itsastickup

itsastickup

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Jun 15, 2011

Comments

Total: 301, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
In reply to:

markie_jan61: Sorry to see two personal attacks on G3User. Regardless of his opinion, let him express it without being disparaged by anonymous critics.
--

Which ones are anonymous?

In any case, G3User makes some very strong yet unsupported statements that are insight-free. He's decreasing the S/N ratio around here. The replies may help to increase the S/N ratio in the longer term.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 08:27 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Review (492 comments in total)
In reply to:

itsastickup: The shadow dynamic range issue is really very disturbing. I've stuck to film cameras all these years, until recently, because of DR issues.

For example, I frequently under-expose faces, in strongly backllit conditions, for the sake of atmosphere, and I need as much shadow DR as I do highlight DR as I can get (particularly for the sake of eyes). That, skin tones, + OOC JPG quality are what had me finally move away from film. I would have immediately pre-purchased the X-Pro 2, except for this review. I'm astonished that fuji have seen fit to reduce DR they are famous for.

Fuji see this as improving shadows, but I don't buy that. It's a loss of irretrievable detail and capability. Consumer vs Enthusiast/semi-pro.

In the X-Pro review, putting shadows to -2 extended the shadow DR even more but isn't shown here. The fact that the X100s has the same settings doesn't mean that we can resurrect the shadow DR capabilities of the previous cameras. If we can then I can put aside my concern.

Not according to this review. Look at the graph. It's the same as any other APS-C. And compare to the X-Pro 1 with Shadow at -2 in its review; which, as you say, is miraculous. That isn't tried here, so we don't know.

Are you talking of RAW? RAW is something I wish to avoid if at all possible. The case for RAW in these cameras, even for the X-pro 1, is not straightforward.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2013 at 12:55 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Review (492 comments in total)

The shadow dynamic range issue is really very disturbing. I've stuck to film cameras all these years, until recently, because of DR issues.

For example, I frequently under-expose faces, in strongly backllit conditions, for the sake of atmosphere, and I need as much shadow DR as I do highlight DR as I can get (particularly for the sake of eyes). That, skin tones, + OOC JPG quality are what had me finally move away from film. I would have immediately pre-purchased the X-Pro 2, except for this review. I'm astonished that fuji have seen fit to reduce DR they are famous for.

Fuji see this as improving shadows, but I don't buy that. It's a loss of irretrievable detail and capability. Consumer vs Enthusiast/semi-pro.

In the X-Pro review, putting shadows to -2 extended the shadow DR even more but isn't shown here. The fact that the X100s has the same settings doesn't mean that we can resurrect the shadow DR capabilities of the previous cameras. If we can then I can put aside my concern.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2013 at 08:40 UTC as 141st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: The next time somebody complains it's taking so long to get a firmware update, they should remember what happened here.

In truth ver 3.01 was the firmware the Camera always should have had; so it's been a hell of a long time coming.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2013 at 08:56 UTC

All of a sudden the x-pro 1 is a contender for this task. The new firmware update is a transformation. And it looks the part.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2013 at 00:12 UTC as 48th comment
In reply to:

itsastickup: My main problem is backfocussing issues, particularly with backlit shots for which this camera is the ideal due to its film-like dynamic range.

Well, to answer my own complaint: it seems like the new firmware fixes this problem, mostly. A great relief.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 17:48 UTC

My main problem is backfocussing issues, particularly with backlit shots for which this camera is the ideal due to its film-like dynamic range.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2013 at 09:18 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

itsastickup: What about the option to see a live view of the background blur/depth of field? The degree of blur is an important aesthetic consideration particularly in people photos. Yet right now we must be forever chimping.

What I actually want is full time DOF-preview where I see the change while I change aperture. DOF buttons are a boor.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2013 at 10:48 UTC

What about the option to see a live view of the background blur/depth of field? The degree of blur is an important aesthetic consideration particularly in people photos. Yet right now we must be forever chimping.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2013 at 08:51 UTC as 28th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul: How about 'Ken Rockwell'?

Rockwell, for all his one-sided view, does often give quite insightful comments, and ones that have saved me money.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2013 at 07:42 UTC

Why would anyone read 5 star reviews any way. Or, for that matter, 1 star. On the one hand, hyperenthusiasts and on the other unrealistic grumps.

The balanced info is in the middle.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2013 at 07:40 UTC as 79th comment
On article Fujifilm introduces XF 27mm F2.8 'pancake' lens (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

luxor2: "field of view similar to that of the human eye" , must be a lot of eye problems at Fuji. However, a great addition to their lens offerings.

The human eye sees a field of view more like an ultra-ultra wide-angle.

I don't need to be telling you this: just look.

The 'Normal' lens view is that which reflects the area of normal concious attention, not the optical view.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2013 at 08:58 UTC

Nice, but seriously folks, AF is crucial. And I speak as an manual focus shooter of the last 6 years.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2013 at 09:15 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

ironcam: It seems to me that many people don't know that, although it produces the image of a 85/1.8, it still has the light capture capability of a f0.95.

The chase of for extreme shallow dof is just silly imo. Portraits where only the eyelashes are in focus are getting boring.

yabokkie, this is an old misconception that pops up now and then. Yes, it the same amount of light but it is concentrated on to an m4/3 image circle not a 35mm image circle. There is twice the light on each photo receptor compared to a 35mm 85/1.8

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2013 at 08:56 UTC
On article What The Duck #1390 (41 comments in total)

If that's representative, then one has to have a refreshingly simple sense of humour to enjoy it. And have extraordinarily sensitive satire detection circuits.

Direct link | Posted on May 27, 2013 at 10:05 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Scrozzy: Dear Mr Wilhite,

It's a hard G.

Sincerely,

Everyone

It can't possibly be everyone, since he disagrees with you.

In any case, it seem evident that plenty had naturally assumed that it was soft, so English being composed mostly of optional rules of thumb, I think the creator is the best authority on the subject, and not this individual called 'everyone', who is raving and need to possess a pig or two and jump in to a river.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 17:14 UTC
In reply to:

NAwlins Contrarian: Sorry, but he doesn't get to dictate the pronunciation just because he created the file type. Standard pronunciation rules apply. Insofar as the G in GIF is for "graphics", which has a hard G, then GIF should likewise be pronounced with a hard G.

..that's right, like Geoff.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 17:04 UTC
In reply to:

Russell McMahon: Interesting to me is the proportion of people who say that they have never heard it pronounced with a hard G. I've never heard it pronounced with a SOFT G. FWIW (possibly little :-) ) I've been using computers actively for almost 40 years. "Down here" in New Zealand we speak "The Queen's English" [tm] and British English is, I'm assured by experts, slowly morphing to follow our lead :-).

Actually I think it's that we are copying the Americans by softening out the ends of words. It's awful. It makes every one sound like a plebian.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 17:04 UTC

Very boring article, but the NYtimes reader's comments below it are hilarious.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 17:01 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

itsastickup: For photographers, the crucial Dxo report will be in to the HTC One and its APS-C photosites and dynamic range. Until that comes no decision on a smartphone is really possible.

It was handy shorthand; pedanticness should be done in private with other consenting adults.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 12:54 UTC
Total: 301, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »