Timmbits

Timmbits

Lives in Canada Montreal, Canada
Works as a inventor
Joined on Oct 8, 2011
About me:

Deutscher, living in Montreal Canada.
Cycling, chess, design, inventions, nature, photography, are some of the things I like.

Comments

Total: 1619, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review preview (447 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: Given the size of this thing... a little massive for a very small sensor camera by today's standards, I feel disappointed that Fuji isn't offering a 1" sensor or larger. I might even prefer a 1" from Nikon with lower megapixel count, for the larger photosites, rather than a 1" Sony sensor.

ps: it is the size of a G1Xii or LX100
http://j.mp/10cyL97

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 21:05 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (686 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: @DPR:
it would be awesome, to see a head-to-head comparison,
between the G1Xii and the LX100.
(ditto for G7X versus RX100iii)

PS:
http://j.mp/10cycMH

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 20:40 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (686 comments in total)
In reply to:

JDit: Went to the store excited to test the camera. Everything went well until I tried to trigger camera by IPad in silent camera mode. IPad remote trigger over rides the camera silent mode and camera "clicks". The camera on it's own trigger was silent. As soon as IPad was triggering it, G1X II was not silent any longer?
Does anybody has comment on this or possible remedy?
Thank you

posible remedies:
* buy android tablet.
* wait until apple gets it right.
* find (or write) a different app
don't expect the camera, being controlled by something, and doing what it is told, to be able to correct the apple app.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 19:08 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (686 comments in total)
In reply to:

RandallS12: The DPreview reviewer published video quality comment for the review of the Canon Powershot G1 X MK II states "Low resolution video with strong moiré" and is in direct contrast to the Consumer Reports test of the same camera. CR test results of this same camera state "Video quality is excellent, better than most models" and also from the same CR test is the comment that the camera "is the first advanced model we've tested that had excellent image quality across the board: photos taken without a flash, flash photos, and video. What makes this significant is not just that it scored so high in all three categories, but that it scored higher overall than all our tested SLRs and mirror less models."

Is it possible something was defective in the camera used for the DPreview test? CR is world renowned for the stringent and demanding quality of it's excellent testing procedures. Wy such an opposite result for the same Canon G1 X MK II camera from two highly reputable organizations?

Randall:
the problem with websites like consumer reports,
is, how can you tell if these are camera testers testing vacuum cleaners, or if they are vacuum-cleaner testers testing cameras?

in situations of doubt, get confirmation from imaging-resource, not consumer or electronics reports.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 19:06 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (686 comments in total)

@DPR:
it would be awesome, to see a head-to-head comparison,
between the G1Xii and the LX100.
(ditto for G7X versus RX100iii)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 19:03 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (686 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: At that focal length is the test-scene shot?

Remembering my Fuji X-S1, which was very good with portraits, but fuzzy on the long end, I realise the uselessness of this test scene, if it only shows the lens at one given focal length.
Indeed, it may be showing the camera at it's best, at it's worse, or somewhere between, and this would be the case for most, but completely random from one model to another, whether it's showing it at it's best or worse.

@dpr: btw... for a test scene, try and keep the objects in the same position, will you? (I see the bottle has been rotated, and not all items seem to appear in the same spot from camera to camera.

@nomorefilmman:
imaging-resource is definitely an awesome site, for checking something out more thoroughly, before you actually pay for something.
what DPR offers, is more interactivity with the community, as we are doing here right now. that, and a nice black background so easier on the eyes.
that's why I like to use both.

@Richard: thanks for the info. but I still feel that you guys should offer the test images in various focal lengths. especially for fixed-lens long zoom cameras, where the optical IQ can vary quite radically as you zoom in and out.
I understand that it's more work - of course it is - but it would give a significant boost to the thoroughness of the reviews, more than any works could say.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 18:56 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: Horrible lens! Probably has plastic elements full of mold and mildew. And full of scratches too. And must be blurry all over. Probably can't even do color and has zero bokeh. Yuck!

But what if I'm wrong? What if this lens performs better than a Leica?

you might have thought of what this might do to your credibility.

next time, say credible things. that matter.
try to become impartial.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 18:50 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Review preview (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

pdelux: Way to go Panasonic. 85% is a respectable score!

@DoctorJerry:
what you wrote, is enough to discourage anyone from ever wanting to buy the new FZ1000, if it performs the same as a tiny-sensor camera. (the tiny-sensor model doesn't even come into question - there is no way I'll go back to tiny sensors!).
So thanks for the tip. It clearly resolves the question of "FZ1000 or RX10?".

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 18:37 UTC

with other small mirrorless cameras offering this,
at over $2K, would it kill them to give this a tilting screen, if not a VF as well?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 03:20 UTC as 1st comment
On DPReview in Cologne: We're at Photokina! article (14 comments in total)

@dpr:
before I buy a camera to peel off the color filter off it's sensor, might you have seen any manufacturer showing a black&white digital camera?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 03:08 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Timmbits: I don't get what the hoopla is all about, as Samsung's 45mm f1.8, also costs $349... and I can assure you, it is a solid performer - not only are the optics great, it even has autofocus at that price.

I get that the NX lens is not near f1.2, but we do know that it doesn't need to be stopped down to get decent IQ, and the NX lens adds all the autofocus hardware, wich also costs money. So it appears not to be the bargain it is made out to be, just a reasonable price.

I'm curious to see lab test results of this lens. Let's hope the IQ is good!

@androole,
in such a case wouldn't the whole point of a larger aperture be so you don't have to resort to using iso6400? I'm not sure if you are trying to shoot at 1/4000th of a second in darkness or what... I am not clear on the situation you are describing.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 02:45 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Review preview (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

u43: I have a GH4 and while I love the detail it provides in 4K video mode, it's jpegs are just average. I prefer Olympus and Canon jpeg colors to the GH4. The Panasonic FZ1000 however, offers excellent jpeg colors and those great colors carry over to FZ1000 video as well. This is a hint that Panasonic knows how to get the colors right and the future GH5 will get them right.

@steve9119:
always get the fastest that your camera will accept, and that your wallet can afford. memory speed is a huge performance influencer.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 02:36 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (686 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: At that focal length is the test-scene shot?

Remembering my Fuji X-S1, which was very good with portraits, but fuzzy on the long end, I realise the uselessness of this test scene, if it only shows the lens at one given focal length.
Indeed, it may be showing the camera at it's best, at it's worse, or somewhere between, and this would be the case for most, but completely random from one model to another, whether it's showing it at it's best or worse.

@dpr: btw... for a test scene, try and keep the objects in the same position, will you? (I see the bottle has been rotated, and not all items seem to appear in the same spot from camera to camera.

I have only two sites I use - I don't have time to read every review under the sun - especially since the vast majority are severely tainted by advertiser dollars influence, or the reviewers simply are not that specialized in cameras on some of those sites. I always confirm anything they say here with imaging-resource.com and that's it for me. I already know the sellers I like, but most of the cameras I've bought, I got at good prices, and resold a year later for what I paid for them, so no loss there.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 02:34 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: Wow, I'm astonished at how much flak this lens that no one has used is getting.

At least take the time to look at the samples that ZY has posted before spouting off.

http://www.zyoptics.net/uncategorized/sample-photos-of-our-zhongyi-mitakon-42-5mm-f1-2/

Yes, it's fairly soft and has CA . But at the same time, it's a compact F1.2 lens for $350 in a lightweight metal shell. Is it better than my Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 in real world results? Maybe not. But maybe so, depending on your needs.

There's a lot of people with high horses around here who seem to hate choice in the market place. And while it does have a somewhat Leica-esque aesthetic, that's about as generic as it gets for a metal lens shell.

the DoF is just so shallow, not really useful at f1.2 in broad daylight. low light, from farther away, is a more appropriate use for f1.2

Samsung makes a quite remarkable 45mm f1.8 that offers outstanding image quality, offers OIS and auto focus, for the same price. Yet, we don't see the great, realistic lenses getting as much press and talk.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 02:25 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: $359 for fully manual lens. Or you can get Pentax or Minolta 55/1.8 for $20 plus $90 focal reducer which can be used with many other lenses too.
Even Canon FD58/1.2 or Minolta 58/1.2 with the focal reducer would be cheaper, and a whole stop faster.
Now, quality is a different issue. Who knows what quality wide open this 42.5/1.2 lens has?

I don't know why you guys even want to bother with a focal reducer... it will only worsen the sharpness of a lens that may not be up to premium standards to begin with. 42.5mm, 50mm, not a huge difference there.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 02:17 UTC
In reply to:

Peter Bendheim: The barrel machining and finish looks horrid. The screw area is unpainted or worn. There have always been plenty cheap and nasty optics around, ultimately you get what you pay for.

Maybe the optics are better. But lenses are an investment, bodies are not. I'd rather spend extra for lenses.

sounds about right :D

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 02:11 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: Horrible lens! Probably has plastic elements full of mold and mildew. And full of scratches too. And must be blurry all over. Probably can't even do color and has zero bokeh. Yuck!

But what if I'm wrong? What if this lens performs better than a Leica?

TROLL alert!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 01:59 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: The manufacturers of this lens could do themselves a real favor by providing a working sample to display on high volume camera shops.

Curious customers can bring their own M4/3 bodies and test it out in the store.

No amount of techno web mumbo jumbo will convince smart consumers.

Marketing 101 101 101 1010101010101010101010101010101.

.

Since all is manual anyway, "smart consumers" buy a used Minolta, Canon or Nikon 50mm f1.4 lens on ebay! ;)
Cost $100. Adapter $9. Now THAT's smart! ;)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 01:56 UTC

I don't get what the hoopla is all about, as Samsung's 45mm f1.8, also costs $349... and I can assure you, it is a solid performer - not only are the optics great, it even has autofocus at that price.

I get that the NX lens is not near f1.2, but we do know that it doesn't need to be stopped down to get decent IQ, and the NX lens adds all the autofocus hardware, wich also costs money. So it appears not to be the bargain it is made out to be, just a reasonable price.

I'm curious to see lab test results of this lens. Let's hope the IQ is good!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 01:22 UTC as 15th comment | 4 replies
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (686 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: At that focal length is the test-scene shot?

Remembering my Fuji X-S1, which was very good with portraits, but fuzzy on the long end, I realise the uselessness of this test scene, if it only shows the lens at one given focal length.
Indeed, it may be showing the camera at it's best, at it's worse, or somewhere between, and this would be the case for most, but completely random from one model to another, whether it's showing it at it's best or worse.

@dpr: btw... for a test scene, try and keep the objects in the same position, will you? (I see the bottle has been rotated, and not all items seem to appear in the same spot from camera to camera.

@nomorefilm
it was the samples gallery that allowed me to discover the very very very severe CA in the G7X in many situations. deplorable optics.
but when you are trying to evaluate some of these fixed-lens cameras, and compare which is a better buy, samples isn't the best of solutions. (although in the case of the g7x it was - but that is only because some of the pics I saw were so bad, that comparing with other cameras was not required).

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2014 at 02:41 UTC
Total: 1619, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »