Joined on Mar 6, 2012


Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13

Can someone explain to me how the 'dot' metric works. 1400*1050 pixels = 1,470,000 pixels. How is this 4.41 million dots?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 21:37 UTC as 31st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

andersf: So shooting raw+jpg and sending the jpg is ok, but shooting raw, applying a quick fix such as +1 EV and then sending the jpg is not? How would they even know this? It can be done in camera!

What's the difference between shooting the RAW to have a one stop margin, versus e.g shooting 3 jpgs directly in a +/-1 EV bracket?

It feels like a very roundabout way of saying "send us the pictures quick and don't edit too much".

To quote the DPR article:

"The list of acceptable adjustments includes cropping (as long as journalistic integrity is maintained), minor use of levels and curves adjustments, minor brightness and contrast adjustments, and downsizing photos to fit 3500 pixels longest edge."

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2015 at 20:50 UTC
In reply to:

dwill23: You must not have ever shot pro sports work. I've shot 100s of NCAA football games all around the country and a little less than 50 NFL games. This by far doesn't make me a pro like other who've shot 1000s of NFL games, but it doesn't take that experience to know that the best shots have completely buttery out of focus background.

These shots look like what parents get at HS games. Distracting in focus backgrounds.

This is not to say if you put a 400 f2.8 on that thing it couldn't hold it's own, but until then you can't compare the two.

"it doesn't take that experience to know that the best shots have completely buttery out of focus background."

Surely you're talking more about the lens than the photographer? And who says you need buttery backgrounds to make good sports photos?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2015 at 20:59 UTC
In reply to:

trulandphoto: "a lot of pros may be wondering: 'if I ditch my DSLR for some of the advanced AF features the a7R II offers, will I be sacrificing low-light AF performance?'"

I sincerely doubt that. Only in DPReview world would such a question be asked.

How much is Amazon paying Sony?

Why should Amazon be paying Sony?

That aside, why do you doubt something that you have no reason to doubt? I've certainly not used an A7Rii, but when all the things said on the internet by various review sites and users stack up, maybe there's some merit there.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 00:15 UTC
On article Sony reportedly shifting focus to full-frame cameras (455 comments in total)

This is hardly news for anyone who follows Sony. Sony's focus has been on full frame since the first A7(r) was released. It's not to say they got rid of their APS-C bodies altogether.

As a user of an APS-C E-mount body, am I concerned about their shift in focus? Not really, other than that it means my current APS-C lenses lose much more resale value than I would've liked.

Does it mean that there are fewer lenses to for me to use? NO. Remember (especially to those moaning about lenses) that FE lenses can still be used on APS-C bodies. And they work great. Love my newly acquired FE 28 and FE 70-200 on my NEX 5R.

Why are people so negative? Have no clue. Misinformed fanboys maybe?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 01:01 UTC as 61st comment | 6 replies
On article Sony reportedly shifting focus to full-frame cameras (455 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thorgrem: So APS-C e-mount is good as dead. The last APS-C lens came in 2013....

You probably know this already, but errrr... FE lenses can be used on APS-C bodies. I already use the FE 28 and FE 70-200 on my NEX 5R and it's nothing short of amazing. In a sense I'm actually glad Sony doesn't release any more APS-C lenses - there's no need to!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 20:57 UTC
On article Analysis: Sony a7R II and RX100 IV autofocus systems (752 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martinka: Why do you always stop for a while before taking the shot? This is not a typical usage of AF-C, so this test is more or less useless.

I agree with your point. I suppose he just needs a moment or two to get his framing right

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 21:09 UTC
On article HTC introduces the RE digital camera (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joseph Mama: Wait... what the actual hell IS this supposed to be for anyways?

How is this better than say.. a smartphone camera? Oh wait...its actually found a way to be WORSE due to fixed focus and dinky sensor. And no zoom.
All the disadvantages of a lower end smartphone, but you gain... um... ok what exactly DO you gain?

I'm guessing there is absolutely no need to focus. Small sensor and lens at 6.5mm FF equivalent indicates very deep DOF.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2014 at 22:39 UTC
On article Lytro Illum in the hands of five leading photographers (164 comments in total)

While it doesn't seem like the main intention, I see this as a way around having mis-focused images, or having missed a shot because the autofocus was too slow. Being able to correct for focus after-the-fact does indeed make things much simpler and more convenient.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 21:00 UTC as 44th comment | 1 reply
On article Mockups emerge of new Olympus OM-D 'OM-G' (333 comments in total)
In reply to:

instamatic: Insertable cartridges? Could it be that this camera will have replaceable sensor modules? Perhaps user-replaceable? That would be super nice and quite innovative.

mgblack... it's April 2 already where I am...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 1, 2014 at 19:57 UTC

I really love the yellow markings on that lens

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2013 at 09:55 UTC as 68th comment | 2 replies
On article Lens reviews update: DxOMark data for Sony NEX primes (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

yabokkie: a little bit embarassing

flipmac is talking about light transmission. An f1.8 lens in ff will transmit the same amount of light in APS-C etc etc. This is the reason why people describe a lens with a smaller f-number a faster lens, since it lets in more light hence you can use a faster shutter speed to get the same exposure.

Rather you are speaking of depth of field equivalents: flipmac talks of this in his second paragraph

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2013 at 09:49 UTC
In reply to:

xc1427: I am confused by the Hybrid AF ability of the 50 f1.8 and 30 f3.5 lenses. In the extended review of NEX6, which is just posted before, it is claimed that "Note that this hybrid AF technology is not compatible with any of the fixed focal length E-mount lenses except the high-end Sonnar T* 24mm F1.8 ZA. And existing E-mount zooms will require a firmware update.".

I suppose it's because it wasn't supported by the firmware at that point in time, rather than a physical limitation per se. I don't know anything about optics and such, but that's how I interpret it

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2013 at 04:54 UTC
Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13