samfan

samfan

Joined on Sep 20, 2012

Comments

Total: 335, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners article (387 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Every serious brand new camera has a RAW converter for FREE in the bundled software.

It's time to dust off those camera's software CD's and give it a try.

If you don't want to be a monetary zombie, there are other ways around it...

.

I'm one of those crazies who use camera-provided converters: Samsung's Silkypix variant, Sigma Photo Pro and ViewNX.

I really don't know why all the hate for Silkypix. I think it's just fine.

SPP - also fine, plus had some nice capabilities (last time I've used it anyway) and nothing can match the output.

Nikon - okay that one is absolutely horrible but you can't get the IQ from any 3rd party software.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 09:45 UTC
On Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners article (387 comments in total)

Can the profiles for newer lenses etc. be updated using some 3rd party methods?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 09:38 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Rishi Sanyal: Fun little thought experiment:

If we go by sensorgen, the 1D-X's pixels have a full-well capacity (FWC) of 90,000. Since the pixels on this sensor are 7.5x larger, we can extrapolate that given similar sensor capabilities, the pixels on this sensor can hold ~675,000 photoelectrons.

Now, since each doubling of ISO halves the FWC, ISO 4,000,000 will yield a FWC of roughly 675,000/40,000 = 16.875. Let's be generous and round that to 20. That means white is made from 20 photons.

If we generously place middle grey at 3 EV below clipping, that'd mean midtones are made from 20/8 = 2.5 photons, which itself yields a signal with SNR of 2.5/sqrt(2.5) = 1.6, which is already below most reasonable DR cutoffs. In other words, you'll have ~3 EV dynamic range at best, assuming no read noise whatsoever (bad assumption).

So, either my calculations are *way* off, or there's a limit to these insane ISOs. :)

Thoughts?

With ISO of 4 million, i wouldn't be surprised if white was made of 20 photons. DR of 3 EV wouldn't surprise me either.

You really can't expect such a high ISO to have decent quality at all. It's probably similar to a 1/2.5" compact camera having max. ISO of 10.000: yes, technically it's there but hardly usable.

On the other hand better cameras are capable of squeezing more out of crappy input. I've seen images from APS-C sensors where the flash didn't fire, the image was completely black yet could be salvaged to something very decent in a RAW converter. High ISO in these high end cameras are betting on it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 09:33 UTC

Not interested but I'm loving to see m43 becoming such a default go-to standard.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 11:04 UTC as 10th comment
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1229 comments in total)
In reply to:

cdembrey: **"enthusiast-targeted"** What does that mean??? The "casual camera" has been replaced by the SmartPhone.

Today, a camera has to be "enthusiast-targeted" or it won't sell.

It's actually a fair point. At this age I would argue that almost anyone young enough to know how to operate a smartphone who uses a regular camera must be an enthusiast. Of course, by 'enthusiast' we may just as well mean 'anyone who can use a zoom lens' but it still applies.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 02:04 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1229 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Chunky and beefy.

There are many users who prefer this ergonomic configuration, regardless of sensor size, and Panasonic is taking the punt that these users will incline a liking to this product.

The other end of the scale offers cameras so tiny, like the Olympus E-PL3 that it literally slips out of your hands, no matter how big or small your paws are.

Good to see more choices being addressed.

.

Nothing slips out of my hands because I'm not a clumsy bear.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 02:02 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1229 comments in total)

Nice tech but still and ungodly ugly camera and now it's also big. Good thing Oly makes nice and small cams, hopefully the M10 successor will be good.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 02:01 UTC as 92nd comment | 7 replies
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1229 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Photo Ninja: I personally love tilt screens! The flip out screens are annoying and detract from usability.

Agreed. Most of the time I just need the screen slightly tilted to shoot from the belt and fully articulated screens force me to take apart the camera every time I take it out, and then look at a different angle than the camera is looking.

In comparison, how often do I need to shoot around the corner?

Meh.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 01:59 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1237 comments in total)

960 fps looks damn good. My Nikon V1 is crying in the corner.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 21:54 UTC as 166th comment | 1 reply

It looks great. It has pretty much the kind of rendition I like in a lens, and being a wide angle, that's even more cool. Though personally I'd opt for a cheaper, slower and smaller one.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 14:45 UTC as 6th comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1237 comments in total)

This really might be the perfect camera. I've waited for ages for a small compact with an EVF and a fast lens.

III was already it, but its price in Europe was outrageous. This one's is too, but is in line with the US price which is funny considering the $/€ rate went the opposite way.

That said, since Sony is putting so much love into this range, I wonder how great will V, VI, VII... be, heh.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2015 at 15:43 UTC as 268th comment

I know it's a minor issue in the grand scheme of things but I've wondered for a very long time why so many electronics manufacturers have this problem. Is it so hard to get a proper sticker? This can't even be a price issue.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2015 at 23:32 UTC as 40th comment
On Nikon D810A: An astrophotographer's perspective article (113 comments in total)

I can't look at these photos, I'm too envious (not of the camera)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 16:07 UTC as 25th comment
On Canon warns about dangers of counterfeit camera gear article (153 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: I've read a story about a fake Canon flash about a year ago. The dude bought the flash online and one of the secondary features wasn't working properly, so he took it to a Canon dealer to check it out. They were trying to make the flash work for hours until finally they called a technician who eventually noticed some differences and figured out the flash was fake.

Scary.

On the other hand, there are rally good really cheap flashes available. I'd guess that if the makers of these fakes don't want to be found out immediately and hurt their business, I'd assume the insides of these fakes would be at least half-decent. But no guarantee of course... It can be the cheapest, most dangerous crap. Flashguns are dangerous stuff.

Also, frankly this wouldn't be such an issue if the original camera maker's wouldn't be so f**king greedy when it comes to accessories. That crap is often so incredibly overpriced it borders on theft.

It's also stupid; they could be selling much more for more reasonable prices but instead they are losing out to cheap alternatives, second hand sales and even fakes.

I hope one of these big guys will figure it out and starts selling accessories for more reasonable prices.

And yes I know the originals are often higher quality, but not always (lens caps anyone?) and 5-10x overpricing is just ridiculous. They really expect us to buy $50 batteries for $400 cameras?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 19:51 UTC
On Canon warns about dangers of counterfeit camera gear article (153 comments in total)

I've read a story about a fake Canon flash about a year ago. The dude bought the flash online and one of the secondary features wasn't working properly, so he took it to a Canon dealer to check it out. They were trying to make the flash work for hours until finally they called a technician who eventually noticed some differences and figured out the flash was fake.

Scary.

On the other hand, there are rally good really cheap flashes available. I'd guess that if the makers of these fakes don't want to be found out immediately and hurt their business, I'd assume the insides of these fakes would be at least half-decent. But no guarantee of course... It can be the cheapest, most dangerous crap. Flashguns are dangerous stuff.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 19:45 UTC as 24th comment | 6 replies
On Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR article (329 comments in total)
In reply to:

QuarryCat: for that astronomic price a 2.8/16-55 mm VR would do much more sense!

especially for Nikon China-Plastics

I'll be laughing when it turns out that this lens is still f/2.8 on 55mm. I know it's unlikely but wouldn't it be great.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 12:46 UTC
On Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR article (329 comments in total)

This looks like a good offering, in fact something that should have been here at least 5 years ago.

Hey, stupid question since I haven't kept up: does the electronic diaphragm mean the lens won't work on pre-D300 bodies?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 11:56 UTC as 57th comment | 3 replies
On Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR article (329 comments in total)
In reply to:

sebastian huvenaars: Turn your nikon into a Sony R1 :) kinda...

Hehe someone else who remembers the R1.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 11:55 UTC
On Nikon offers AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR article (329 comments in total)
In reply to:

oselimg: Ok, it has f2.8-4, credit given where it's due. This is an "enthusiast" lens not a main stream one therefore $1060 ok. However it's only 1/2 stop faster at the wide end and 1 stop at the long end compared to mainstream alternatives which in most cases is not significant. No wedding photographer will dare shooting with f4 at the longer end. if it had f2.8 throughout it would have made sense especially at the long end and even slightly bigger premium would've been justified if it were, performance wise, the "jack of all trades". With todays sensor performances I think the target audience wouldn't hesitate increasing the ISO one step instead of paying $$$ premium. 7 blades aperture is another Achilles heel for this zoom.

I hate f/5.6 lenses on principle alone. This is finally a replacement for the under-appreciated 18-70/3.5-4.5.

We'll have to see how much this will cost in Europe but if I remember correctly, the 16-85 has cost around 1000 Euros on launch so this price is not excessive, especially considering the better aperture. But we'll see how good the lens is.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 11:54 UTC
In reply to:

Ed Villanueva: P infinity from Nikon is coming out in 2016 that will have 1458x zoom, I believe. http://petapixel.com/2015/04/01/nikon-unveils-the-p%E2%88%9E-the-first-compact-camera-with-a-1458x-zoom-lens/

Haha I made the same joke a year ago http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3651820#forum-post-53456592

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 10:46 UTC
Total: 335, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »