Light theme [beta]
We're testing a lighter alternative to the regular DPReview theme. Both options will stay.
For more information, click here. Don't forget to leave some feedback.

peterwr

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Works as a Webster
Joined on May 10, 2004

Comments

Total: 171, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

<< The body has no traditional red dot as Leica says it wants the camera to be discrete, >>

That's 'discreet'. Discrete means separate and distinct.

Hmm. Come to think of it, it's that too... ;-)

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 18:44 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

peterwr: Hmmm. Very nice. But IQ/DR/ISO aside, can anyone tell me why I'd buy this over the D7200, even for pro use? Genuinely wondering, as I'm thinking of making the jump from my (nice but bloody heavy) D300s.

Aha. Much as I thought. Thanks, guys. Leaning back towards the 7200.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2016 at 19:03 UTC

Hmmm. Very nice. But IQ/DR/ISO aside, can anyone tell me why I'd buy this over the D7200, even for pro use? Genuinely wondering, as I'm thinking of making the jump from my (nice but bloody heavy) D300s.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2016 at 18:12 UTC as 93rd comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: I don't intend to sound against technology. Actually, it's clear this thing is alien technology. Seriously, Lytro should open their warehouses to the public, to prove they're not reverse engineering tech from a fallen UFO. ;)

Having said that, there's a bit of exaggeration in the thought that all new techs are pushing the industry forward.

Sometimes, just because one thing allows more, it's not in anyway the "future".

Speaking as photographers, we don't change lenses just because of limitations are imposed by physics and optics.

We choose from WA to telephoto, as an artistic choice, as well as a technical one.

For example, has your D810 or 5ds made you dump the 70-200? I guess not, even though you have the option to crop in post now.

You won't dump your teles. Not now, not in the 200 mp era. Because of artistic merits.

My simplified example above may be just that: too simplified, but you get the idea.

<< But Technicolor was everything they had available back then. The tech had to be accepted, one way or another, simple as that. >>

It was everything they had available *to shoot in colour*. That's the point. The only other choice was to shoot black and white.

Granted, if you wanted to shoot colour you had to accept the unwieldiness of the Technicolor process, but then exactly the same is true of the Lytro. If you need or want the facilities the Lytro offers, it's currently the only game in town, just as the Technicolor camera was in the early days of colour.

That's the price of early adoption, and without the early adopters, Technicolor wouldn't have had the money to make their kit lighter and more compact and better quality. If the Lytro camera offers a significant advantage - which it does for certain types of production - people will use it and Lytro will have the money to develop it.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2016 at 21:41 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: I don't intend to sound against technology. Actually, it's clear this thing is alien technology. Seriously, Lytro should open their warehouses to the public, to prove they're not reverse engineering tech from a fallen UFO. ;)

Having said that, there's a bit of exaggeration in the thought that all new techs are pushing the industry forward.

Sometimes, just because one thing allows more, it's not in anyway the "future".

Speaking as photographers, we don't change lenses just because of limitations are imposed by physics and optics.

We choose from WA to telephoto, as an artistic choice, as well as a technical one.

For example, has your D810 or 5ds made you dump the 70-200? I guess not, even though you have the option to crop in post now.

You won't dump your teles. Not now, not in the 200 mp era. Because of artistic merits.

My simplified example above may be just that: too simplified, but you get the idea.

<<
Also, keep in mind that even for Hollywood level, IMAX cameras are prohibitively large and cumbersome.
Few filmmakers dare to use it, even with Hollywood budgets.
And an IMAX camera is "pocketable" compared to this colossus.
Picture an absurd example: imagine carrying this monster into the wild woods to shoot The Revenant.
Advancing tech is nice, but there's one point where you wonder if it's really doable, or if it's just a gorgeous science experiment with limited real world use.
>>

You know, I bet they said all those things about the Technicolor camera too. And look what happened.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2016 at 12:41 UTC
In reply to:

photogecko: Did they fix the shadow banding? Or how about the price?

:-) @Leandros!

Leica SL: £5050 at Leica Mayfair.

Nikon D5: £5199 at Jessop's.

Seems like good value to me.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 10:20 UTC
In reply to:

abortabort: I will seriously consider one as soon as Zeiss starts making their Loxia and Batis lenses for the SL.

Leica lenses not good enough for you, eh? ;-)

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 10:17 UTC
In reply to:

huyzer: Have they provided the cost of all these parts, or has anyone calculated that? If not, what is a ballpark figure?

Because I don't like Facebook. I don't like their ethos and I don't like their business practices. I avoid them as much as I can.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 09:37 UTC
In reply to:

huyzer: Have they provided the cost of all these parts, or has anyone calculated that? If not, what is a ballpark figure?

That's actually not bad. Around the price of a Hasselblad, or a decent cinema production camera - and you get lenses with it! And with 8k *per eye* stereo, if I were a film-maker I'd be in the queue for one.

Well, I would if it weren't made by Facebook...

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 15:11 UTC
In reply to:

trungtran: Amazons next purchase.

That reminds me: whatever happened to Fotki?

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 20:18 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1110 comments in total)
In reply to:

SKPhoto12: When everything is said, the fact remains that you can get comparable or better image quality for 25% of the price. A Sony 6300, Ricoh GR, Fuji X100T, Panasonic LX100, will do the same job and give traveller or street shooter every bit as much satisfaction. The Sony is not fixed lens, but forget a 24mm lens on it and you have the same thing. In conclusion, how ever much you try to justify a camera like the Q, the value just isn't there.

<< A Sony 6300, Ricoh GR, Fuji X100T, Panasonic LX100, will do the same job and give traveller or street shooter every bit as much satisfaction. >>

I've used or tried all those cameras as well as the Q (I own a GR). For sheer proper-camera ergonomics (let alone picture quality), I'd take the Q. In fact, having handled one, I'm now seriously looking at selling my grandma's ashes to get one. Picking up the Q and looking through the viewfinder gave me a warm feeling inside, like coming home. I'd pay £3,000 for that.

Having said that, the 6300 surprised me by being a very fine little camera, along with the new f4 kit zoom. If I wasn't smitten by the Q, I'd seriously consider one as a carryaround.

But guys - Leica guys, Sony guys, everybody - seriously, how can any diigtal camera in this day and age not be weatherproof?

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

Janoch: Seriously good looking... could be the wide, I need.

Look forward to reviews!

Price sounds totally wrong though?

I was chatting to the Irix guys at the Photography Show yesterday, and they confirmed those prices. I didn't get a chance to try the lenses on a body - I only had my GR with me - but there were plenty of others doing so at the invitation of IRIX staff. Curiously, they didn't seem to have brought bodies themselves.

On a brief encounter, I'd say the build quality of the Blackstone version is pretty impressive.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 23:25 UTC
In reply to:

new boyz: Wide DR is like 88 keys of a piano.. you hear that Canon?

<< We all know DR isn't important. That has been repeatedly stated by many here. >>

Depends what you're shooting and what you're trying to make it look like. Mostly it doesn't matter to me because I shoot in the cloudy old UK, but if I was in full sunshine (yep, one day I *will* take that holiday) I'd start to worry.

Also, all picture quality parameters are far more important in movies than in stills. You're shooting 24 frames a second and every one of them has to be spot on.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2016 at 15:40 UTC
On article Mono a mono: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) hands-on (712 comments in total)
In reply to:

mugwump64: please, please, pretty please: Can some of the other manufacturers please adapt some of this less-buttons, not P(ussy)-Modes approach to building a camera?

From what I understand, the interior is sub-par if you compare it to other full-frame compacts like sonys a7-line. What really makes me consider this is the list of no's which results in some significant less':

- no Programm or "Scene"-modes
- no video
- no wifi or other connectivity
- no EVF

-> less buttons, a well thought-out handling-scheme, longer battery-life

Once you're grown up, you know what you want from a camera: But if all you want to do is take well-exposed&composed pictures hassle-free, there is currently no camera that does this and only does this - unless you are willing to spend a fortune.

. But obviously, you can't sell a camera that only does one thing right - it always has to do everything mediocre.

<< (although I can't imagine anyone getting this for B&W video production) >>

blackrhinocreative.com

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 23:12 UTC
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (526 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stollen1234: Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review
What a title...how could this review be really obejective?

<< We can always go back to just posted: Panasonic GX8 review >>

Please don't. It's very irritating when you go to look at a five-year-old review... :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 22:40 UTC
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (526 comments in total)
In reply to:

BarnET: part 2

"Can't rotate LCD with external mic or HDMI cable attached"
Bull just turn the screen

Bull
Just flip the screen towards you flip it arround rotate it back in place. no need to take out any cable.

"No flash included in box"
Fair point they should've included the Lx100 flash

If Panasonic are sufficiently non-serious about sound to use a 2.5mm jack and no headphone socket, I'd take that as a pretty broad hint to use a separate sound recorder and just use the onboard mic for a guide track to sync to.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 22:36 UTC
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (526 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: Same question as for the Pen F: Why would anyone buy this over an X-E2?

<< Same question as for the Pen F: Why would anyone buy this over an X-E2? >>

Same answers. Plus weatherproofing. Where I live, that's huge. Plus the tilting viewfinder. As a former video cameraman, that too is huge.

I agree with DPR re the mic socket placement, but then if you're shooting serious video, you'll likely be shooting sepmag anyway, and only using the on-camera mic for a guide track.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 22:32 UTC
On article History Repeating: Olympus PEN-F Review (1092 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: Just a question: why would anyone get the Pen F (with a say 35/40mm ff eq prime) over an X-E2?

How long have you got?

1. Because they like Olympuses;
2. Because they already own Olympuses;
3. Because they prefer the looks of it to the Fuji;
4. Because it better fits their style of photography;
5. Because they think the image quality is better for their purposes;
6. Et cetera;
7. Et cetera;
8. Et cetera...

If you like the Fuji, get the Fuji.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2016 at 14:51 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (516 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beckler8: I wish they'd stop it with the minimalist/style/whatever design garbage that permeates everything in rx/a7/a6. Sick of that stupidity. Design stuff that's meant to be used by 10-fingered humans with best comfort and usability instead. One thing they could have is different available grip/control kits that change the shape and even function of cameras depending on users' particular preference and hand shape, especially size. But that would mean actual design innovation - which when it comes to ergonomics they apparently know nothing about.

<< Apparently I do - but that doesn't say much since they know nothing. >>

The modesty is strong with this one... :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 09:34 UTC
On article Nifty fifty: Hands-on with the Hasselblad H5D-50c Wi-Fi (133 comments in total)
In reply to:

oscarvdvelde: Medium format used to be 56x42mm or larger. Perhaps 44x33 mm should be called "fuller frame"?

(Really though, such questions are academic, the area of amateurs' arguments. Decent pros just look for the tools that best meet their needs and budgets.)

Amen to that. Most people who use Hasselblads nowadays (and Leica Ss, come to that) seem to be doing so because they're afraid the prestige clients won't hire them if they don't - and to be fair, often that's true. Workaday pros of my acquaintance are going for Canon/Nikon fullframe for the mission-critical prestige work they'd previously have done on a 'blad, and Fuji Xs or Olympus E-Ms for the ex-35mm stuff.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2016 at 08:52 UTC
Total: 171, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »