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: 1556, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1602 comments in total)
In reply to:

wallpaper_guy: WARNING: NOT all SDXC UHS U3 class10 cards are suitable for 100 MBit!

When purchasing my rx100 IV 2 days ago i bought a "Sandisk Extreme SDXC UHS I U3 class 10 64GB" card (from an official Sandisk brick & mortar dealer), which SHOULD have been fine for all recording formats / bitrates - as per the article here - and ALSO according to the manual...

BUT: it is NOT accepted by the camera for the 100 MBit codecs/formats - it just goes up to 60 Mbit

so beware - CONTRARY to what is being communicated apparently NOT ALL SDXC UHS U3 class 10 cards are OK for 100 MBit - which also includes well reknown brands!

Bought a "SanDisk Extreme Pro 64GB SDXC U3 class10" card today which works fine, but not happy about the misinformation.

no matter what fancy marketing terms they tag onto it,
a CLASS-10 card is a Class-10 card.

you also have to pay attention to read versus write speeds.
many manufacturers quote in big bold lettering the read speed, which is always much faster. what you need to be concerned with is the WRITE speed.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 23:59 UTC

Lower res and larger pixels...
now there's a concept! ;)

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 23:50 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Timmbits: Is this manufacturer out of touch with reality?
This is 2015 after all. Not 1995, not 2005, but really 2015!

I just don't know what question to ask:

Why are we here talking about, reading about 1/2" sensor cameras?
Why is a Walmart camera being featured here?
Why do they even make this camera with a 1/2" sensor?

Why are you all so enthused about tiny-sensor cameras, still, in 2015, when we know better? If they were so good, they wouldn't have lost half their marketshare to smartphones. 1/2" sensor cameras aren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore, and for good reason.

DPR is a serious website, about photography and great cameras and gear.
Maybe there needs to be something front and center, to better educate teh neophytes, so as to put pressure and better influence manufacturers. Pushing for better quality from the bottom up, instead of just accepting this outdated configuration pushed top down.

I do not believe you. you wouldn't write such masses of insults and provocations if you were not a troll yourself and knew what you were talking about. you don't get to silence everyone just because you bought this model.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 23:39 UTC
On article Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Scarff: Sharpness at 400mm-600mm compared to Panasonic FZ1000 - please examine in the full review!

Michael Reichman at Luminous Landscape raved over the G3 X compared to the FZ1000 saying the G3X "get[s] more from the same sensor and has a superior performing lens" although he did not compare identical photos from the two cameras.

Ken McMahon at CameraLabs describes perceived softness in the FZ1000 at 400mm in his review.

If these reviews are correct that the G3 X sensor/lens is sharper at 400mm and has 200mm more focal length, that could be a persuasive reason to opt for the G3 X notwithstanding the 1+ f/stop slower speed of the lens, and the much slower frame rate, particularly in RAW.

Also note that to attach a filter to this camera, one has to pay $40+ for the lens hood. It is not clear to me whether the hood is reversible for storage while traveling, or simply makes this compact camera much bigger.

if you are not comparing the same picture in the same conditions, how can you be objective and know your assessment is accurate?

You can go here, use their "comparometer", selecting two cameras.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

It appears that in the resolution (B&W shapes scene) the fz1000 seems to have a bit more chromatic aberration.
However, in the color test scene at iso800 which I compared, the G3X seems to suffer from over-correction, losing much detail (ref: the whites, beige linen, salt shaker). Also the round proportion scale in the image is far better on the FZ's image (which is more fuzzy and yellowed in the g3x's test image). I also see some blown highlights in the G3X's image (chrome objects) suggesting lesser DR.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 23:24 UTC
On article Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

kodakrome: Is DPR trying to suggest that it's possible to put a 600mm F4 lens on this camera? The whole point of this camera is to have a longer zoom, so why criticize it for F5.6? These reviews would be much better if you would just give us the facts, and stop with all the brand bias.

I agree, accurate reviewing, and putting things into perspective, is not being biased.

Some people are just unconditional fans - their brand is like a religion, and any criticism, constructive, perspective or otherwise, will not be tolerated.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 23:07 UTC
On article Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: It's amazing how Canon likes to shoot themselves in the foot.
Out of production, that viewfinder can't be that expensive.
If they included it in the box, because it is a removable, articulated one, it would be an huge plus.
As it is, it just opens the door for unfavorable comparisons.

Shooting themselves in the foot would have been putting a viewfinder onto it, because they would cannibalize sales of their other lines.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 23:01 UTC
On article Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jaythomasni: Canon's strength was its own hardware and processing resulting in unique picture and color rendition. Rest of the makers except Fuji has similar pictures as most of them use Sony sensor.
With canon sourcing Sony sensor that uniqueness is gone.... the pictures looks more Fuji color ...which is not bad... but canon legendary quality is gone

I have no idea what you are talking about. You can set your own color balance settings in-camera. Rendition of what a sensor captures varies greatly depending on the supporting control electronics and firmware. As for legendary quality, you have got to be kidding - Canon isn't immune to having had their share of problems like any other manufacturer, and they do not hold a monopoly on great quality.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 22:59 UTC
On article Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jaythomasni: These bunch of recent canon G series with sony sensor all are the same result. Nothing outstanding... mediocre lens..
if canon want to make a difference they should introduce a G with an L series built in lens and a fast focusing camera with size of sl1 or less with their own improved apsc or 1.5 sensor..it will be really worth... they left the legacy with powershot pro-1 .its good time to resurrect the legend...

do you know of any zoom with such a wide zoom range, that gives outstanding sharpness at every focal length?

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 21:56 UTC
On Connect post Google to phase out Google+ Photos (36 comments in total)

OF COURSE GOOGLE IS PHASING IT OUT! GOOGLE PHASES EVERYTHING OUT! The only thing Google is not going to phase out is probably gmail (I presume). I have used numerous Google services (starting with igoogle.com) and have witnessed each one of them become discontinued, one after the other. There is obviously something unstable and unreliable, with google's vision of things. they waste lots of money creating products, and when they don't grow fast enough and they can't monetize it, they just kill the project. I have stopped relying on anything google related, because I am so sick and tired of their way of doing things. They seem to think that we don't mind learning and relying on new things they create, to have them taken away, and having to start over and over to find replacements. They could use the additional services to loyalize clientele, but instead, they are turning more and more people away from google services and finding alternate providers.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 21:53 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kawika Nui: The TG-x series:
"What has impressed us about these two cameras are their relatively fast lenses (at wide-angle), good photo quality (by compact camera standards)"

This is a wildly inaccurate statement. Maybe good photo quality by tough cam standards, but miserable photo quality by compact camera standards. I've tried two different TG models (2 and 3) and sent them back due to abysmally poor IQ. In contrast, I've been quite happy with the IQ of a number of non-"tough" compacts. The differences in IQ have been glaringly obvious.

It seems to be due to pixel overkill. Why persist in cramming 16mp on a tiny sensor, when dozens of compacts stay with 12mp and get far superior IQ?

I agree with Kawika: iw on these submersibles is disappointing.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 21:36 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

jennajenna: TG4 STILL has condensation problem of fogging up when you go into the water from a beach. I owned the tg2 AND tg3; stupidly thinking olympus would fix it. Looks like the tg4 still has that fogging condensation issue. Why is it so hard to fix?

if there were a way to dry out the air inside of it, when you open the battery/card compartment, that should resove the problem.
but that condensation is coming from the humidity in the air from when you open it to get at the battery and card.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 21:34 UTC
In reply to:

Aleo Veuliah: Great all around Camera.

Well done Panasonic.

I am sorry to see so many of you with a chip on your shoulder.
Giving advice is not calling you stupid. You need to understand the difference. Of course, there will always be the immature who don't take advice from those who already went down that exact same path, and were in the exact same spot. Please act more adult-like and have more respect for those trying to help you.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 19:56 UTC
In reply to:

nevada5: I can coax nice results from a 1/1.7 BSI sensor but I've never gotten good results with a 1/2.3 sensor. Use the bigger sensor in a super-zoom? 1" sensor requires a camera that's too bulky for me. Oh well. Maybe next time.

Some superzooms with larger sensor aren't THAT big, with the 1" sensor. It really IS worth the difference. A lens MUST be larger in order to send enough light to the larger sensor, there is no way around that. Hence larger camera - don't hold your breath for smaller than the smallest that are available now.
A compromise on camera size is better than a compromise on image quality. Perhaps you can consider getting two cameras instead? If size is so important to you... perhaps you can find a smaller one for many situations, and have a larger sensor superzoom for when you really need it? I don't know your needs, it's just a thought. I have been through so many cameras, and despite many getting gold and silver awards here, I can tell you, you will be glad that you graduated to the larger sensor. you will not regret.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: Is this manufacturer out of touch with reality?
This is 2015 after all. Not 1995, not 2005, but really 2015!

I just don't know what question to ask:

Why are we here talking about, reading about 1/2" sensor cameras?
Why is a Walmart camera being featured here?
Why do they even make this camera with a 1/2" sensor?

Why are you all so enthused about tiny-sensor cameras, still, in 2015, when we know better? If they were so good, they wouldn't have lost half their marketshare to smartphones. 1/2" sensor cameras aren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore, and for good reason.

DPR is a serious website, about photography and great cameras and gear.
Maybe there needs to be something front and center, to better educate teh neophytes, so as to put pressure and better influence manufacturers. Pushing for better quality from the bottom up, instead of just accepting this outdated configuration pushed top down.

One day you will buy a better camera, and when going through your old pictures from tiny-sensor cameras, will understand the difference. You will also understand how your vehement responses made you look noobishly ignorant.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: with new cameras sporting a large sensor and a zoom lens,
in a compact format and at a similar price point,
it's not really current anymore to offer a fixed focal length.

I would have expected Ricoh to add some kind of a good quality zoom lens into this iteration, to keep it current, and now that other manufacturers have proven it possible in this size format.

@SSantana yes and no need to be such an @$$H0L3 !
I know the GR did very well in tests against the Fuji and that other one. But when you consider the latest cameras coming out, you KNOW there is room for zoom on these.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 19:44 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1602 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: I am really not saying this to criticise, but I wouldn't mind having something like this at a lower resolution (like 10-12MP) so it has even larger photosites (with all the benefits that accompany that - less noise, better sensitivity... smaller file sizes).

The performance of this isn't _that_ impressive, when you consider that the Nikon1 was offering frame rates like this for years now (probably also using a Sony sensor). I suspect when Sony-semi signed Nikon there were certain performance non-compete clauses in effect for X-years.

Only 70mm lens equivalent (remember, that is like a 45mmAPSC). OK for portrait, but not for wildlife or sports (games, etc) and the other stuff. That is understandable, because if you want more, Sony wants to sell you the RX10, and if this did that, there may be no RX10.

Price will come down over time. Maybe I can afford one in a couple years. ;)

PS, also @Richard:
to address another point you mentioned, I do realize that a MFT or a 1" sensor with less pixels, will not be as good as a Full Frame sensor with more pixels. The size difference in photosite size is too great for that.
However, what is wrong with wanting an optimized sensor?
We don't actually need all that resolution, unless we're making huge prints or cropping everything because we can't frame a shot. But what everyone craves, is great dynamic range, great color saturation, less underexposed/dead pixels (noise)... that is what really looks impressive when you look at a photograph taken with a large sensor, like a full frame.
A medium sized sensor will not get you that quality...
but what is wrong with wanting it to give you a better quality?
For those of us who buy APS or MFT, (and now also the new 1" generation), these are reasonable desires.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 03:36 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1602 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: I am really not saying this to criticise, but I wouldn't mind having something like this at a lower resolution (like 10-12MP) so it has even larger photosites (with all the benefits that accompany that - less noise, better sensitivity... smaller file sizes).

The performance of this isn't _that_ impressive, when you consider that the Nikon1 was offering frame rates like this for years now (probably also using a Sony sensor). I suspect when Sony-semi signed Nikon there were certain performance non-compete clauses in effect for X-years.

Only 70mm lens equivalent (remember, that is like a 45mmAPSC). OK for portrait, but not for wildlife or sports (games, etc) and the other stuff. That is understandable, because if you want more, Sony wants to sell you the RX10, and if this did that, there may be no RX10.

Price will come down over time. Maybe I can afford one in a couple years. ;)

I guess it depends on your approach, your personal philosophy.
@Richard, you asked why not go with a larger pixel count if you can?
My answer is, I'll go with a higher pixel count on a larger sensor.
I want larger photosites. If I want to go with a smaller camera, then I prefer to sacrifice resolution, than sacrifice clean image and low light performance.
What's more, I am not that convinced that if you select a lower resolution on a 20MP sensor, that the firmware is actually keeping all pixels live and pairing them to effectively increase the area to capture each pixel. I know Fuji's old sensor on the X-S1 does this, but it was the exception, not the rule.
But even when the camera does do that, there is much wasted space on the sensor, between the photosites, where light is lost. So you will never get the same usable area and sensitivity from paired pixels as you would from larger photosites.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 03:28 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: Is this manufacturer out of touch with reality?
This is 2015 after all. Not 1995, not 2005, but really 2015!

I just don't know what question to ask:

Why are we here talking about, reading about 1/2" sensor cameras?
Why is a Walmart camera being featured here?
Why do they even make this camera with a 1/2" sensor?

Why are you all so enthused about tiny-sensor cameras, still, in 2015, when we know better? If they were so good, they wouldn't have lost half their marketshare to smartphones. 1/2" sensor cameras aren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore, and for good reason.

DPR is a serious website, about photography and great cameras and gear.
Maybe there needs to be something front and center, to better educate teh neophytes, so as to put pressure and better influence manufacturers. Pushing for better quality from the bottom up, instead of just accepting this outdated configuration pushed top down.

I get an email telling me I got a reply.
It's not like I hang out here, in this thread, to read posts from ignorant, pretentious, arrogant, newbies, who still have a lot to experience.

The OP was intended as a service to you all, and to shame the manufacturers who take you all for idiots. You're only proving them right!

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 03:17 UTC
In reply to:

Timmbits: Is this manufacturer out of touch with reality?
This is 2015 after all. Not 1995, not 2005, but really 2015!

I just don't know what question to ask:

Why are we here talking about, reading about 1/2" sensor cameras?
Why is a Walmart camera being featured here?
Why do they even make this camera with a 1/2" sensor?

Why are you all so enthused about tiny-sensor cameras, still, in 2015, when we know better? If they were so good, they wouldn't have lost half their marketshare to smartphones. 1/2" sensor cameras aren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore, and for good reason.

DPR is a serious website, about photography and great cameras and gear.
Maybe there needs to be something front and center, to better educate teh neophytes, so as to put pressure and better influence manufacturers. Pushing for better quality from the bottom up, instead of just accepting this outdated configuration pushed top down.

thank you davec150,

You should not comment on a road you have not yet travelled.

Until then, you are only displaying your ignorance and frustration, and completely missing the whole point of the conversation. It seems like it is way over your head.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 00:27 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1602 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: I am really not saying this to criticise, but I wouldn't mind having something like this at a lower resolution (like 10-12MP) so it has even larger photosites (with all the benefits that accompany that - less noise, better sensitivity... smaller file sizes).

The performance of this isn't _that_ impressive, when you consider that the Nikon1 was offering frame rates like this for years now (probably also using a Sony sensor). I suspect when Sony-semi signed Nikon there were certain performance non-compete clauses in effect for X-years.

Only 70mm lens equivalent (remember, that is like a 45mmAPSC). OK for portrait, but not for wildlife or sports (games, etc) and the other stuff. That is understandable, because if you want more, Sony wants to sell you the RX10, and if this did that, there may be no RX10.

Price will come down over time. Maybe I can afford one in a couple years. ;)

Like I said in the op, it wasn't to criticize.
Where I was coming from, is we are starting to see a lot of cameras with larger but small 1" type sensors come out.
They fulfill the need for those who want an apsc sensor in a smaller package, but only partially relieving that need.

I believe that when you make a compromise, on sensor size, that the compromise be the resolution (the spec that people look at and think they need) and that more work be done towards having the largest photosites possible (the feature people just don't know how much they are going to love it).

We have more than enough resolution today, and it has already ventured into the needless. These cameras are very appealing to enthusiasts, who understand why they cost $1000 instead of $200. There are many who would be delighted to get even better IQ out of what is perceived to be a sensor that doesn't quite compare to a MFT or APS. Doubling the photosite size would narrow that gap.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 00:14 UTC
Total: 1556, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »