Lee Jay

Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 581, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

lcf80: Almost every single camera provides RAW images using 12 or 14 bits per color, free tools like GIMP and RawTherapee support it. And Photoshop Elements still useless, in 2014? Open your eyes, Adobe.

I get consumers all the time asking me for stuff that would make the item not work. Should I provide them anyway?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2014 at 22:00 UTC
In reply to:

lcf80: Almost every single camera provides RAW images using 12 or 14 bits per color, free tools like GIMP and RawTherapee support it. And Photoshop Elements still useless, in 2014? Open your eyes, Adobe.

I use Elements. I have CS6 but Elements is faster and easier to use.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2014 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

lcf80: Almost every single camera provides RAW images using 12 or 14 bits per color, free tools like GIMP and RawTherapee support it. And Photoshop Elements still useless, in 2014? Open your eyes, Adobe.

Like I said, get all your basic tonal adjustments, contrast stretching etc. done during the raw conversion and it will be sufficient.

I never, ever, get visible posterization from editing in 8 bit.

Just because people are asking for it doesn't make it necessary. Many people think it's necessary because it exists in full PS, not because they have a genuine reason to need it (16 bit editing using all tools).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2014 at 13:34 UTC
In reply to:

lcf80: Almost every single camera provides RAW images using 12 or 14 bits per color, free tools like GIMP and RawTherapee support it. And Photoshop Elements still useless, in 2014? Open your eyes, Adobe.

Got it in one, Barry!

Raw is linear, processed images are gamma corrected. Thus, if you get anywhere close in the raw conversion, 8 bit processing from then on is almost always sufficient. The only time it's not is when you do a whole bunch of stretching and stuff which you should try to get all done during the raw conversion.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2014 at 13:12 UTC
In reply to:

lcf80: Almost every single camera provides RAW images using 12 or 14 bits per color, free tools like GIMP and RawTherapee support it. And Photoshop Elements still useless, in 2014? Open your eyes, Adobe.

Are you even vaguely aware of the difference between 12 or 14 bit raw files and 8 bit processed files and why that difference usually make a no difference at all?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2014 at 05:49 UTC
In reply to:

Potemkin_Photo: Cow-towing? Or Kowtowing?
I didn't people still towed cows. :)

But I agree: no variangle touchscreen and no EVF = major FAIL.

0.1 x as good.

I can just go buy a Hoodman Cinema Kit Pro for $150 and snap it right on to the 7DII and instantly have a HUGE and bright 720x480 EVF.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 14:12 UTC
In reply to:

Potemkin_Photo: Cow-towing? Or Kowtowing?
I didn't people still towed cows. :)

But I agree: no variangle touchscreen and no EVF = major FAIL.

0.1 x as good.

I can add and EVF to the 7DII. Can you add a through-the-lens OVF to a mirrorless camera?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: One thing Canon screwed the pooch on - this camera lacks the 3x digital zoom movie mode that is present on the 70D.

I was really hoping that it would not only be included, but expanded so that it could zoom from 1x to 3x (really 2.875x) while shooting. Many camcorders have this feature. Sony calls it "clear image zoom". It would greatly expand the effective zoom range of every lens in movie mode.

I forgot to mention that even the 70D doesn't use dual pixel focusing in 3x mode. It uses single shot contrast detect. This is also a substantial limitation.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 08:23 UTC
In reply to:

joyclick: how many do 10FPS,how often?
would 3-6FPS not suffice.
how many do pure birding/fast action how often?

would K3/D7100 deliver similar results @ 1100$ body only as opposed to 1800$ body only 7D MK II

Not if you need the "reach" of a high pixel density crop body, and not if already have Canon lenses, flashes, and other accessories. Plus, your complaint was about cost and the D750 is more expensive, not less. As I said above, if cost is a big deal, the 70D will get you a good bit of this performance at around 35% lower cost.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 08:21 UTC
In reply to:

joyclick: how many do 10FPS,how often?
would 3-6FPS not suffice.
how many do pure birding/fast action how often?

would K3/D7100 deliver similar results @ 1100$ body only as opposed to 1800$ body only 7D MK II

Well, I've shot around 50,000 shots in the last 8 years that could benefit from a fast frame rate. Many others that do nothing but this would be at ten times that amount.

So, yes, there are many of us that can benefit. And since this camera is most of a 1DX (which is $6,800), it's a bargain too. And that cameras sells quite well.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 03:25 UTC
In reply to:

joyclick: how many do 10FPS,how often?
would 3-6FPS not suffice.
how many do pure birding/fast action how often?

would K3/D7100 deliver similar results @ 1100$ body only as opposed to 1800$ body only 7D MK II

If that were the case, the 7fps of the 70D would do as well.

The rate can be slowed if it's not necessary. In some (even many) cases, 10fps (or 12, or 15) really isn't close to enough, and single-shot with the photographer doing the timing with anticipation works better. But fast frame rates can help in many situations.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 03:19 UTC

One thing Canon screwed the pooch on - this camera lacks the 3x digital zoom movie mode that is present on the 70D.

I was really hoping that it would not only be included, but expanded so that it could zoom from 1x to 3x (really 2.875x) while shooting. Many camcorders have this feature. Sony calls it "clear image zoom". It would greatly expand the effective zoom range of every lens in movie mode.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 03:15 UTC as 72nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Pallke: Nice camera, nothing special.

But: in 5 years from 18MP to 20MP... hmmmm WOW!

If it were a practical maximum then teleconverters wouldn't work. But they do work.

A 1.4x is like a doubling of pixel count.

A 2x is like a quadrupling of pixel count.

And a 2x adds substantial resolving power over a 1.4x on this sensor with a good lens, meaning the "practical maximum" is at least 80MP. In reality, it's much more than that.

And noise performance at all ISOs below the 6 digit range will improve with higher pixel counts too.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 03:09 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: MILC is just "so last year". :-) Large sensor compacts are the future.

(Many/most people who buy interchangeable lens cameras never go beyond the kit lens.)

MILCs are "not bigger" as long as you don't mind taking pictures without a lens, or with a lens at least a whole stop slower, usually two stops.

http://j.mp/1p5WD4t

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 14:36 UTC
In reply to:

backayonder: You keep telling me my Olympus XZ1 is dying because you all have smartphones well thank god I still have my heavy cumbersome DSLR and 70-200mm lens

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50555895

There's a test i did. The compact utterly crushed the phone in every way.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 13:49 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Mayer: I was mislead by the title. I thought it was going to tell me that all the money wasted on P&S cameras was now going to go into developing better DSLRs. Personally I think the camera companies are kidding themselves with these cameras. With prices fast approaching good DSLR models, they really have to bank on the pocket-ability of these. I guess it's just me but I see the two pic options today as phone or DSLR. The first company to let production of these cameras go the way of the dodo will win. And yet, another camera show, another round of these things. Either I'm in the minority or the camera companies are in denial. Hmmm...with a 27%YOY decline in sales, maybe it might be the camera companies (or at least Canon).

I think there are two camera options as well - decent compact cameras and SLRs. Phones are not viable as replacements for compacts because they have lousy ergonomics and no optical zoom. I carry a decent compact in the same pocket with my phone and never use the phone as a camera.

People who use a phone as a primary camera, and that is most people, are people who don't care about their photography.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 13:43 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: the 30X zoom on small sensor compact is just a waste of money in my opinion

try this, get a NEX-3N, put in a pancake lens like the E-mount 20mm, than using the in camera digital zoom (or even better turn off all NR in RAW conversion) ,than crop out the central area having the same scene as a 30X zoom image (remember to switch to central focus)

try it and you will be surprised, the resulting pic will be as least as good as from 30X small sensor compact if not better

Jeff, you really don't know what you're talking about.

I use f/2.8-f/7.1 all the time on long telephotos.

I own and have owned many small sensor hyperzooms and have done detailed comparisons of them to my crop and full frame DSLRs. In point of fact, my SX50 at full telephoto wide open is about as good as my 100-400L with teleconverter on a 1.6-crop DSLR even with the 100-400L set to its optimum aperture and shot from a good tripod with MLU and wireless remote release.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 13:40 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (340 comments in total)

The advantages of such lenses are size and cost, not the 50-70mm range.

I have full frame and crop cameras and I rarely use my 70-200 on my full frame camera. If I want a little wider than that lens is on crop I use the standard zoom on full frame instead. In fact, it's far more common for me to use that lens on crop with teleconverters than it is for me to put it on full frame. I pretty much only use it on full frame when I'm shooting posed portraits and that's not because of the 50-70mm range.

If Canon made a really great 50-150/2.8 for crop, I wouldn't buy it even for a $1,000 savings and half the weight and even if I only had crop cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 13:33 UTC as 104th comment
On Photokina 2014 Video: The Canon G7 X article (143 comments in total)

It's that thick because of the flippy screen? Great! Make one without the flippy screen 10mm thinner like the S120 and I might be interested.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 00:32 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Maverick_: In the future almost all consumers will be shooting pics with their phones. There will be only two types of cameras on the market pro and phones.

Will there be any interesting bridge cameras with 100X zooms, or cool range finder types, of course, but they'll sell in very limited quantities.

This is the year of OIS in phones. In about 5 years phones will shoot like premium compacts and they'll handle low light very well too.

One way to do it, that would be acceptable to me and has already proposed, is to have relatively large, relatively high MP sensors, and two cameras in each phone. For example, you could have a 24mm and a 75mm, each acceptably croppable to, say, double their focal length equivalents 24-48, 75-150).

This has already been proposed:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-technology-transforms-phone-camera-imaging/

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 20:06 UTC
Total: 581, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »