Rachotilko

Joined on Oct 22, 2011

Comments

Total: 271, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review (861 comments in total)

Thank you for the great review.

However, there is one thing I am missing: a sample taken @ 25mm/f2.8 (ie. long end / wide-open) with the whole scene in-focus. I realize that this might not be the most typical use of the RX100III's lens. But given the fact that the anouncement was centered about making the lens more bright @long end, I am curious about the performance.

While there are several shots, @ 25mm/f2.8, none of them shows the lens' edge and corner performance

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2014 at 16:39 UTC as 176th comment
In reply to:

Don051348: Interesting concept, but sometimes these so called "revolutionary" technological advances typically only yield minor, very minor, or something the average person could not even see improvements in IQ. Sort of like the new "revolutionary" curved LED TV's. For the life of me I cannot see how a curved TV screen will improve my viewing experience.

What about improvements in size/weigth/price/reliability of the lenses ? I think such improvements are valuable as well

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 14:57 UTC

The name Petzval was mentioned. There is a nice museum dedicated to this industrious and creative man (to whom photography owes its theoretical foundations) in his birthplace: http://www.stm-ke.sk/index.php/sk/pobocky-2/muzeum-j-m-petzvala-v-spisskej-belej

Enthusiasts of history of photography finding themselves in the region would cetrainly find some material of interest there.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 13:33 UTC as 72nd comment
On article Panasonic FZ1000: Not just another superzoom... (158 comments in total)

There's one point I missed in this otherwise well articulated opinion : the historical perspective. Several ears ago, "bridge" meant something completelly different than the "superzoom" of today. Compared to today's superzooms:

- the sensor sizes were bigger, at least 1/1.7"
- the reach was much more limited (to around 300-400mm)
- lenses were faster
- optics manufacturing quality was not of cheap feeling and reputation.

I'm talking about devices like Sony F717, F828, Fuji cameras (S6500fd, S9XXX, S100fs, S200exr), Panasonic FZ30, FZ50, Minolta AXXX, etc.

Sadly, this category of devices died out - the last one of them was probably Fuji X-S1 (but that one was unfortunatelly hampered by the overambitious lens design). Their extinction coincides very well with the advent of mirrorless, but also with arrival of their low-cost (but high zoom) siblings - the superzooms.

It seems that the true "bridge" category is back. But the ingredients are still the same.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 10:20 UTC as 40th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

W5JCK: It's hard to believe today is the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion into Normandy. A good day to remember all the sacrifices that were made on this day so long ago, and all the sacrifices that were made throughout the war on so many beaches throughout the SW Pacific Islands, the Far East, North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. Most of the veterans are now gone including my Dad all my uncles who fought during WWII. May they rest in peace. We should be so thankful that they sacrificed so much to stop the world from destroying itself.

@buratino:

I would like to assure you, that there awlays will be many people in every nation, who will pay due respect to Russia's holy sacrifice in years 1941-1945.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2014 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

sonics: We should always remember the sacrifices made that day. If it wasn't for the allied landings in Normandy Stalin would haven conquered the whole of Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium and prolly part of France.

@Zzzorki: Im with you in this. Had Stalin wanted the western Europe, why did he then repeatedly urge the western allies into opening the western front. He wanted his buffer zone. The availability of the strategic depth proved crucial many times in the Russian history.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2014 at 09:38 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS40 Real-world Samples Gallery (90 comments in total)

Anyone performing apologetics for this product: please have a look at samples of its predecessor, ZS15. Then you'll see that 1/2.3" can be done right.

No extreme highlight overexposures, no unpleasant corner softness.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2014 at 18:43 UTC as 25th comment | 8 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS40 Real-world Samples Gallery (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

webrunner5: God, those are pretty terrible. Imagine going on a vacation of a lifetime and coming back to show the shots to your family, friends. Jesus, who thought this camera was a GOOD idea to make in this day and age?

Barney, I disagree. Do yourself a favor and look at gallery of ZS15 sample images. You won't find all the painful overexposures, no pronounced corner softness abundant in this ZS40 gallery.

Probably because Panasonic still respected their customers and wanted to provide a decent camera in 2012 (as opposed to 2014 ?).

In 2012 they considered 12MPix sensor and lens with 4.6-68.8 mm focals to provide a good balance of specs vs IQ. In 2014 they obviously don't care about balancing anything.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2014 at 18:19 UTC
On article Canon USA brings white EOS Rebel SL1 to America (119 comments in total)

Man, this looks like m43-envy. Think of white Lumix G3.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2014 at 06:31 UTC as 63rd comment
On photo olympus_sh1_ISO800_P4130036 in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (4 comments in total)

Excessive NR - at it's worst. The details of the hair around the guy's ear are unacceptably wiped.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2014 at 16:19 UTC as 2nd comment
On a photo in the Olympus Stylus SH-1 sample gallery sample gallery (4 comments in total)

Excessive NR - at it's worst. The details of the hair around the guy's ear are unacceptably wiped.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2014 at 16:19 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Olympus Stylus SH-1 real-world samples gallery (61 comments in total)

I'd say they didn't utilize watercoloring noise reduction (Fuji style) but rather their NR involves (besides other things) significant reduction of local contrast. The result exhibits haze (in the luma channel) and bleeding (in the chroma channel) in quite significant amounts.

Overall - the camera offers the usual small sensor output, rather slow lens (also usual in the dying market segment of small sensor travelzooms). Nothing ground-breakiung, besides the advanced 5-axis IS. However, efficiency of the stabilization can be hardly judged from the sample images.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2014 at 11:35 UTC as 29th comment
On article Enthusiast compact camera roundup (2013) (236 comments in total)
In reply to:

minzaw: Compact=?? definition

It is compact, iff every open cover of it has finite subcover.

If we're talking Euclidean, then it's the same thing as being closed and bounded at the same time

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2014 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

radissimo: For a second I was thinking about this kit, but why not get Canon G x1 mark II with nice bright zoom lens, bigger sensor and for less?

Neviem, ako je na tom G1X2, ale jednotka mala šeredne pomalé ostrenie. Naopak, Panasonic má ostrenie bleskurýchle.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2014 at 20:01 UTC

The cams manufacturers went crazy pricewise lately.

BTW, I'd like to ask the ones who remember 1980s: how much did an average Joe have to work to buy a decent film camera ? I've got a feeling that photography (if one doesn't want to go P&S pinhead way) has really become unaccessible to average population of the world - as opposed to much of the 20th century.

Judging by this : have we really progressed as a civilization ? As a child I was told that in 21st century we'll live in some kind of futuristic paradise. Instead, buying a decent photographic gear has become inaccessible to most.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2014 at 17:25 UTC as 25th comment | 4 replies
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: In my opinion DPReveiw is leading readers down a dangerous dead-end path with all this "equivalent aperture range."
The whole silly business started with a post on one photographer's website and has now grown into a weird cult of people who are angry all the time about f/stops and love to argue with anyone who doesn't profess unwavering faith in their precepts.
And worse, it completely misses the point of the exposure triangle. To get more out of your camera you need to understand the relationship between f-stop, shutter speed, and ISO but this new religion you people have adopted throws that out and makes readers think that the surface area of the sensor is in some undefined way related. Converts go on and on about twice or four or 16 times as much light hitting a larger sensor than a smaller one as though that matters.
Unless you are dealing with bellows or other real exposure-changing variables, from an exposure point of view it doesn't matter what size sensor you use.

@rfsIII: partly agree.

I myself believe there are two sides of the issue : absolute one and relative one.

In absolute terms (and that relates to better IQ for a given ISO & f-stop), larges sensor is really hit by more light then smaller sensor.

In relative terms, an unit of the sensor area is hit by the same amount of
light (given constant ISO, exposition time and f-stop), regardless of sensor size. This is the exposure triangle thing you mentioned.

The readers with basics in mathematical "measure theory" are probably better prepared to grasp the nuances of the concepts related.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2014 at 17:59 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rachotilko: regarding equivalent aperture, You have to differentiate :

a, total amount of light - in that case equivalence applies. It means that given the f-number (for example f/2.8), the FF sensor receives four times as much light as m43.
Hence for the same ISO, scene, f-number, exposition times, the whole FF image is created using four times as much light as whole m43 image.

b, amount of light *per-area* - in this case equivalence does NOT apply. It means that given the same exposition time and f-number, an unit of area (such as square milimeter) receives the same amount of light, regardless of sensor size.
Hence for the same ISO, scene, f-number, the *same* exposition time is required for proper exposition for all sensor sizes.

@mosc

you're right that it was mostly about clarification: that in some respects (namely the exposition time) the f/2.8 = f/2.8 regardless of sensor size.

But I disagree that it is irelevant to making purchasing desicions: since exposition times surely are relevant.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2014 at 17:21 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review (499 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sirandar: Finally a successor to what Panasonic started with the FZ30 and abandoned.

If I didn't already have a camera that produces better images than the RX10, I would probably buy one when the price drops.

Looking at the image quality it does seem that the RX10 has a considerable penalty in both high ISO detail and dynamic range compared to M4/3 BUT in terms of actual use, in many ways the weather sealing and the flexibility on not having to change lenses all the time offsets the reduced image quality and slightly slow AF.

If you have to change lenses you have missed the picture opportunity.

I loved my Pana FZ30 and still have it, and I used it long after cameras with much better image quality and dynamic range were available for the simple reason that when the light was good it was always up to the task. The lack of dynamic range and the slow tele end were what made me move on.

I really think that having a good M43 standard zoom (3.5x) gives you much better versatility than the 10x zoom of FZ30 (or FZ50).

The missing default reach can be easily compensated for by cropping: this is what the smaller sensor size does anyway.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2014 at 16:37 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review (499 comments in total)

regarding equivalent aperture, You have to differentiate :

a, total amount of light - in that case equivalence applies. It means that given the f-number (for example f/2.8), the FF sensor receives four times as much light as m43.
Hence for the same ISO, scene, f-number, exposition times, the whole FF image is created using four times as much light as whole m43 image.

b, amount of light *per-area* - in this case equivalence does NOT apply. It means that given the same exposition time and f-number, an unit of area (such as square milimeter) receives the same amount of light, regardless of sensor size.
Hence for the same ISO, scene, f-number, the *same* exposition time is required for proper exposition for all sensor sizes.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2014 at 16:30 UTC as 88th comment | 5 replies
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review (499 comments in total)

Thank you for nice review of a nice cam.

However, I expected that after reading it I'd be informed about how good the lens is, esp. wide open. After all, that's the most significant selling point of the product - since the whole concept stands&falls upon the lens resolution @F2.8.

Unfortunatelly, almost all of the samples are taken with aperture narrower than F4. Why is that ?

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 16:42 UTC as 155th comment | 2 replies
Total: 271, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »