Honestly, he's not a very good photographer. Moslty, he needs to choose better backgrounds and step down the aperture.

And yes, there are several $1000 DSLRs currently out that can take this type of photo.
post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by racheryn View Post

I was irritated that the 2nd Gen shuffles got shafted with the headphone update, but I'm in now. Funny that it's not the colours that got me, but a much-appreciated upgrade. Now I can take my music where I don't want my 30gig video to go.


besides the new colours, what other updates were made??
post #51 of 67
A black one would be nice as well. The new colours are just not as good as plain black.
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Wow... you've forgotten quite a lot.

The reason that depth of field is so shallow is that the aperture was too wide. The photographer does need to step down (not up!!!!) the aperture and take a longer exposure to get more of the shot in sharp focus.

"A macro lens will fit in any SLR camera"...

This is not really the right way to put it.

A (particular) macro lens will onlt fit the type of SLR camera it was designed for... i.e. a Canon AF macro will only fit cameras designed to take Canon AF lenses, a Nikon AF macro will only fit cameras designed to take Nikon lenses and a Minolta macro will only fit Sony . There are dozens of different mounts, and some manual lenses can be used on autofocus cameras with an inexpensive adapter.

The thing you should have said, which would be true, is "All SLR cameras have macro lenses available to fit them".

Don't forget third party lenses, some of which are pretty good, these days.
post #53 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Don't forget third party lenses, some of which are pretty good, these days.

I'm a sigma whore.
post #54 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by nufase View Post

I'm a sigma whore.

Things have really changed over the years.

In the '60's, when I started out, as a teenager, third party lenses were junk. The optics were just bad, though somewhat usable. The mechanics were terrible though. Most of the lenses sounded, and felt, as though there was sand in the focussing mechanism. The slightest whack, and say goodbye!

In the late '70's, and early '80's, it was a bit better. The Vivitar Series 1 lenses were good optically, and were fairly good mechanically.

Nowadays, third party lenses are much better. While prime lenses are still better mostly, some third party stuff can equal, and even surpass, the prime optical performance.

Optical glass and coatings, along with computer design programs, have made a vast improvement possible. The same thing is true for the mechanics.

While prime lenses are still made better, the quality overall has gotten so much better, that a third party lens can be better mechanically than a prime lens made 10 years ago, which is saying something!

In other words, there's no stigma in using a Sigma!
post #55 of 67
This is a pretty funny article because I just read your posts now, and when I was looking at iPod shuffles yesterday I thought the Orange was the most attractive one, and probably the one I would go with. I find it odd that this is even here. As my mother would say. "Maybe it's a sign?"
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #56 of 67
A "prime" lens does not mean a branded lens (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.) as it seems you're implying here.

A prime lens means a non-zoom lens. Like a 50mm lens, or 35mm or 100mm macro, etc. They are all primes, whether made by Nikon, Sigma, Carl Zeiss or Sears (yes, there were Sears lenses long ago).

Still, the Sigma zooms, except a few of the APOs generally still have very poor image quality, though the build quality is great. There was a $50 plastic Vivitar macro (the "plastic fantastic") that was famous for horrible build quality and exceptional performance. Also remember that Carl Zeiss is a 3rd party.

The point is you can't make any judgemnt on whether a branded lens or third-party lens will perform well based on that criterion alone. You need to do the research to find the good ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Things have really changed over the years.

In the '60's, when I started out, as a teenager, third party lenses were junk. The optics were just bad, though somewhat usable. The mechanics were terrible though. Most of the lenses sounded, and felt, as though there was sand in the focussing mechanism. The slightest whack, and say goodbye!

In the late '70's, and early '80's, it was a bit better. The Vivitar Series 1 lenses were good optically, and were fairly good mechanically.

Nowadays, third party lenses are much better. While prime lenses are still better mostly, some third party stuff can equal, and even surpass, the prime optical performance.

Optical glass and coatings, along with computer design programs, have made a vast improvement possible. The same thing is true for the mechanics.

While prime lenses are still made better, the quality overall has gotten so much better, that a third party lens can be better mechanically than a prime lens made 10 years ago, which is saying something!

In other words, there's no stigma in using a Sigma!
post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

A "prime" lens does not mean a branded lens (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.) as it seems you're implying here.

A prime lens means a non-zoom lens. Like a 50mm lens, or 35mm or 100mm macro, etc. They are all primes, whether made by Nikon, Sigma, Carl Zeiss or Sears (yes, there were Sears lenses long ago).

Still, the Sigma zooms, except a few of the APOs generally still have very poor image quality, though the build quality is great. There was a $50 plastic Vivitar macro (the "plastic fantastic") that was famous for horrible build quality and exceptional performance. Also remember that Carl Zeiss is a 3rd party.

The point is you can't make any judgemnt on whether a branded lens or third-party lens will perform well based on that criterion alone. You need to do the research to find the good ones.

This week seems to be my week of explaining myself.

Ok, what I should have said, as the term is used in the photo industry, is that a Canon, Nikon, etc are considered to be prime lens manufacturers. That means that they make the "official" lenses for their own systems.

I'm aware that a "prime lens" is the lens that ships with the camera. A prime lens now does mean a zoom lens, if it ships with the camera. All D-SLRs come with prime lensesthe cheap zooms that are almost being given away with them.

Expressions evolve with the times. When I started out, no pro would ever use a zoom. Now, except for exteme wides and tele's, almost all do.

If you have read the hundreds of reviews published in magazines such as the venerable Popular Photography, as well as those on the better web sites, you would find that you are wrong in your assertions. Many third party lenses are very good indeed!

The prime manufacturers lenses are still better made, and in general, are somewhat better performing, but the distance between the two has narrowed considerably. Many of my clients used third party lenses.

APO in the name doesn't mean better quality, even though manufacturers would like to have you think it does. What APO means is that it has a flat field, with all three colors focussed in that plain, rather than only two. But, it doesn't mean that the lens is sharp, contrasty (APO lenses traditionally, except for the four element process lenses, have not been), and free of other distortions, such as barrel, pincushion, light falloff, etc. I still have two of my old Red Dot Artars, great lenses, but for 4 x 5, and slow.

The point is that everything has gotten so much better, that normal size output looks about equal no matter what equipment it is taken on.

You really have to get to a 14x17 print size to even begin to notice actual differences. This was my business for many years. I've looked at many thousands of pro prints.

Carl Zeiss is a third party, of course. But it's not likely that readers here will be buying their lenses, which cost much more than even the lenses of Canon and Nikon. They are in the range of Leica lenses. The range is very small as well. The wides are considered to be some of the finest lenses made today.
post #58 of 67
i have a sigma 17-70 (obviously a zoom) that has good image quality. it's consistently reviewed as one of the better wide-to-mid range zooms. i've been pretty happy with it really.
post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

A prime lens now does mean a zoom lens, if it ships with the camera.

I'm not sure where you get that idea. Do you mean to say primary?

Primes are lenses with a static focal length (e.g. 50mm). Zoom lenses have a variable focal length (e.g. 24-70mm).
post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdraper View Post

I'm not sure where you get that idea. Do you mean to say primary?

Primes are lenses with a static focal length (e.g. 50mm). Zoom lenses have a variable focal length (e.g. 24-70mm).

Yes, yes, I know the difference between a fixed focal length and a zoom. Didn't you read everything I said?

Definitions are changing. Your understanding of those definitions have to go with the flow of history.
post #61 of 67
an aside - I have ordered 5 (so far) 1st generation refurb 512 shuffles since mid december, (cheap presents) three different orders, and each came with the NEW earbuds. 29 bucks, which is what the earbuds sell for new. Not available often as many of you know, but I love the thrill of the hunt.
post #62 of 67
so it's time to expect colorful video ipod soon!
Life is good to enjoy....
and Mac makes me more please....
Reply
Life is good to enjoy....
and Mac makes me more please....
Reply
post #63 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes, yes, I know the difference between a fixed focal length and a zoom. Didn't you read everything I said?

Definitions are changing. Your understanding of those definitions have to go with the flow of history.

I think you're changing the definition.

Really. You're confused.

A prime is fixed focal length. Period. Someone misusing the word and spreading it around the internets isn't going to change that.

The lens that ships with the camera is a "kit" lens. And most of them aren't very good (especially the Canons).
post #64 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I think you're changing the definition.

Really. You're confused.

A prime is fixed focal length. Period. Someone misusing the word and spreading it around the internets isn't going to change that.

The lens that ships with the camera is a "kit" lens. And most of them aren't very good (especially the Canons).

No, sorry, but you're the one confused.

I know that the lens is part of a "kit", which it is sometimes called a "kit" lens. The same thing is the "kit" camera bag, "kit" tripod", etc.

But, prime also means, "primarily used, or supplied', which is what the single focal length lenses were for many decades. That was why they were called the "prime" lenses. Because the manufacturer supplied a lens with almost every body, though you could buy the body without a lens, they supplied the focal length that was most useful, cheapest to make, fastest, and usually, lightest. considering that there were no zoom lenses throughout most of that history, and that when they became available, they were, at first, large, heavy, expensive, slow, and not very good, that didn't change for quite a while.

But, Olympus did start to change that when they came out with the first SLR's with attached zooms. Other companies followed.

Lately, as zooms have become much smaller, lighter, better, faster, and less expensive, more manufacturers are supplying them as the lens of choice. This is especially true for D-SLR's, where one will almost newer see a fixed focal lens being supplied as a "primary" lens, meaning, again, the most often supplied, and used.
post #65 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not exactly true. There are no $150 point and shoots that can create photos looking like that with as little noise. The larger CCD of DSLRs and the higher quality/larger lenses are the general reason there's less noise.


there are at least a few $150 cameras who can replicate this image at this image size.

might see noise for larger print sizes, but for web viewing, these photos can be had for a dime a dozen.
post #66 of 67
I like the orange shuffle but why not purple?
post #67 of 67
Love the pics, I now have a new favorite ipod. That the one I am getting for the gym.8)
Clyde
www.christiancarsalesman.com
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › High-quality images of Apple's first orange iPod (shuffle)