There's a difference between adapting for mirrorless versus adapting for cinema. They're not just throwing on an adapter to change the distance to the focal plane, they're actually rehousing the lens. Usually that means adding a de-clicked aperture and reducing focus breathing. These are all primes, but cine lenses are usually parfocal as well.
To your point, none of those things are important if you're just a regular consumer and taking stills, but they're all really nice to have/important if you're working on a film.
> There's a difference between adapting for mirrorless versus adapting for cinema.
The article says they’re adapting to mirrorless cameras
> As reported by CineD, the new Air series of lenses is designed to cater to the growing number of filmmakers who are using compact, lightweight mirrorless bodies for high-end professional work.
> The IronGlass Air lenses move away from IronGlass’ standard PL-mount cinema design toward compact, mirrorless-friendly designs
It doesn’t matter what they’re being put on. I put cinema lenses on Red’s, DSLR’s (5DmkII/t3i back in the day), mirrorless (GH6/BMPCC4K), the works. “Cinema lens” indicates a build type, not what they can mount to. Like the declicked aperture the previous person mentioned.
For instance, Rokinon released a fantastic cinema lens line for consumer/prosumer cameras in the 2010’s, they were rehoused versions of their photo primes. They’re built entirely different.
Sure there's a difference, but when you can buy the base lens for $100 and 3D print your own cinema housing for $50, it becomes a lot more odious that IronGlass is charging what amounts to around $2100USD for a metal rehousing that is at most $50 worth of materials and a few hours work per lens.
The "Cinema" industry is notorious for gouging its customers, and this just yet another particularly egregious example of that gouging.
Not that I am aware of. I wouldn't suggest doing that in North Korea though (or possessing any type of scientific or other measuring instrument there).
The website shows pictures of the sand collection and the microscope. It does not appear to be at a beach.
There's not a shortage of lawyers and Texas is not pushing for freedom. They're taking over accreditation so they can start bullying law schools the same way they have with undergraduate institutions like A&M.
This is likely the correct answer. The ABA really leads (somewhat indirectly) to three things:
1) A common moral and professional code
2) Credential portability through standards
3) A "minimum threshold" of competence
I suspect that it is the first thing that Texas objects to. There's probably a specific flavor of *-ism they want to allow their lawyers to practice. That said, you can already get into law via apprenticeship or reading in CA, VA, VT, WA. It's not the end of the world.
> I suspect that it is the first thing that Texas objects to.
Perhaps, but the piece they are actually acting directly against is the 2nd (perhaps the 3rd, but that is itself really part of the 2nd, rather than an independent thing.)
And the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Model Code of Judicial Conduct—which presumably are largely what you are referring to by the first—are just what the names say: models; each jurisdiction adopts its own actual rules for these things.
> That said, you can already get into law via apprenticeship or reading in CA, VA, VT, WA.
And in at least some states, also through non-ABA law schools, though there may be additional state requirements in that case (which may also apply to the apprenticeship/reading—two different names for the same thing, not two different options—option where that is available in the same jurisdiction; e.g., in California the First Year Law Students exam is required for both those reading for the law and those attending non-ABA law schools.)
> each jurisdiction adopts its own actual rules for these things.
Sure, but because the schools must be ABA approved that means the ABA gets to decide that schools omitting those codes don't get approved... doesn't it? That was my assumption anyhow.
> which may also apply to the apprenticeship/reading—two different names for the same thing, not two different options
I spoke with a VP of a state bar association who described chronic, widespread lawyer shortages, constant attrition in the pool of eligible judicial appointees, a growing backlog of cases (compounded by the effects of COVID) with trial dates many years in the future, declining law school graduations, and declining projected law school enrollment. These conditions may not hold across every county and metro, but in a lot of places the system is buckling (citizens already waiting 5-6 years for a ruling on open-shut civil matters) because there’s so much more work than workers.
> There's not a shortage of lawyers and Texas is not pushing for freedom.
Exactly. Law isn't medicine, and there are so many law graduates that many of them can't even find work in the legal industry, and the earnings of many graduates are surprisingly low (the distribution is bimodal: https://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib).
Unfortunately too many here will reflexively believe some libertarian narrative of "professional organization limiting supply to drive salaries up," even when it doesn't apply.
Arizona is the only state that artificially limits the number of lawyers it has. Every year they decide how many new ones they need, and that is exactly how many will pass the bar exam.
I don’t think that this has has had the effect of driving up salaries, however.
The buyer is not assessing that way. The buyer has a diverse portfolio where they only need 10-20% of their bets to succeed. The math is not in your favor as an employee.
What is the economic incentive for Google and Apple not to do this? They've convinced much of the public that it's a necessary feature (moreso than SiriumXM, for example, which also starts free then costs a lot), and better than what the manufacturers can develop internally, so why allow the manufacturers to integrate it for such a low price?
It is illegal if you're a government employee or working as a government contractor. What most people get in trouble for is laundering the money that they're taking in bribes.
Half-Life, Counter-Strike, Portal, and their sequels are all Steam exclusive. The only mandated Steam exclusives are Valve games. Anything else is purely out of convenience for the developer.
I realize you're probably referring to PC gaming specifically here, but it's interesting to note that Portal and Portal 2, at least, (haven't checked on the others) are available on the Nintendo Switch store.
reply