Matthew Miller

Matthew Miller

Lives in United States Boston, United States
Works as a Systems Architect
Has a website at http://mattdm.org/
Joined on Aug 25, 2006
About me:

1996-1999: Casio QV10A
1999-2004: Nikon Coolpix 950
2004-2007: Olympus C-5060
2006-2006: Fujifilm F20
2007- : Fujifilm F31fd
2007-2007: Pentax K100D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)
2007-2009: Pentax K10D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)
2009-2012: Pentax K-7 (still mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)
2009-2011: Fujifilm F200EXR
2012- : Pentax K-5ii (+ 15mm, 40mm, 70mm Limiteds)
Now you know. :)

Comments

Total: 89, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

lspoden: This will cost the average photographer that uses Lightroom and Photoshop around $600 over five years. This is a total money grab by Adobe. They have no competition so they can get away with it.

Here is my analysis: http://www.lenspoden.com/photo-topics/

@CFynn That is typical for a software company, and actually very high for companies overall. The money is _definitely_ "going there".

How does Corel manage it? Well, aside from repeatedly going bankrupt, they've made a lot of acquisitions over the years.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 17:46 UTC
In reply to:

TFD: Everyone thinks the cloud is a great, no one knows what it is. I would not want to get tied into this one. I would guess that the performance would be less than exciting.

Personally I am now using Corel Paint Shop Pro, it as a better interface than Adobe and it does everything I need for about $100.

Here, they're just using the word "cloud" to mean "subscription software", and they're only using it because it's a more-palatable buzzword. The software is still actually installed locally, so performance isn't an issue.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 14:17 UTC
In reply to:

lspoden: This will cost the average photographer that uses Lightroom and Photoshop around $600 over five years. This is a total money grab by Adobe. They have no competition so they can get away with it.

Here is my analysis: http://www.lenspoden.com/photo-topics/

$600 over five years? So, literally, a third of a dollar a day? Really, cry me a river here.

Adobe's R&D takes money, and with digital goods a subscription model makes more sense than pretending you're selling an object.

If you would prefer something else, there *is* competition in for example GIMP, which has a recently reworked user-interface and will shortly gain full 16-bit support.

Sure, it's a little bit behind in some of the greatest cool features in Photoshop — but that is _literally_ the difference that R&D makes.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 13:57 UTC

I wish the Bang! one said Click!

That is all.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2013 at 20:12 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

Johan Borg: Note: The Sigma DP1 Merrill has only been added to our test scene in JPEG mode, since we're too lazy to fire up Sigma Photo Pro and press Save Image with default settings.

Sigma DP1 Merrill must be the single most meaningless camera to add to a JPEG only comparison, given how much that model benefits from RAW.

@Johan: no, that's not the case. DNG is just a container format. Proprietary RAW formats are *also* just container formats. Once the container is decoded, the actual conversion path is identical regardless of input file type. Bits are bits.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2013 at 21:41 UTC
On Preview:ricoh-gr (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

wildeye: It's great that manufacturers are listening to photographers and responding with better image quality in smaller packages. All these cameras look interesting as does Sony's RX1. For sensor tech though, the 'writing' is literally 'on the wall', (or more to the point, you can't see the words!), for the APSC Bayer samples on page 10. So, like others here, I'm wondering why the DP compact cameras have largely been ignored on this site when it comes to serious review to this point? Agreed Foveon is not perfect, but it has had a fraction of the investment that all the other makers have poured into Bayer and it does seem to offer something of genuine value to photographers that deserves some further interest, if not support. The micro detail of the writing from the Foveon on page 10 is truly impressive compared to the Bayer. NB. The last people who tried to sideline a different technology simply because it didn't fit into their existing workflow were the Luddites!

Yeah, but set the ISO to something like 400 and watch the advantage tip _steeply_ to Bayer.

Posted on Apr 23, 2013 at 12:02 UTC
On Preview:ricoh-gr (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

Grobb: There is no fine detail in any of the cameras tested. Drag the comparison window over the watch in the lower right hand corner. Then, choose the Olympus OM-D E-M5, Pen E-PM2, or any other "Good" camera and see the difference. Not impressed one bit, especially for the price and features the GR and DP offer.

I think what you're seeing is mostly the effect of Olympus's excellent JPEG engine. Switch to RAW and there's no striking difference.

Posted on Apr 23, 2013 at 11:59 UTC
In reply to:

Johan Borg: Note: The Sigma DP1 Merrill has only been added to our test scene in JPEG mode, since we're too lazy to fire up Sigma Photo Pro and press Save Image with default settings.

Sigma DP1 Merrill must be the single most meaningless camera to add to a JPEG only comparison, given how much that model benefits from RAW.

I disagree. The _value_ of the RAW image samples is that they're all converted with the same software in the same way. If you want to see samples converted using the manufacturer's individual algorithms, that's what the JPEG samples are for. (In camera vs. desktop software doesn't make much difference for this purpose; if that software happens to have different behavior that's interesting but not really relevant.)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2013 at 11:53 UTC
In reply to:

Emopunk: Why no A-mount Sigma, why? We really would love the last two aps-c lenses you made, too; the other one being the update 30mm 1.4.

Yeah, no Pentax K mount either. They're aiming at the big two brands because that's where the money is.

And of course their own mount, because, hey.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2013 at 13:49 UTC
On Just Posted: Ricoh GR preview article (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I wonder what magic they used to pull this off?

Ricoh GRD-1,2,3 and 4 were all 1/1.8" sensors, and since the beginning people were asking, whining, pleading, hoping for a bigger sensor "since the film GR was 35mm ... "

Suddenly, Ricoh goes "oh, wait, actually we _can_ fit an APS-C sensor in there after all." Not 1", not even 4/3", just "poof" all the way up to APS-C like it was meant to be that way all along.

I'd love to know what made that possible in 2013 when it was not possible in 2008 or even 2010.

Maybe they bought Pentax for a reason.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 00:14 UTC
On Review in progress: Pentax K-5 II and K-5 II S article (42 comments in total)
In reply to:

mmitch: Pentax needs to catch up to the rest of the Camera Companies and release a Full Frame body! I really got tired of waiting and switched to Nikon. I owned a K5 it's a great camera, but it's limited lens selection and lack of interest by Pentax to further the company along I can no longer support.

There's a pretty amazing lens selection, including, ironically given the wording of your complaint, the Limited series.

It's fine for you to switch to Nikon for full frame if that's what you want, but it's silly to expect Pentax to beat the big two companies in that niche market, especially because what everyone seems to want is for them to make a cheaper full-frame camera, which isn't an economically-solid plan. Following forum whining blindly into making a full-frame camera doesn't seem like a wise way to "further the company along".

I'm happy to see them making the best possible APS-C SLRs.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2013 at 17:26 UTC
On Just posted: Nikon Coolpix A real-world samples gallery article (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): I love my G1 X.

How is posting "I love my [competing camera]" on a thread "rational discussion"? It's irrelevant noise at best.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 23:09 UTC
On Just posted: Our Fujifilm XF 14mm 1:2.8 R lens review article (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

Matthew Miller: Do you have a reference for "The 'R' in the lens name indicates that ... the 14mm has a dedicated ring to control the aperture."?

Previously Fujifilm has indicated that the R stands for "radius angle" and refers to the shaped aperture blades.

Thanks Andy. Sounds pretty authoritative.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2013 at 15:22 UTC
On Just posted: Our Fujifilm XF 14mm 1:2.8 R lens review article (78 comments in total)

Do you have a reference for "The 'R' in the lens name indicates that ... the 14mm has a dedicated ring to control the aperture."?

Previously Fujifilm has indicated that the R stands for "radius angle" and refers to the shaped aperture blades.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2013 at 17:14 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

JMichaelsPhoto: Could achieve the same effect for a lot less money with a lensbaby.

I woudn't say image quality "suffers". Rather, technical image quality is _beside the point_.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2013 at 15:00 UTC
In reply to:

brunobarolo: With a one stop improvement, Panasonic may finally bring their sensors to the level where Sony sensors are today. Nice :-)

"2 times better" = 1 stop.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2013 at 18:08 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: Stability improvements.. bug fixes. Apparently the contrast adjustment is secondary, although some users might find it important if shooting in strong daylight.

Pentax is curiously reticent to admit what bugs they may have fixed in a given release, possibly due to a quaint pretense that if they don't admit problems the product will be seen as perfect. Of course, as with all tech products (I'm looking at you, Boeing Dreamliner), there's always a few bugs at launch. As it is, we get to play a silly guessing game, and people with pet issues get to argue endlessly about them online. It'd be better to just say — even Apple admits to bugfixes in software updates.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2013 at 03:41 UTC

"Caution: Only K-5II/K-5IIs users are permitted to download the firmware update."

So, watch out, all you Nikon and Canon users. The download police will come after you.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2013 at 03:37 UTC as 5th comment | 5 replies

Soooo, not terribly excited. Polaroid isn't a real company anymore: they went bankrupt and the brand was snatched up by vultures.

The article says that the camera will be "made" by Sakar, but Sakar is just an importer and labeller or cheap Chinese junk electronics — they'll contract out to someone to actually design and make the thing.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2012 at 18:37 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

Tilted Plane: Why complain? More is more. Don't read it if it isn't worth your time. For me it's all interesting. Thanks all around. Now just give us a link to this particular new metric (rather than just the general site) and I'll be really happy.

Because if the metric steers people the wrong way, it will eventually steer the market the wrong way, which will in turn make more new lenses designed around an arbitrary and meaningless score rather than attractive real-world performance.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2012 at 20:09 UTC
Total: 89, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »