random78

random78

Joined on Jun 3, 2010

Comments

Total: 130, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

cosmo13: So where is the mast with the camera? I see nothing attached to the Rover extending out of the frame to the camera position. In other words there is nothing going from where the camera must be to the Rover.

I was wondering the same thing. But I think what has happened is that the image has been stitched in a way that the arm has been removed from the picture.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2012 at 19:17 UTC
On Samsung NX 12-24mm to cost $600, 45mm F1.8 around $300 article (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

the reason: what the hell am i supposed to do with a 67.5mm lens??? Canon Nikon, Pentax, and samsung dont seem to get it, if you have an APS C sensor you should make APS C lenses. Fuji gets it, the upcoming 56.5mm comes to 85mm f1.4, a classic portrait lens. Even m4/3s gets it with the upcoming 42.5mm f1.2 (coming to 85mm), and every lens they make comes to a classic focal length . Heck, even the nikon 1 system has an upcoming 32.5mm f1.2 that comes to 85mm.
Just drop the system already and be done with it, stop half assing it

Keep in mind that samsung already has a 60mm lens i.e. 90mm equivalent, so that focal length is already there. They also have an 85m 1.4 which is a great portrait lens (like 135mm f2 on FF, which is my favorite portrait focal length). The point of the 45mm 1.8 is to have a telephoto option which is fast yet small. Fast telephoto lenses for APS-C are going to be big as seen from the 60mm and 85mm NX lenses. m43 does better at small telephoto lenses but even there the 75mm 1.8 lens is a very large lens. But people look for small lenses to go with their small mirror-less cameras. So 45mm 1.8 is a compromise - a lens for those who want to stick to small lenses but still want telephoto capability.

Samsung has one of the better lens lineups in the mirror-less world, though m43 certainly does better for obvious reasons. But Samsung does much better than say Sony. And their lens FL's are for APS-C - for example the first lens that the released for NX was 30mm f2 - a perfect APS-C normal

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2012 at 00:15 UTC
On Samsung NX 12-24mm to cost $600, 45mm F1.8 around $300 article (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

nawknai: Best lens lineup by far.

I don't get it. Are there cameras just that bad that they don't even get a mention in the EVIL/CSC race? All you hear about are m4/3, NEX, and Fuji, even here. I just bought a Fuji X-Pro 1, but if Samsung had better reviews (and I could find them at a local shop), I would have certainly taken a look at Samsung.

Their cameras are actually pretty good. I currently have a NEX-5N as well as the Samsung NX200 and have used multiple m43 bodies. I like the NX200 controls and ergonomics better than both NEX-5N as well as the m43 bodies that I had. I think Samsung is bad at creating hype and indeed marketing in general. Their cameras are just plain good imaging devices. No retro styling like Olympus, no "slim and stylish" designs like Sony, no "world's fastest AF", or the "best video implementation" etc. Plus in the first generation they were held back also by the noisy sensor. Though this generation has fixed that. My NX200 sensor is fairly close to the 5N sensor and probably better than the Canon APS-C sensors that I have used in the past.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2012 at 22:31 UTC

And what will they call the next standard - ultra-super-duper-high-definition? I think sticking to 4K is a better idea.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2012 at 23:12 UTC as 21st comment
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 650D / EOS Rebel T4i review article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

random78: Does this review including the AF comparison for video mode that was in progress. I quickly skimmed through but didn't see it. Though I might not have looked hard enough

Zooming has its own set of problems even if we take AF out of the picture. Unless you have power zoom like camcorders or P&S cameras, the jerks that you get while zooming via the zoom ring are more objectionable than the slow AF shift.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2012 at 22:34 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 650D / EOS Rebel T4i review article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

random78: Does this review including the AF comparison for video mode that was in progress. I quickly skimmed through but didn't see it. Though I might not have looked hard enough

Thanks! will wait for that. And yeah I saw the comments on video AF in movie section. Looks like it is pretty bad. Based on what you have seen so far, would you say it is even worse than the CDAF based tacking video AF in G5 etc?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2012 at 20:26 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 650D / EOS Rebel T4i review article (233 comments in total)

Does this review including the AF comparison for video mode that was in progress. I quickly skimmed through but didn't see it. Though I might not have looked hard enough

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2012 at 19:30 UTC as 75th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Gothmoth: canon has already a few new patents up it´s sleeve.
it´s new technology.. it needs time to mature.

i remember the horrible AF on my Olympus E-PL1... what a useless crap that AF was.
2 models later the E-PL3 autofocus is nice.

but one thing panasonic and olympus can not change in their m43 cameras is the smaller sensor... FAIL.

Canon APS-C has only a marginally bigger sensor compared to m43. The difference is fairly small. Based on sensor size you would expect canon aps- to have half a stop of advantage over m43. So given equally good technology canon aps-c at ISO1200 should match m43 at ISO800. And thats just about what you get in G5 vs canon aps-c (the older 12MP m43 sensor was pretty bad though).

However canon is no longer the top of the line in sensor tech so whatever little advantage should be there is lost due to the superior sony tech used in E-M5. E-M5 m43 sensor matches and in some aspects exceeds the canon aps-c sensors.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2012 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

Simon97: Looking at the RAWs, they are better than the 4/3rds cameras and a bit behind the NEX in the comparison. It makes me wonder why the jpegs look like a crappy P&S at higher ISOs. If it has NR control, turn it way down.

peevee1, please point me to this objective testing. I haven't seen any objective testing which supports what you are saying. I have no brand loyalty and have used pretty much all camera brands. And I still use multiple brands so I actually tend to be fairly objective in my assessments.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2012 at 18:44 UTC
In reply to:

Simon97: Looking at the RAWs, they are better than the 4/3rds cameras and a bit behind the NEX in the comparison. It makes me wonder why the jpegs look like a crappy P&S at higher ISOs. If it has NR control, turn it way down.

Esa - I am comparing to NEX-5N and E-M5 not to some 5 years old sensors. I have also compared the RAW files from dpreview and imaging-resource and they match my own experience. The studio scenes are useful for controlled testing however actual use in a variety of conditions tells a lot which you don't see from studio shots. Its ironic you think you can tell more about a camera by looking at online samples rather than actually using it :) Don't tell me that you know more about these cameras without using them than I know after using them extensively.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2012 at 18:40 UTC
In reply to:

chlamchowder: G5's CDAF looks really, really fast - about as fast as traditional PDAF systems. Of course, the 4/3 sensor does give more DOF with the same aperture and field of view.

What's more interesting to me, though, is how the systems compare when dealing with moving subjects.

Do you realize that the DOF difference between Canon and m43 is only 1.2x? So if the DOF for canon shot is 1ft than the DOF for equivalent m43 shot would be 1.2ft. Hardly enough to make any meaningful difference in AF performance.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2012 at 00:24 UTC

Nice overview, though there is one thing which the review should mention but does not. NX200 with the firmware update gives the same "compressed" or "optimized" RAW files as NX210 with similarly improved write times. So NX210 doesn't really have an advantage here.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2012 at 00:19 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

Simon97: Looking at the RAWs, they are better than the 4/3rds cameras and a bit behind the NEX in the comparison. It makes me wonder why the jpegs look like a crappy P&S at higher ISOs. If it has NR control, turn it way down.

peevee1, have you actually used the camera? I have used the cameras with the Panasonic 12MP sensor, I have used the Panasonic 16MP sensor cameras, I have used the E-M5, I have used the NX200 and I have used the NEX-5N. And I am talking about actual usage not just test shots. The NX200 sensor in my actual experience is way ahead of the 12MP Panasonic sensor and very close to NEX-5N sensor, except in terms of low ISO dynamic range where NEX-5N has an advantage. The E-M5 lags behind NX200 at high ISO and probably comparable in terms of base ISO DR.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2012 at 23:50 UTC
In reply to:

perry rhodan: First Yawn second Hilarious.
IQ on par with OMD ? haha. Tried every samsung fom this series for years, because I really like the lenses, they are very nice. Samsung has to try better sensorwise. It's about 4 or even 5 years back in time. Please DPR, it isn't april fools yet. Samples do NOT back-up the conclusions AT ALL. Care to clarify??

Every comparometer shows the samsung line to be worst by far in IQ when leaving lowest ISO. Even small sensor compacts can do this good light low ISO in 2012.

Have you actually used the camera? I have used both the NX200 as well the OMD EM-5 and like them both for different reasons. However NX200 is better at high ISO in my experience and fairly close to NEX-5N that I have also used. I use these cameras with RAW only so not concerned about JPEG quality as much. Though as far as the "bad JPEG" is concerned, that comes up only if you are looking at 100% pixel. I don't use my images at 20MP, and I doubt most users of these cameras print big enough to need that kind of resolution. So even when I do use JPEG I am more concerned about color, white balance etc than resolution and in that respect it does pretty well. EM-5 is probably a bit better in JPEG colors but NX200 is definitely better than the Panasonics. As for the write times with RAW, yes they are a bit long though I typically don't notice that in day to day use unless I specifically set out to check write times.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2012 at 23:40 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: That doesn't look very promising for the EOS M's AF speed. :-(

Oh well, companies rarely get things right the first time. Perhaps the 2013 version will be significantly faster.

True but it is still very surprising given how much time canon has had looking at the market. Panasonic G1 was the first m43 camera but it still was much faster AF than what we see here for 650D, despite being a CDAF only system. And then we have Nikon 1 with its hybrid system. So if EOS M has similar AF performance than it would be puzzling. If it was a company like Pentax then sure I could understand. But for a company like Canon with so much technical expertise and resources, it is fairly surprising.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2012 at 22:57 UTC
In reply to:

facedodge: Make sure to compare it to contract detection on a T3i in the final version of this review... That is where the improvement is made. You've got apples and oranges here.

I totally agree with Richard that comparison to G5 makes a lot of sense sense. I am not that crazy about comparison with PDAF. In my mind hybrid AF is a technology to improve upon CDAF-only systems so it will be more interesting to see how much improvement we have over the CDAF in 600D. But still comparison with PDAF is interesting and thanks for the work that you put in!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2012 at 22:35 UTC
In reply to:

Eleson: Why not compare with any sony slt also.
Publishing a separate article with a "test" of "Canon Quick AF" makes it look like it is something new and revolutionary.
Nonetheless, this is a really great reward for being the last into the game. :)

Thanks! Looking forward to that

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2012 at 22:30 UTC
In reply to:

Baczek: what this video doesn't show is focus accuracy. i don't care how fast PDAF focuses if the picture comes out all soft. hybrid AF is MUCH more accurate with older lenses like the 50 1.8.

Right, but I think the important comparison here is with G5 and with 600D CDAF (which they didn't show). Hybrid AF is expected to be an improvement over CDAF-only systems because it can use the PDAF to quickly get in the zone and then use CDAF for final accuracy check - so basically best of both worlds. Right now it seems somewhat faster than the 600D CDAF but way behind the speed of dedicated CDAF cameras like G5. And G5 being a CDAF only system would also be at least as accurate as 650D. 650D is tested with a lens specifically designed for this technology so we can no longer blame it on PDAF-based lenses not working well for CDAF. If the EOS-M has similar performance than it will be fairly disappointing considering that other mirrorless cameras are doing much better using only CDAF. The video AF is of course an unknown right now.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2012 at 22:28 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: It is something. At least it is a much better effort than Pentax Q and offers something other system don't.

The gap that used to exist between P&S and APS-C is being fully filled with 1" P&S, Nikon 1, m4/3 and highend EVIL/mirrorless.

There is a camera for everyone. Hurray

Calling people names doesn't make your arguments stronger. You can make your arguments without assuming that others are incapable of thinking. The lens examples are there just to point out that other manufacturers have been able to make faster lenses in similar size despite having a bigger image circle to cover. It is not to suggest that those lenses are direct equivalents. If you insist on a direct comparison then Panasonic 14mm 2.5 is smaller, lighter and faster than the Nikon 1 10mm 2.8 despite covering a larger sensor and similar field of view. But point is not to make a lens by lens comparison. Point is that if using the smaller sensor doesn't result in any benefit either in terms of lens sizes or body size or cost then whats the motivation for going to a smaller sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2012 at 08:48 UTC
In reply to:

Pootle2: I don't understand the hate... this is THE best value camera if you have kids. The speed of focusing and shooting is amazing.

I just wish the pancake lense was more compact so that the camera could be a bit more pocketable and that we had some F2-ish lenses.

Personally I don't hate it. I am interested in the system. However in its current state I just don't understand why I should pick it up over either my S95 or my m43 setup. It has no size advantage compared to m43 - I can build an m43 setup which is the same size as this and yet has faster lens and larger sensor. Similarly it has no low light shooting advantage over my S95 because of the slow lens. The only trick up its sleeve is the PDAF based tracking AF. In single shot AF mode the m43 cameras are at least as fast as Nikon 1 if not faster. And honestly with slow lenses on an 1 inch sensor I doubt that you need great tracking anyway, the DOF is going to be pretty deep to start with.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2012 at 05:53 UTC
Total: 130, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »