zavart

zavart

Joined on Jan 18, 2012

Comments

Total: 59, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

zavart: I have sigma merrill DP1 and DP2 and DP3 and they all have cost me less than 1/3 of the price of Leica ! Quality wise I think they all produce even better pictures than Leica. Just visit this site and tell me that I'm wrong ;) http://sigma-dp.com/DP2Merrill/samplephoto.html

Hi Michael S.

I stopped posting about a month ago ! But now , after Your kind comment, I will mostly likely start again :) Thanks for reminding me...and have a nice day !

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2016 at 03:37 UTC
On article Cast your vote: DPReview Readers' Choice Awards 2015 (50 comments in total)

Just before voting starts I would like to thank DPREVIEW staff for the comprehensive review of Lumix GX8. Thanks to their informed opinion I was able to purchase very capable camera I'm truly happy with ! PS Who knows maybe it will also be included in the Twenty First Century Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras around $1 mark ! ;)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 27, 2015 at 12:05 UTC as 5th comment
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1523 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee: A larger sensor will be exposed to more light. Indeed yes, but not per unit area. This is NOT why the quality is better.

No argument there ! However 16mpx Foveon - because it is so clean and free of any artefacts gives the possibility of printing really really BIG ...For me it is better to interpolate up something which is clean to begin with, rather than downsize superior...rubbish :) So there are things which go beyond sheer numbers , and when overall quality counts. PS of course I said "rubbish" because I just wanted to underline how relative all of this is ...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1523 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee: A larger sensor will be exposed to more light. Indeed yes, but not per unit area. This is NOT why the quality is better.

Yes pixel-level noise and...dynamic range and after all these are primary reasons why people are going for the larger format. (and DOF) What I'm trying to say is that at the same ISO and aperture value quality will be the same for 10 Mega pixel MFT and 40 Mega pixel FF ! The amount of light reaching MFT will be lesser comparing with FF for the whole surface area but the same per pixel ! So theocratically speaking with a small print like A4 or A3 the difference will be non-existent. Of course more pixels give possibility of increased resolution but only when the lenses are really up to the job of resolving smaller and smaller pixels. In this respect most MFT lenses are truly squeezing everything from corner to corner ...this is much more difficult to achieve for FF lenses due to their physical size, complexity, and the cost.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 06:09 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1523 comments in total)

As I see it for me there is no such thing as "upgrade path" rather different tools required to do different jobs ! When I'm on the move and travel a lot I need a camera which is small and has small lenses such as MFT system even at the price of so called ultimate IQ. After all what's the point of having all that gear if I'm going to constantly leaving it behind or ...risking breaking my back ;) Then for professional work or in the studio I can use FF, especially since a lot of clients have a perceived view of how "the professional photographer" supposed to look like ie have a BIG KAHUNA with a huge canon attached to it ...and I don't mean the brand :) There are of course situations when I can take such camera and use it in the field but probably not as often as some would think,.So just like with any other trade , business etc You use different tools because in life there is not such thing as perfect tool for everything and usually jack of all trades is master of none...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 06:37 UTC as 15th comment
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1523 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee: A larger sensor will be exposed to more light. Indeed yes, but not per unit area. This is NOT why the quality is better.

Provided of course that both sensors have the same number of pixels. If both sensors have the same pixel SIZE than the quality ie light reaching the sensor, is the same ! PS The way the technology is going soon FF cameras with say 64 mega pixels will have the same light gathering power as MTF with their 16 mega pixels. The only thing separating them will be resolution.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 06:05 UTC
In reply to:

zavart: I have sigma merrill DP1 and DP2 and DP3 and they all have cost me less than 1/3 of the price of Leica ! Quality wise I think they all produce even better pictures than Leica. Just visit this site and tell me that I'm wrong ;) http://sigma-dp.com/DP2Merrill/samplephoto.html

The lenses on the Sigma DP2 and DP3 are absolutely top notch, perfectly matched with the sensor, and because they're permanently attached to the camera there is no issue with any dust getting inside. Plus they all have leaf shutters which basically are vibration free not to mention they are extremely quiet ...plus You can use the flash regardless of shutter speed ! PS But of course these cameras are not the worthy contenders for the DPreview since they don't have the kitchen sink and don't wear a tutu ;)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 04:02 UTC
On article Sony finalizes buyout of Toshiba's sensor business (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): Nikon has a patent on their own sensor design, as I recall in 2005. But Nikon never used that design. Sigma uses their own Faveon sensor. To me, an uninitiated casual reader, the Nikon patented design is similar to the three layered Faveon. Emphasis . . . I don't know didly about image sensors.

Would I make my purchase decision based on the sensors, not by a long shot. Sensors, while a major component of digital cameras, is akin to the transmission of an automobile.

Sensors are actually more akin to film technology used in analogue cameras . For me Foveon is akin to 25ASA Kodachrome and other sensors are much like 800ASA ORWO ( old East German brand ) I'd rather have Kodachrome in a cheap camera than ORWO in Leica ! So..Yes sensor technology is important if not the most important part of present digital camera design! (the lens of course is very important too but without proper "film" it also becomes useless) After all when You look at the picture You don't know whether the camera could shoot 10fps or if it had better autofocus acquisition - there is only one thing in front of Your eyes - the IMAGE !

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2015 at 05:29 UTC
In reply to:

zavart: I have sigma merrill DP1 and DP2 and DP3 and they all have cost me less than 1/3 of the price of Leica ! Quality wise I think they all produce even better pictures than Leica. Just visit this site and tell me that I'm wrong ;) http://sigma-dp.com/DP2Merrill/samplephoto.html

Yes , for street photography Sigma is not the best choice, although I'm still able to take very good shots with my DP1...and as for the buffer , well I actually like the fact that camera is slowing me down , the same goes with poor battery life ! At least it forces me to THINK before taking pictures instead "filming" everything and coming home with thousands of photos. Sometimes less is more. When it comes to lenses , even the best lenses won't do much if the sensor is producing moire and blurring. That's why I'd rather have "poor" sigma lenses but absolutely superior sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2015 at 04:08 UTC

I have sigma merrill DP1 and DP2 and DP3 and they all have cost me less than 1/3 of the price of Leica ! Quality wise I think they all produce even better pictures than Leica. Just visit this site and tell me that I'm wrong ;) http://sigma-dp.com/DP2Merrill/samplephoto.html

Direct link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 12:56 UTC as 1st comment | 10 replies

"Coming up in spring 2016!
PENTAX is launching a digital SRL with a brand-NEW format." ...So is it FF or something totally different ?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 11:33 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

zavart: I think the biggest mistake some huge companies make is to sell EVERYTHING under its own name ! I think the same mistake has made SONY which should have stayed with MINOLTA name after buying this company. If Samsung would have bought Contax or Rollei and combine its own expertise in electronics with the expertise not to mention tradition in camera making and design of these companies it would be much more recognisable! Lets face it people don't want to own cameras with the logo of Samsung which is also splashed on their fridges and vacuum cleaners ! It's no coincidence that Panasonic is branding its own cameras under LUMIX ..and by the way Samsung already had a good deal with Schneider-Krauznach. Most photographers are sentimental bunch :)

Yes, but mostly among general public which very often can't tell the difference between aperture value and shutter speed ! Serious Photographers are usually going to Nikon Canon Pentax Olympus Fuji ...because these companies have always been primarily CAMERA brands..The more general public is going to switch to their smartphones to fulfil their photo taking needs, the more Sony is going to fill the pinch. Thats why they are doing all they can to establish proper FF system - they know that soon only professionals and enthusiast will be left to cater for.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2015 at 09:21 UTC
In reply to:

zavart: And one final observation ! I think that if Samsung really wanted to join the camera market they should have provided something "unique" enough to make people sit and take notice. For example I would really consider their product if they would try to make camera with multi format sensor ie square , slightly oversized with similar square EVF . Now that would have really made me think about it...No more turning camera vertically , I could jump from square to 4:3 to 3:2 ratio. Yes I know this would change the focal lengths but not substantially and would be still much much better than cropping in Photoshop

I meant "unique" in terms of FORMAT not just by going mirrorless, the concept which after all wasn't invented by them ! Anyway , now its all just academic talk ! They're dead in the water - what a pity :(

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2015 at 09:08 UTC
In reply to:

zavart: Oh , and one more thing . Samsung should have joined the MFT group, especially since they didn't have a large selection of lenses to begin with . This would have been a smart move because people right now more than ever are looking for lighter cameras and lenses and it would give them opportunity to be part of the successful group rather than lone loser with the dead end system ! At least people could have risked buying their cameras knowing that in the worst case scenario they could have always buy lenses and accessories from other MTF makers !

Sorry , I forgot about that cookie from 2003 ! Kind of dinosaur from the time long gone when the DX was the only viable system ...even for professionals ! Unfortunately at present even modest Sigma lenses are beating it hands down, after all back then it was designed for totally different pixel counts !

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2015 at 12:37 UTC
In reply to:

zavart: I think the biggest mistake some huge companies make is to sell EVERYTHING under its own name ! I think the same mistake has made SONY which should have stayed with MINOLTA name after buying this company. If Samsung would have bought Contax or Rollei and combine its own expertise in electronics with the expertise not to mention tradition in camera making and design of these companies it would be much more recognisable! Lets face it people don't want to own cameras with the logo of Samsung which is also splashed on their fridges and vacuum cleaners ! It's no coincidence that Panasonic is branding its own cameras under LUMIX ..and by the way Samsung already had a good deal with Schneider-Krauznach. Most photographers are sentimental bunch :)

Yes I do , that's why I was saying about different price points. The 85F1.4 sounds great and it is no doubt a great lens ,but at this price most photographers would go to FF What I'm missing is the variety of MFT system They have Nocturion but they have also 45f1.7 lenses which cost 1/4 of the price while still providing exceptional quality etc etc PS the fact that independent lens makers like Sigma and Tamron don't support this mount is additional problem..

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2015 at 12:08 UTC

And one final observation ! I think that if Samsung really wanted to join the camera market they should have provided something "unique" enough to make people sit and take notice. For example I would really consider their product if they would try to make camera with multi format sensor ie square , slightly oversized with similar square EVF . Now that would have really made me think about it...No more turning camera vertically , I could jump from square to 4:3 to 3:2 ratio. Yes I know this would change the focal lengths but not substantially and would be still much much better than cropping in Photoshop

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2015 at 07:46 UTC as 114th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

zavart: I think the biggest mistake some huge companies make is to sell EVERYTHING under its own name ! I think the same mistake has made SONY which should have stayed with MINOLTA name after buying this company. If Samsung would have bought Contax or Rollei and combine its own expertise in electronics with the expertise not to mention tradition in camera making and design of these companies it would be much more recognisable! Lets face it people don't want to own cameras with the logo of Samsung which is also splashed on their fridges and vacuum cleaners ! It's no coincidence that Panasonic is branding its own cameras under LUMIX ..and by the way Samsung already had a good deal with Schneider-Krauznach. Most photographers are sentimental bunch :)

Samsung would have done better job if they had released five or six lenses at different price points and different focal ranges PRIOR to releasing NX1

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2015 at 07:18 UTC
In reply to:

zavart: I think the biggest mistake some huge companies make is to sell EVERYTHING under its own name ! I think the same mistake has made SONY which should have stayed with MINOLTA name after buying this company. If Samsung would have bought Contax or Rollei and combine its own expertise in electronics with the expertise not to mention tradition in camera making and design of these companies it would be much more recognisable! Lets face it people don't want to own cameras with the logo of Samsung which is also splashed on their fridges and vacuum cleaners ! It's no coincidence that Panasonic is branding its own cameras under LUMIX ..and by the way Samsung already had a good deal with Schneider-Krauznach. Most photographers are sentimental bunch :)

The problem is that camera like this -expensive camera! is ALWAYS only part of the SYSTEM ...and when the other parts are missing, people are not prepared to risk investing their money into something which might not materialise ! That's why Fuji was smart enough to build their WHOLE system so quickly !

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2015 at 07:12 UTC
In reply to:

zavart: Oh , and one more thing . Samsung should have joined the MFT group, especially since they didn't have a large selection of lenses to begin with . This would have been a smart move because people right now more than ever are looking for lighter cameras and lenses and it would give them opportunity to be part of the successful group rather than lone loser with the dead end system ! At least people could have risked buying their cameras knowing that in the worst case scenario they could have always buy lenses and accessories from other MTF makers !

I'm saying that they should have joined the MFT camp from the START. For Samsung making its own smaller MFT sensor wouldn't be any problem whatsoever . OF course it would have smaller pixel count , but so what ? As I see it , right now the choice is really ether between MFT because it really can offer much smaller lenses and full on FF cameras where people go for maximum quality regardless of size . For me, it is DX format which is actually the most vulnerable because the size of cameras and lenses isn't that much smaller from FF and yet it doesn't really offer much more above what can MFT do. Not to mention that Nikon is treating it like some kind of orphan, supplying very limited range of IS prime lenses and relatively poor quality zooms. In their line up there is not even one zoom with constant F2.8 created especially for DX . This says a lot about their intentions towards this format. Fuji on the other hand does make one but the size is big , but at least they treat it seriously..

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2015 at 06:28 UTC

Oh , and one more thing . Samsung should have joined the MFT group, especially since they didn't have a large selection of lenses to begin with . This would have been a smart move because people right now more than ever are looking for lighter cameras and lenses and it would give them opportunity to be part of the successful group rather than lone loser with the dead end system ! At least people could have risked buying their cameras knowing that in the worst case scenario they could have always buy lenses and accessories from other MTF makers !

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2015 at 04:57 UTC as 116th comment | 21 replies
Total: 59, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »