DStudio

DStudio

Joined on Jan 16, 2012

Comments

Total: 683, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Top 5: Hands-on with Nikon D500 (786 comments in total)

For me the most exciting feature is the AF points covering most of the frame. Will we finally start seeing enthusiast action shots where the subject isn't smack in the middle of the frame every time? Maybe we can finally stop blaming the camera makers for this assault on our visual senses!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 18:42 UTC as 146th comment | 4 replies
On article Top 5: Hands-on with Nikon D500 (786 comments in total)
In reply to:

bmoag: I'm sure there is a market for this camera but it escapes me and that may be why the long interval since the 300s. Are there many (any?) working pros that rely on APS sensor cameras? This camera will not yield optimal image or video quality compared to other solutions offered by Nikon, and others, at comparable price points apart from 4k in an APS body. I guess there is a well heeled presumably amateur niche for what seems to me a jack of no trades with a few tech gee whiz factors--someone somewhere must consider bluetooth transfer a must-have.
Ergo I would not consider buying one but if someone were to gift me a D500 . . .

Yes, smart pros understand the value. In sports, for example, you get longer effective focal lengths with less weight for lower lens cost. The library of available, quality lenses is so much greater than with non-DSLR cameras. Image quality is still very high.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 18:19 UTC
On article Nikon's New D5 and D500 Push the Boundaries of DSLR (733 comments in total)
In reply to:

zw1975: Innovate or die. Canon, revamp your camera bodies or become a 3rd-party lens provider.

Well, actually Canon did make the right move here - and first - by finally releasing the 7D Mk II. But they stalled for so long (on the entire ILC range) that they have the appearance of being so far behind they're not even following!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 01:59 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: And still the iPhone doesn't shoot raw.

Don't say that PhotoUniverse, you're ruining his favorite line! ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 01:49 UTC
In reply to:

DStudio: If you insist on sticking to a traditional workflow (shoot, batch transfer to a computer hours or days later, edit, enhance, and finally post or print) then sure - dedicated compact cameras can make more sense.

If you desire a more modern or streamlined workflow - or are doing video - these could be a tremendous asset.

No, as I've stated before the Galaxy Zoom is a disaster when it comes to zooming with third party apps. Don't know about Zenfone Zoom (it's not even released in the US yet), but I'd be afraid of similar problems with it.

Live streaming may be the most painful example, but unfortunately it's not merely an exception. It's too bad, because the Galaxy Camera (I still have one) *should* have been an excellent device.

So "fiddling" with lenses turns out to be an easily tolerable inconvenience compared to dealing with incompatible apps.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 01:46 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Roboto: What the hell is wrong with these companies trying to put a makeup on a pig? iPhone has pathetic camera module so what is the point?

"Because there are smartphones that shoot raw."

There are also cars that still come with a spare tire.

But this "interesting" fact has little or no relevance to the vast majority of prospective Tesla owners.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 20:57 UTC
On article Nikon's New D5 and D500 Push the Boundaries of DSLR (733 comments in total)
In reply to:

zw1975: Innovate or die. Canon, revamp your camera bodies or become a 3rd-party lens provider.

Pretty funny!

Canon's not dying yet, but they're sure trying hard to ensure they keep losing ground!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 20:38 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Roboto: What the hell is wrong with these companies trying to put a makeup on a pig? iPhone has pathetic camera module so what is the point?

HowaboutRAW: "I don't dispute there's a market for these add on lenses."

Then I fail to see the relevance of your statement to my original comment. Of course the lack of RAW capability is a con for the iPhone. But your remark that "none of those apps allow it to shoot RAW" neither refutes nor enhances my statement, so what's the point?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

DStudio: If you insist on sticking to a traditional workflow (shoot, batch transfer to a computer hours or days later, edit, enhance, and finally post or print) then sure - dedicated compact cameras can make more sense.

If you desire a more modern or streamlined workflow - or are doing video - these could be a tremendous asset.

As you know Android and iOS have much more capability than a WiFi-connected camera. Such cameras are rather limited in their capabilities, generally not even providing useful live video streaming.

Often the workflow is more important than having better IQ.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 20:07 UTC
In reply to:

DStudio: If you insist on sticking to a traditional workflow (shoot, batch transfer to a computer hours or days later, edit, enhance, and finally post or print) then sure - dedicated compact cameras can make more sense.

If you desire a more modern or streamlined workflow - or are doing video - these could be a tremendous asset.

Roboto - this will still be more time-consuming and require more user intervention in most cases. And I'm not aware of ones that can provide a live video stream (especially to a wide variety of streaming services).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 19:53 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Roboto: What the hell is wrong with these companies trying to put a makeup on a pig? iPhone has pathetic camera module so what is the point?

HowaboutRAW: None of the apps I'm thinking of need to. See my comment on traditional workflow above.

BTW, there's a strong chance I'll be getting this if the price and quality are reasonable. There IS a market for this, even if it's smaller or less traditional than what you have in mind.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 00:22 UTC

If you insist on sticking to a traditional workflow (shoot, batch transfer to a computer hours or days later, edit, enhance, and finally post or print) then sure - dedicated compact cameras can make more sense.

If you desire a more modern or streamlined workflow - or are doing video - these could be a tremendous asset.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 00:17 UTC as 18th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Mister Roboto: What the hell is wrong with these companies trying to put a makeup on a pig? iPhone has pathetic camera module so what is the point?

What's so hard to get? It's all about apps and hardware compatibility.

The iPhone has very few, well-know variants. So most apps (mostly) work. Contrast this to an Android Camera - e.g. it's hard to find any apps that work correctly with the zoom on a Samsung Galaxy Camera.

Better to get an iPhone and adapt to the hardware limitations (or enhance them, as with these lenses) rather than wait forever for working apps that will never arrive on your "properly designed" Android camera!

The iPhone is part of a (somewhat annoying yet) highly functional "ecosystem" that can be readily adapted to all kinds of unique applications.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 00:04 UTC
In reply to:

aftab: I wonder how many units they will have sell to make this camera profitable.

Thanks aftab. At least I think we can safely say Don is quite optimistic! If Pop Photo and Leica are anywhere close to reality (and their information sounds plausible) there's no way the market has grown that much in two years - even in spite of the great demand for the new Phase One XF, plus the release of the relatively popular Pentax 645Z during this period.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 07:36 UTC
In reply to:

Scott Tender: So not relevant.

Next iPhone? Relevant.

I thought the current iPhone and the current Phase One were more relevant than the Next iPhone!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 19:56 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: Ok... I've just seen the full res tiffs.

Seriously.

Never. Seen. Such. Quality. Before.

It makes the D800 and 5ds look like a bad taste jokes in comparison.

Never seen anything come close, and this is coming from a guy who has already shot with 4 different digital backs.

If 35mm was starting to catch up and close the gap...

...oh dear... the gap has widened again to a Grand Canyon.

The question is not whether you can afford it, but whether your clients can.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 19:53 UTC
In reply to:

Matsu: The big news items here are the sensor development partner and the sensor size. There isn't really much if any true medium format digital available in the marketplace, at any price. I believe DALSA makes a Leaf digital back sensor of the same size, 53.7 x 40.4mm. Lets call it close enough, though I was always taught that 645 film was about 56x42mm, I think perhaps there was some variation between cameras on the width, and that when the frame lines are accounted for, then a sensor of approx 54x40 may be close enough to call "full frame medium format 645.)

As with any system, the lenses matter, and having the right FOV will help the folks who use these things - and carry over an inventory of 645 lenses.

Hassleblads "double frame" is smaller than medium format, as are Pentax and Leica's 44x33 and 45x30 "medium format. These latter two are "only about 1.6X larger than 135 format.

Now if someone wants to put this into a Fuji or Mamiya rangefinder sized rig for 6-10K, hmmm...

The big news items are indeed the development partner and the sensor size. Sony's last MF sensor was significantly smaller, while Phase One incurs significant cost for each sensor they commission or develop. This is a big step (forward, apparently) for the two companies, as well as the marketplace.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 19:44 UTC
In reply to:

aftab: I wonder how many units they will have sell to make this camera profitable.

Ron, I agree with you. I'd expect a lower number too. But I don't have any numbers to back that up.

So for now I'll just say "market figures" are about 22K MF cameras are sold each year, because it sounds authoritative to me ;) Now we have two "legitimate" figures until someone pins us down!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 19:19 UTC

"Oh, I can do this in Photoshop."

Well good for you, because

1) You can't, and

2) You'll end up spending your time in the futile exercise of making something that looks "sorta" like it.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 31, 2015 at 01:22 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

Reactive: Isn't this a classic case of a solution looking for a problem? I wasn't aware my existing UV filter's tiny weight was a problem - it's insignificant compared with the lens weight. I wasn't aware it needed to be 10x stronger, as I've never been stupid enough to smash it against objects. I wasn't aware it needed to repel water and oil, since an occasional clean with IPA keeps it spotless. I wonder if Sigma will charge 'Art' prices for their completely clear glass filter? If so, they should move into homeopathy. Perhaps their next product will be a military-grade nuclear-hardened titanium lens cap?

If you've never been stupid enough to drop your camera or have it fall out of your bag you must not be going many places or doing much with your camera. Glad it's safe though!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2015 at 15:28 UTC
Total: 683, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »